Template talk:Infobox rockunit

Type section

The type section of a rock unit is not necessarily the place that it is named after. The Bracklesham Group for instance is named after Bracklesham in Sussex, but the type section is at Whitecliff Bay on the Isle of Wight. We need an extra parameter I think to separate these two different things. In many cases the two parameters will be the same, but there are a significant number that aren't, such as the Woolwich Formation, which is obviously named for Woolwich, but has a type section at Gilbert's Pit in Charlton, not a million miles away but they are not the same. Mikenorton (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Volcanoguy 22:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

I support implementation, seems like a very good plan from an accessibility standpoint and it looks really good to boot! --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

Edit 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)

 Done Great idea! — hike395 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think it would look better if the size of colour bars were variable and defined by the edges of where the text is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I like the current layout: it has parallel structure with, e.g., {{Triassic footer}}. — hike395 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Working on a fix for the footers --- will bring up for discussion at WT:GEOLOGY shortly. — hike395 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I made a design in Template:Infobox rockunit/sandbox2 that is parallel to the proposal for the new footer design. You can see the design as the third column of the test cases --- I've shrank the period color boxes back to 33px, and used top and bottom 2px borders to provide visual continuity between the two boxes (which hopefully mitigates their decreased size). What do other editors think? Which one of these is preferable? — hike395 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

 Implemented Please let me know if you see anything anomalous or broken. — hike395 (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Volume

Given the fact that this infobox has a parameter for area it would make sense to also include a parameter for volume. Volcanoguy 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. Volcanoguy 21:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

heh, this one is on me for being a surface guy. Completely forgot about magma chamber volumes and the like. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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). Volcanoguy 23:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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?

Guidance? Or "don't worry about it"?
IveGoneAway (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)