User talk:Droll/Archive 1

Please do not delete.

List of U.S. states by Elevation

Nice work with the citations. One point: you may wish to look at the "retrieved. . ." date format you are using in comparison to the date formating used for the other citations in the article. Best, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Brewer

Mount Brewer has an elevation of 4,136 meters (13,570 ft), a prominence of 346 meters (1,135 ft), and an islolation of 5.42 kilometers (3.37 mi). Mount Brewer's prominence of 346 meters qualifies it as a significant 4000 meter peak, but a prominence of 500 meters is required to make it a major 4000 meter peak. These rankings are merely a matter of numbers. A great mountain is a wonderful experience regardless of its numbers. --Buaidh (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

Just wanted to say thanks for the new templates, and your other work on the Sierra Nevada. I'll be trying those out soon, and will send any feedback your way. --Justin (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your View

What is your view on whether map-reading by editor is a "verifiable source."

Specifically, if peak A is shown as south as peak B on a USGS map, can this information be included in a Wikipedia article in your personal view. Or does one require additional sources?

The question is relevant to Dunderberg Mountain article you recently worked on.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been a debated in various places and I have never seen a resolution of the issue. Editors do use maps a sources and at times there are no other sources available. In my personal opinion I don't like to cite maps but I have a few times out of thousands of edits. Make sure you use a reliable map if you are going to use one. The Topographic map for the area you are interested in can be downloaded from this site.[1]. It is in TIF format and is a large file. In my opinion if this becomes an edit war you should probably have another source besides a map. By the was what two peaks are you interested in. --DRoll (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's rather involved and lame. There are sources other than USGS involved, but is really a rather simple question. If interested, see Dunderberg Mountain:Talk.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite gnis

I saw on the template documentation that "Cite gnis" is recommended. I forgot about that. I actually came to solve a broken citation. AndI did. All is well, that ends well. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with microformats

I've been working on a new version of the template {{Infobox Protected area}}. I don't know if it will be accepted by the project or not. It's an interesting learning experience anyway. I'm hoping you could look it over and see if there are any microformat issues with it. The template is at User:Droll/template sandbox and a test page is at User:Droll/tests. Any help will be appreciated. --DRoll (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed class=note. Not sure why they emit a note on the established date and not other info, but that is what they are doing. The way I did it, the Non-CSS version will repeat "Established twice" The only way to avoid this is to stick the class on the entire cell like in the old version, which you could do if you had something like heading5style. But since you only have headingstyle, you either change infobox template, or do it the way I did. Of course, I don't use class5 like you did for the class "label" location, because you need some sort of indication of what the note is about. Anyway- with the change I made, your hcard output now duplicates that of the old template. Maybe you can come up with another solution that doesn't repeat the Established in the non CSS browser version. Anyway, if you'd like to check this stuff yourself, take a look at installation instructions for Operator at User:J JMesserly/start-date wtf. Check out the Contacts.(placename).debug dialog. This gives you a dump of the fields being emitted. Hope this is of some assistance. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your effort. I learned a lot. --DRoll (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to your request (thanks for that!), I've commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas. I asked there, if there is a more appropriate forum to discuss very technical or very general infobox stuff, distinct from specific features needed for the Protected areas infobox in particular. Perhaps that is the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes? You might consider joining there, if you have not yet. doncram (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Coords (six hills)

These worked fine for me with Mozilla. Do you think maybe it is browser-specific? I checked the template and followed all the rules. Thanks for fixing it, anyway. SimonTrew (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm looking at the history I made an obvious error. I guess the browser cached the page. Thanks for fixing it; I had checked it. SimonTrew (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra zeroes

Just curious, what's the benefit of adding zeroes to the infobox in edits like this? Not doubting that there is such a reason, just unsure what it is. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The real reason for the edit was that lower on the page in the {{coord}} seconds had a value of 60. That's and invalid value and the page showed up at Category:Coord template needing repair. If you notice the output form that template seconds are now shown as 00 and minutes were adjusted. So its really just a matter of conformity to a display standard and consistency throughout an article. Its not really a matter of extra zeros. Its just the right number. :-) --droll [chat] 04:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the problem of 60 degrees (never 60 minutes; perhaps CBS would sue the Census Bureau if its sources yielded that answer?); I've just never before seen someone change 0 to 00, or number|60 to number+1|00 instead of number+1|0. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Poo (Cabrales)

