User talk:Hike395/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Trolling/Sockpuppetry

I saw enough. I opened a SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/71.219.177.7). I hope the I did not mess up your way of tackling it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

artificial altitude

Hi, the article on altitude training discusses creating artificial high altitude conditions by altering the oxygen/nitrogen ratio. I thought it would be appropriate to add links to methods to accomplish this. Perhaps my choices were not the best, but I could find no better. I think having links about how it is or can be done would be of interest to some people interested in this subject. Maybe you can find better references. --AJim (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Infobox mountain

Hello. You have a new message at droll's talk page.

/High mountain list

/Biome test

Deserts of California

Hi, thanks for changing article title to Deserts of California, less "tourist region" sounding and much better for type of info it contains. ---Look2See1 t a l k → 06:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Flickr reviewing

Hello, and thank you for your application to be a flickr reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. Congratulations! Please see commons:Commons:Flickr images if you haven't done so already, and the backlogs at commons:Category:Flickr images needing human review and commons::Category:Flickr review needed. A helpful script for easy-tagging flickr images is at importScript('User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js'); (which you can add to your monobook.js), and you can add {{user reviewer}} or {{user trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your work on Commons! :) fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 03:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Outer layer of Infobox mountain now obsolete?

Hello. You have a new message at Droll's talk page.  –droll [chat] 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

/Oak Creek Canyon /OldInfoboxCoord /Cleveland /TestAlaska /LocMap

What happened?

OK. I synchronized {{Infobox valley/sandbox}} with {{Infobox valley}} and fixed it so the sandbox version uses the sandbox version of {{Infobox coord}}. I cannot reproduce the bug you mentioned. Could you describe for me what you noticed.

In reply to you question about {{infobox mountain}}. There were no articles that used the old parameter names the last I checked. That was more than a week ago. I asked for an opinion and you can find the the answer I got at Help talk:Template#Questions about old parameter names and templates.  –droll [chat] 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked your sandbox version at {{Infobox mountain/main/sandbox}}. See this diff. After you take a look, go to Template talk:Infobox mountain#Fix bug in calling Infobox coord and remove the tl from the edit editprotected template. As I mentioned on my talk page Infobox coord defaults to dms and inline,title. Thanks.

Funny thing is the display parameter has never be used. I didn't check to see if format was ever used. A while ago, I checked border and it was never used.  –droll [chat] 23:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

About the generic landform infobox idea

I was working on {{Infobox valley}}. There's stuff in the sandbox. Are you familiar with the modular design in software. I created {{Infobox landform}} as a possible generic geologic infobox. I still have some ideas.  –droll [chat] 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Other that the extreme bloatedness of the template and ugliness of the result, wasn't that what {{Geobox}} was supposed to do? {{Geobox}} may have been too general, though -- it sounds like you are proposing combining just natural landforms. Which ones are you thinking of? —hike395 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would never repeat the geobox thing. I'm thinking about a meta template where a template that transcluded it could create there own labels. So each template would have a degree of independence. It would be transparent to the template user.

The idea is to centralize. Bug prone code would be in one place rather than distributed. It would also facilitate a common look and feel. For example {{Infobox mountain pass}} currently uses Infobox mountain as a meta template. I'm thinking that we can't just keep adding cells to Infobox mountain to satisfy related templates like Infobox valley, glacier, etc. I'll work up a simple version in in my user space and see if it flies.

I created {{Infobox landform}} because there are geological features that don't fit into a general category (like mountain, lake, valley, ...). Thinks its worth a try.

P.S. Lets talk on your page. This jumping around is making me dizzy. If I don't reply within a reasonable time you could use the {{wb}} template on my page.  –droll [chat] 23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of centralizing code. The downfall of geobox, I think, is its extreme generality. Given that it tries to cover all possible geographical entities, it doesn't check for parameter sanity. So, neophytes fill Geoboxes with all sorts of odd junk. I think that the underlying general code should be shared, but shielded so that only sane parameters are used for each type of landform.

For example, the "lowest" parameter is quite ambiguous for mountains and ranges, not so for valleys and rivers. I tried to explain this to Caroig when he was creating Geobox, but he didn't listen, and the code for Geobox was so complex that I could not edit it, and had to rely on Caroig. That was very frustrating. And, to this day, I have to put up with IP editors misusing those parameters.

Hopefully we can fix this with {{Infobox landform}}. Looking forward to the results of your efforts! —hike395 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm working on the mountain map sandbox just now. I want to get the superimpose thing back. As usual I'm over-thinking it. The problem with using pixel coordinates is that the location of the marker moves if the image is re sized. The Germans introduced the idea of using relative coordinates. I'm thinking of writing another template that would do the conversion for the editor. Oh well, sounds convoluted.  –droll [chat] 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox glacier

I worked on {{Infobox glacier}} for awhile today. I noticed that you where there before me. Fixed a problem with text alignment of the coordinates cell and a problem with the coordinate reference always wrapping to the next line. I generally got obsessive all over it. I added two alternate parameter names and changed the documentation. They are photo_width and map_width since it is the width that the user specifies. I didn't really change anything really basic. I worked some on code readability which I probably worry to much about. –droll [chat] 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you worked on it. Looks good! —hike395 (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  –droll [chat] 05:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern border

Any chance you or someone could come up with a better description of the northern boundary of the Sierra? "Fredonyer Pass and the Susan River" comprise a very small slice (about 14 miles worth) of that boundary.

 (EDIT: Whoops, meant for this to go in the Sierra Nevada article Talk page - but I suppose it works here, too).

