This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
Template:Infobox rockunit is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
I agree. Perhaps |Namedfor= and |Namedby= should be moved into a new section titled "Naming" which could use new parameters for name origin and translation if the name isn't English. Volcanoguy22:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Possible change for colour accessibility
As I found it very hard to read the section header text in infoboxes that are used for some of the periods, Triassic in particular, I have created an alternative in the sandbox (see
testcases) which uses a similar style to the navbox/footer templates (for example {{Triassic footer}}. It keeps the period colours as side borders, but using light grey as an accessibility compliant contrast as the background to the text, this would also appear grey if no period is set, rather than the light blue which could be mistaken for some of the Jurassic ages/stages. As the template is used around 6,300 times, I would like to know if any editors have comments on any issues these changes may present or any suggestions or alternatives for improving the template, and also to establish consensus to make these changes.
EdwardUK (
talk)
15:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm neutral on proposed accessibility changes, but I support the change to grey rather than blue for the box when the period is unspecified.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Edit request
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Making request as reasonable time since related wikiprojects informed of above discussion and no objections raised. Change to the section headers so that period colour displays as a border, and changing default colour to grey as can be seen on testcases page. Please change the lines: abovestyle=, headerstyle= and belowstyle= to match the version in the sandbox (but do not remove the #invoke:check section at the bottom)
EdwardUK (
talk)
13:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The colour reduction right to the edges goes too far. The colour basically may as well have been removed entirely. It should go much closer to the text, rather than be confined to extremely tiny boxes on the edges.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
19:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I'd be worried long names would force us to occasionally alter the width of the colour bars in that scenario, which might create a messy look? --
Licks-rocks (
talk)
19:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I am not sure if or how it would be possible to create variable width borders, but the border for the sub-headings can be increased without any issues if the text is always the same. I have tried increasing it in the sandbox and the testcases show it works with the various different skins. This is a fairly simple change so you can experiment to see what you think looks best. With the main header a larger border may increase the overall width of the infobox, or split the text over more than one line. The alternative I had considered using could be (instead of using borders) to change the text, or just the background immediately behind it, by using something like the
Module:Color contrast (it is used for navboxes to change the "V-T-E" and "hide", and in
Template:Episode table for the references). However, the coding looks to be quite complicated and I would have needed technical assistance for working out the necessary changes.
EdwardUK (
talk)
23:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I would be happy if this change is only for the fixed text width sections, but I would still like to see them closer to the text than the current examples, maybe half the current gray-space that there is in those sandbox examples.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
02:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't like the period footers. The purple that is univerisal across geologic period footers is particularly jarring with period colours, and should probably be changed to white for accessibility reasons. I feel that the gray of the updated rockunit infoboxes would probably also look better if replaced with a neutral white, which would increase the text contrast as a bonus.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
03:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That's a fair point about the jarring purple. Let me experiment with that. But I still like the small boxes of color. —
hike395 (
talk)
04:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In the sandbox I have switched the background to white and increased the sub-header border width so this is closer to the maximum before "Type section" is split over two lines. It makes a slight difference with the MinervaNeue (mobile) skin, but I do not think this should be a problem. With regard to the footer templates {{Silurian footer}} seems more of a problem - it can be difficult to distinguish from the default navbox colour as the contrast is only 1.05:1 (whereas Triassic has 5.06:1), so it may be worth looking at ways to change this.
EdwardUK (
talk)
12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I think sandbox2 looks good – the top/bottom borders help to clearly define the sections and the increased border width around the map also looks better.
EdwardUK (
talk)
15:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think volume is a commonly used variable in geology outside of oil geology, where it is used for the size of reservoirs, and not of rock units. I may be mistaken though.--
Licks-rocks (
talk)
20:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Volume is definitely used outside of oil geology. I'm creating articles for geological formations that comprise a volcanic complex in British Columbia, Canada, and volume is available for all 13 formations. Volcanoguy21:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have always assumed that "Area" was a subset of "Region" and have used that parameter as such. Areas and volumes are not, in my experience, available for most sedimentary units. Having said that, I see no problem with adding a "Volume" parameter, if that information is available, but I would caution against "calculating" volumes from any published areas combined with thicknesses that are often highly variable.
Mikenorton (
talk)
21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I've checked the area parameter again to make sure if it's a subset of "Region" and I don't think it is; it doesn't fall into the "Location" section of the infobox as do "Coordinates", "Region" and "Country". I'm not very familiar with sedimentology but I know volume is used in volcanology for calculating the amount of lava and tephra ejected from volcanic eruptions (e.g.
Raspberry Formation,
Lava Creek Tuff,
Huckleberry Ridge Tuff,
Mesa Falls Tuff). Volcanoguy23:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You're right, I'll need to try and track down those units where I've misused that parameter - it seemed logical enough at the time.
Mikenorton (
talk)
22:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Region? or "tempest in a teapot"
I am looking for any policy on usage for "region" and "region_ts" for geology pages. Maybe the answers include "there isn't a policy" or "a policy isn't needed.
I presume "region" is carried over from prior infoboxes from other subjects where the use in "rock units" can have different meaning and usage. I think the idea is to have a way to designate distributions that either small parts of states/nations or parts of multiple states/nations.
I have been particularly working with rock units restricted to either the Kansas Pennsylvanian-Permian
Midcontinent Sea/Estuary (a striking amount of geological science restricted to a small region) or the
Western Interior Seaway. The earliest WP articles often gave the linkless "midcontinent" as the region. I have found common uses for "midcontinent" (emphasis on the plural) each relatively conventional, but inconsistent with each other; e.g., the center of the continent, the middle of the continent distinct from the east and west coast, the midcontinent hydrocarbon exploration region, or the "Midcontinent Sea", which I have seen shortened to "Midcontinent" in publications. When Heckel, P.H. (2008) writes of "Pennsylvanian cyclothems in Midcontinent North America as far-field effects of waxing and waning of Gondwana ice...", their "Midcontinent" is exclusively the Pennsylvanian-Permian "Midcontinent Sea", of which there are scores of WP articles within that smaller region. The interior Cretaceous units have been stated as "Midcontinent" yet extent over a third of the continent.
Must region follow explicit definition, or may it follow pragmatic naming, that is, relatively easy to understand if not entirely formal?