Droll, thanks for fixing the nonconforming coordinate display on this article. I've been creating geo articles on Asturian civil parishes for the last couple of weeks, and have been using "display=title|region:ES_type:city_source:GNS-enwiki" in the coord template. As you used "format=dms|display=title|region:ES_type:city" instead, I'm wondering if it would be preferable that I use it on the articles I still need to create? Also, what about the 200+ that I've already created... would there be a good reason to AWB the change into them? Happy Friday! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the source field simply because the coordinates I entered came from Google maps and so GNS-enwiki was not the source any more. I'm not sure what the right way to enter Google maps as the source is. --droll [chat] 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Royal Natal National Park cleanup using AWB

Your last edit [2] on Royal Natal National Park duplicated the photo= field in the Infobox with the second photo= being blank, thereby dropping the lead photo on the infobox. I have corrected this one, but you might want to have a look and see if the same happened on cleanups on other articles. --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Coor

In [3], something got convert oddly. -- User:Docu

Thanks for catching that. I did it by hand and I guess I must have doubled the 1 by accident. I'm not going to do things by hand for a while. It's getting late here. For now I'll just paste the coord into the template and fix it to display inline. --droll [chat] 10:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should really have a regex parse that template. I'll think about it tomorrow. --droll [chat] 10:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, for something we got Category:Coord template needing repair. -- User:Docu

Protected Areas infobox question

Just curious-am I using the wrong infobox template? I've, of course, noticed your "final pass" which all seem to be infobox-related. I do not want to create work for another editor so please advise me on my talk page when you have the time. Curiously, Marcia Wright (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox coord

What prompted you to undo this simple and straight forward change? --Dschwen 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to react to you attitude. I'm the guy who wrote the template in the first place and its output was discussed at Template talk:Coord. I'm assuming you have a reason to request this change and I'm assuming your good faith I have begun to rework the template so that it does not output more than is required. Why not assume that I'm working in good faith and let me do it. --droll [chat] 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no attitude to react to that I'm aware of. I was asking a simple question and I'm sorry if I seem to have upset you. You do know about WP:OWN do you? I noticed you created the sandbox after my change. The revert was unnecessary, you could have simply copied my change along and used it in your further edits, or alternatively you could have provided an actual explanation for the revert. This has nothing to do with good or bad faith, simply with productive collaboration. --Dschwen 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Lets start over. Maybe reverting your edit was not the right thing. I'm interested though why you think your edit was required. I saw your first comment at Template talk:Infobox Protected area and then started to go about fixing it. I wanted to start at a place I was familiar with. It was not as a slight to you. I know I don't own it but I have some pride in my work and if it is not considered adequate then I want to make it as good as I can. At the template discussion page your statement that the output is not valid tweaked me a bit since I had been careful to make sure that it was not going to break anything. If you had mentioned a project in which the output would break something I would have been more understanding. In my comment about assuming your good faith in requesting a change I meant that I was assuming that you had a valid reason for requesting the change other than it is not pretty. Let me work on it a bit and see if I can come up with something that satisfies both of us. --droll [chat] 22:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixing! It is more comprehensive now with the included tests for empty region, scale and type parameters. I was tweaked too :-), by the output breaking my WikiMiniAtlas. The blue globes vanished when the globe: parameter was empty. I did a simple test to check if globe: is present and if so whether it specifies globe:earth or not (so that the WMA does not pop up for moon coordinates for example). The whole URL parsing code should be rewritten to be more tolerant. Well, that's what I meant by the coordinates being "slightly" broken. It might be a problem for data extraction, and it would most certainly have filled up the coordinate error logs (which Stefan Kuehn and Dispenser both generate). Best to have the URL as clean as possible. --Dschwen 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Namoroka National Park

You've fixed up the article Namoroka National Park twice now with bad changes. Visiting the page after editing would've shown the issue. Please don't edit the page with changes that break it... Samuelsidler (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up! Samuelsidler (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Geocoordinates of Pacifica State Beach

Please review how your recent edit broke the geocoordinates of the linked article. I've reverted your edit for now. --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to gnis template