Kmmontandon (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox mountain

I listed a number of changes in the sandbox version here. No one has said a word about it. The current version of the infobox is broken so there is some urgency. The coordinates data cell wraps if coordinates_ref is used. If neither you or RedWolf have no comments, I'll request a protected page edit in a few days.  –droll [chat] 21:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I was on an unofficial wikibreak: I've been trying to enjoy the mountains, rather than just write about them. I responded to your proposal.

But, if the infobox is broken, let's just fix what we need right away, without even discussion, and then you can do the rest of the changes. I hate to leave 6000+ pages broken for hours, let alone days. —hike395 (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. I'll get on it tonight. –droll [chat] 03:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Later --- why does the sandbox version of {{Infobox mountain/testcases#Slieve Gallion}} not have coordinates? I would have thought with the reversion of {{Infobox coord}}, that it would have shown up. I don't quite understand what's going on: do you? —hike395 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually that has little to do with the edit to {{Infobox coord}}. It did fix things so that if display was set to some strange value nothing bad would happen. As you said, if I remember correctly, the only values recognized now are inline and inline,title. I had thought of the possibility of setting display=none. I am more or less sold on the idea that users editing articles about the hill of the British Isles should not have to display the geographical coordinates if they don't want to. They generally cling to the ordinance grids which are somewhat analogous to UTM. It works for them and is part of their tradition. I found out there is also an ordinance survey in this country. It seems the military uses it and no one else cares much.

If one of this editors in the British Isles wishes to use a map then, currently, he has few options. The easiest is to provide geographical coordinates and the name of a location map template as we do. The editor might not like the geographical coordinates being displayed together with the ordinate grid reference but has no option. The sand box is set up so that if the editor enters display=none then the geographical coordinates don't display anywhere. The label doesn't display either. The coordinates are only used to mark the map. I doubt the option will be used much. About a year ago I wrote a comment on one of their discussion pages about the possibility of this option and got no response at all. Their project appeared even dead although there is a vast number of articles. I was cleaning up the old parameters at the time. The response to that was interesting. All over the world people just started using the new parameter names with no questions asked.

I guess I think that we should not force editors to do thinks the American way. Even if we think that our way is the best. Any thoughts welcome as always.

Thanks for you comments at template:infobox coord/talk. I was at my wits end. I felt like I gave them the facts I thought they would need. I have to admit that at one point I was really hot under the collar. That's all I better say.

I light of recent events I realize that I might not have explained myself very well here. If there is any additional information you want, please ask. –droll [chat] 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it's like the feet and meters thing. I doubt I'll ever get the hang of meters. Many people know something about geological coordinates in the US and Canada, a few like to use UTM. My understanding is that in the British Isles they know about the grid reference system and aren't interested in learning how the rest of us to it. I could be wrong about this. –droll [chat] 07:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ecology of the Rocky Mountains

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pico de Orizaba gallery

Hi Hike395, I'm in the dark as to why you removed the gallery from the Pico de Orizaba article. Could you explain the reason(s) for the edit? Thanks. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Wolfman. I was following the guidance at WP:IG --- the gallery simply showed multiple views of the mountain, and hence was "repetitive or similar" and did not (IMO) illustrate "aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text". Not to worry, though: I added the images to the end of the Commons gallery at Commons:Citlaltépetl (3 of them were not previously in that gallery). This way, editors of all languages (including es) can appreciate and use those images. —hike395 (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Hike395 (and thanks for the Barnstar). It looks to me like the guidance is open to interpretation in a given case. For an article on a mountain, I would tend to interpret that as not having multiple views of the peak from a similar vantage point. The same mountain can present very different aspects when viewed from different angles, or in different seasons. When I look at Wikipedia articles on other major peaks, such as Mount McKinley, Mount Kilimanjaro, Mount Damavand, Aconcagua, Mount Logan, Aoraki/Mount Cook, etc., I see most of them have more than one image of the mountain. Given Pico de Orizaba's significance as one of the Volcanic Seven Summits, can we not do the same for it? A lot of casual readers are going to miss the Wikimedia link, and the infobox image itself is a measly 550 × 357 pixels and doesn't show much detail. Can we compromise on a 3-image gallery? WolfmanSF (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of it is the shortness of the article -- I wouldn't mind more photos scattered in the article if it were longer. Any chance having you expanding the article? As you say, it's one of the Volcanic Seven Summits, and is too short for such a prominent peak.

I tend to transwiki galleries on Mountain articles when I find them, because they tend to grow and grow with random photos that editors keep adding. That's why I'm reluctant to have even a short gallery.

Would you like to ask for more editor opinions at WT:WikiProject Mountains? (which you are more than welcome to join, by the way) I'm happy to abide by consensus gathered there. —hike395 (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC) [P.S., it's ok with me to put a 3-image gallery in the article while we discuss at the WikiProject]

If I had unlimited time I'd be happy to expand the article, which certainly deserves to be expanded. But I don't, and it's not high on my priorities.

From my perspective, simply deleting galleries to prevent them from becoming excessively large is a bit editor-centric; a more reader-centric approach would be to try to trim them as needed. Of course, that takes more effort. While I work with Wikimedia Commons a lot, I tend to look in it mainly when I'm in search of images to add to an article. I seldom look at it simply in conjunction with reading an article. I suspect a lot of other Wikipedia readers don't use it very much, either.

I feel that there are enough galleries in Wikipedia articles of various types that we don't need to ask for a consensus and spend a lot of time on this minor article. I am happy to simply compromise on a small gallery of a size that you can agree to (I will add 2 images for now). However, if you deal with this issue repeatedly and want the feedback, then please go ahead and solicit opinions at WT:WikiProject Mountains. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)