Template talk:Infobox rockunit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image issues

Currently the infobox does not display captions for the images, but I do not know how to adjust the code to fix this issue. up until today it did display the captions but the image itself was slightly to the left of center and the first word of the caption text migrated up on the right of the image when the {{fossilrange||}} template was added to the infobox. Is there any way to fix these problems?

Seems the fossilrange template is forcing a wider infobox which messes up the image/caption section. I've fiddled a bit, but haven't figgured it out yet. Earlier I worked on it to remove a stray dash that showed up above main test when there was no image ... will play with it a bit more. Vsmith (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, think I've got it. Had to make the image wider to accommodate the fossilrange template width below. Ping me if there are more probs. I'm no template guru, just fix by trial & error mostly. Vsmith (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The caption should be forced new line, eventually as a separate table row. On a related note, could we have a custom image size (sometime it works better in smaller size). --Qyd (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the default image size larger to accommodate the fossilrange template width and not get the caption on the same line as the image. Hmm, what page is having problems? Maybe I'll work on it some more later. Vsmith (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved caption in separate row, add optional imagesize parameter, set default width to 220px, please let me know if there are any issues with this. --Qyd (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New fields

I think the template would benefit from the following fiels under a new headline "type section":

• Type section/Stratotype = Where was the formation defined
• Who defined it = Author and Year of the defining publication
• Type section coordinates= What are the coordinates of the type section ((Instead of the coordinates of the whole formation which could have grossly different extents.
• Extent of type section=
• Stratigraphic thickness at type section=

--Tobias1984 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

More Suggestions for New Fileds

First, it would be useful if the following new fields were availabe

| Upper contact =
| lower contact =

It would be nice these categories such that the type of contact, i.e. Unconformity, nonconformity, angular unconformity disconformity, paleovalley, ravinement surface, gradational, and so forth could be noted.

Finally, it also would be nice to have a category;

| interfingers with =

Some geologists use the phrase "interleaves with" instead of "interfingers with." The latter appears the most common usage. Paul H. (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer interleaving which in my opinion is the standard in scientific literature. I have never read interfingering before. In which part of the English speaking world is that used? --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Paleocoordinates?

Shouldn't there be a field for the paleocoordinates of where the sediments were at the time of deposition? This could probably be mined fairly easily from the Paleobiology Database. Abyssal (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding age to infobox rock unit

I am trying to add information to infoboxes on Western States geological formations, without much results thus far. See Alamosa Formation. How does this work? Thanks. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, while here, is there a linking or an unseen character for sorting lists by other than alphanumeric, so,you can sort by age? MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@MicroPaLeo: I think the "age=" argument is for radiometric age. "period=" is the correct one. Your second question will probably be solved by Wikidata, once more people fill in information for stratigraphic units. The corresponding-data page of the Almosa Formation is linked in the left-side menu under "tools". Here is the direct link: d:Q17379994. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Text difficult to read on dark background

The black text and wikilinks seem hard to read when placed on the period color for Triassic, for example here: Hallstätterkalk Formation. If there is a way to add the background color template so that there is a white background for Triassic it would easier to read and make it more compliant with the MOS accessability guidelines. EdwardUK (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing documentation: Age vs Period

@Hemiauchenia:I appreciate what is presently provided in the documentation, but use of the Age and Period could be better explained. I have been using literal interpretation of stating the geologic period in the {{{period}}} parameter and the geologic age in the {{{age}}} parameter (rather than absolute age), which is not exactly the correct use.

Part of the issue is that the function of these two parameters is that they are not entirely intuitive. If {{{age}}} is blank, then {{{period}}} works as expected; that is, with {{{age}}} blank, and the geologic period in the {{{period}}} parameter, then the {{{period}}} parameter works literally -- the stated geologic period appears (as this parameter no other function?).

So, it does not seem to be the case that the {{{age}}} is supposed to be the geologic age (fraction of Epoch/Period), but absolute time.

Also, it seems that if the {{{age}}} parameter is used, then the actual usefulness of the {{{period}}} parameter is occult (but actually explained as selecting the color).

Please, rather than me trying to reverse engineer the template, I would appreciate the documentation to more clearly state that the {{{age}}} is not the geologic age (e.g., Turonian) but the geologic time range, using whatever time scale term is entered in the field.

Some examples would help. I work with several units that either are fractional geologic ages (e.g., late-Turonian rather than Turonian ) or span ages (e.g., late-Turonian - early Coniacian). Yes, part of the answer is to use Template:Fossil range, but instructions of how to mix the terms would be appreciated.

Also, the linked edit above also suggests that {{{period}}} is not necessarily restricted to one of the defined periods, but may be some other standard geological interval.

IveGoneAway (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The nomeclature is confusing, it has been discussed before at WT:GEOLOGY. It's best to use the period parameter for the most appropriate length of time with a standard ICS colour. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

1. Link me to the archived page you mean?
2. Well, I typically add to instructions as I figure things out (please review).
3. First thing is to link to explanation of WtH the international standard period colours are. (Ah, use the "next higher ranking interval" for units that straddle intervals.)
4. Do you have a source for the Wellington dating? (Maybe 10 MA is enough for 700 feet of paper thin layers of dust?) It is rather astonishing how sparse the KSG is on the Wellington (except for the Crawford sink!).

IveGoneAway (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)