Hi Droll. Thanks for the heads-up about the template change to "entrydate=". You found the only two for which I re-added the publication dates, and I will switch to "entrydate= " for future ones. I've been meaning to write to you because of two other related problems I'm seeing with your changes to the existing gnis entries. (1) If a publication date is already included in the citation, it should be included in the changed citation and not deleted even if the gnis template instructions list it as optional. It's a nuisance to have to look it up and re-enter it. (2) WP:MOSNUM#Full date formatting says that the date formatting in the citations of an article must be consistent. I take great care to make the formatting consistent in the articles that I work on, and my preferred format is m-d-y in U.S.-centric articles. When you changed the gnis entry for Tryon Creek, you replaced my preferred format (m-d-y) with yyyy-mm-dd. This meant that the citation formatting was no longer internally consistent because one was now yyyy-mm-dd and all the others were m-d-y. To fix the problem, I simply changed the other few citation date formats to yyyy-mm-dd to make them once again consistent. However, now that I see you are methodically changing articles, I'm concerned that soon many articles that I've worked on will have new problems caused by your changes and that they could be very time-consuming to fix. Some of the longer articles have one gnis template but as many as 100 other citations, all in m-d-y format. Could I ask that, when you change these templates, that you retain the existing date formatting, generally m-d-y, and that you retain the publication dates? I would really appreciate it.

By the way, I see that many editors use yyyy-mm-dd for the citation date formatting, while a few others like me use m-d-y or, for non-U.S.-centric articles, d-m-y. Is this simply a matter of taste, or is there a reason to prefer one over the other? Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confussion. The reason that the entry dates seemed to disappear was because I thought I had updated the template so that date became entryday. So what happened was I started changing articles and because entrydate was not a valid field name yet the date disappeared. I didn't figure out what the problem was until after I saw your two reverts and my adding a note on your talk page.. Anyway that part is OK now. About the consistency thing. I didn't changed the format for Fairview Creek. See this diff. I did, however, change it for Tryon Creek and I'm not sure why. It was not my intention and I apologize for my carelessness. I did over a thousand edits during the cite gnis update and I tried not to let anything slip through but I guess one did.

I saw the discussion about date formats at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#Date formatting in citations and added some of my thoughts there. As you are likely aware there has been a huge discussion about date formats and citation templates. A lot of fields where dropped. I don't think there will be a consensus anything soon. --droll [chat] 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. This is a great relief. And, yes, I'm aware of the long, often heated debate about date formatting. I'm afraid you are right, alas, in thinking that consensus seems unlikely just now, although I keep hoping. I agree with you about not using ISO dates in the main text; in fact, MOSNUM says, "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences." The citation date formatting, however, is more flexible. Anyway, thanks again for your understanding and for your work to improve the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Section Headers

Why did you change all the level 3 header to level 2 headers on the Rapid City, South Dakota dif and Hill City, South Dakota dif articles, and presumably many more articles that you have edited? These sections were meant to be subsections are shouldn't really have been upgraded to level headings. Spiesr (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's really bad. It as caused by a mistake in a regular expression I was using. It happened in large number of articles. I'm going to have to go back and see If I can fix the error. Thanks for pointing it out. --droll [chat] 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, are all the edits to rollback commented "Geolinks-US-cityscale clean up + gen fixes using AWB" or only some of those ? Equendil Talk 01:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've got about 700 fixed so far. I think I can get it done tonight. But to answer your question, yes they are. It has worked out to be 1 in 12 that I have to revert so maybe doing it by hand is a better solution. I'll get back to you if I need the help. Thanks. --droll [chat] 01:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, good luck then. Equendil Talk 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

I don't like the removal of the Mapit-US-cityscale, but I'm aware that removal was decided by consensus, so I'm not going to oppose it. If you could see my watchlist, you'd see that I didn't do anything about removing that if that were the only thing; my problem with what you're doing is the way you're changing the {{coord}} in the Geography section. As far as I know, it may well be tinkering with the actual data provided by the source (I can't access the source page, so I can't be sure), and it's removing — for no good reason that I can see — the decimal coordinates. Less significant, but still a matter of concern, is your changing ² to ². What's the point? This reverses something that was done in the past, so at some point it was decided to use the superscript instead of the longer and more complicated code. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying until now; today was my last college final exam, and I've been preparing for graduation, so really the only editing that I've been doing is image-related NRHP stuff. As far as your "That's why I was a bit short with you above" — I didn't mind in the least, as it was clear that something was coming up that couldn't wait.

As far as the source of the data: the way the GR1 template works, I believe, is to go to a page whence you can access this kind of data. It's somewhat like the GR2 template, which sends you to http://factfinder.census.gov. Are you saying that the GR1 page is not working now? For the first time it seems to be working for me now, and this page is giving all the results that I can see in basic geography sections.

Finally, as far as excluding articles — I don't think you should treat my watched articles any differently. Either you're wrong and should stop doing this on all articles, or there's nothing wrong with it and I should stop complaining about it for any articles. I'd still rather not see it like this — seeing that you're making a major change to tons of articles without any discussion — but I'm not Arbcom :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why revert my edits

I noticed that you reverted a number of my edits. The reason for my edit project is that many editors believe that articles about settlements (towns, cities, etc) include the location's coordinates an outrageous number of times. Many articles include the coordinates five times. If this is a standard you wish to see continued then lets talk about it. My project is aimed at eliminating the over use of the {{Geolinks-US-cityscale}} template. So far I have edited over 2000 articles in this effort usually leaving at least three coordinate references. I'll wait a day or two before I reedit those pages you have reverted. If you feel strongly about this please open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia and the work you have done. --droll [chat] 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the removal of the Mapit-US-cityscale, but I'm aware that removal was decided by consensus, so I'm not going to oppose it. If you could see my watchlist, you'd see that I didn't do anything about removing that if that were the only thing; my problem with what you're doing is the way you're changing the {{coord}} in the Geography section. As far as I know, it may well be tinkering with the actual data provided by the source (I can't access the source page, so I can't be sure), and it's removing — for no good reason that I can see — the decimal coordinates. Less significant, but still a matter of concern, is your changing ² to ². What's the point? This reverses something that was done in the past, so at some point it was decided to use the superscript instead of the longer and more complicated code. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get back to you as some as I can. I created a big mess and now I have to clean it all up. Thanks for you reply. --droll [chat] 04:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So as I see it you have three points for discussion.

1. I started changing ² to ² because I can't read the ² very well. I'm a bit on the senior side of life and tiny things get harder to see. I believe its an accessibility issue. However that was just my selfish reason. The folks who wrote and maintain the {{convert}} template have been using the ^{2 for as long as I can remember. I see it as a conformity issue. It seems counter to spirit of the MOS to use both forms in the same articles. I don't have to make any special effort to make the change as it happens when I use WP:AWB to edit an article.}
2. As for the coordinates thing. I've worked with articles with the {{coord|36|34|43|N|118|17|31|W|city}} (36.578581, -118.291994) pair on a considerable number of occasions in the past and the pair always points to the same location although the decimal degree pair have more specificity. I see it as overkill to include both. It is like saying the dog is brown, the dog is really brown. It adds no additional information to the article. If you look you will notice that I changed the format used by the template to include the decimal degree data. So it looks like {{coord|36.578581|-118.291994|type:city_region:US|format=dms|display=inline}} and it displays like 36°34′43″N 118°17′31″W. Now if you click on it and take a look at the URL sent to GeoHack you will notice that it includes the decimal information and not the dms information. So you get the advantage of both worlds. Readers get the dms format that is more familiar to most while at the same time the specificity of the decimal degree is maintained. So nothing is lost in my change. As a matter of fact it corrects an error that has been around for a long time. Currently one of the fields in "city". It should be "type:city." So I fix that as well.
3. As for the source of the data, that is a mute point because in reality non is really specified. The citation points to a general page at the Census Gazetteer. The census is no longer the repository of coordinate data for anything as far as I know. It is now the responsibility of the USGS. The issue becomes even more confused because the USGS often gives the coordinates of a CDP and then for the city or town. For example it says Jefferson City Census Designated Place, Montana is at 46.3832867, -112.0502900[4] and these are the coordinates in the article. It also says that Jefferson City, Montana (Populated Place) is at 46.3882636, -112.0274957.[5]. The point being that there is no valid authority currently cited. The really scary part is that most of these articles we are talking about were computer generated using the 2000 census data. 2010 is going to come around and all that data will need to change in some way.

Let me know what you think and I'll try to exclude the articles you reverted from changes I make this time around. I do a lot of editing and keeping track of everyone preferences in impossible but this time I think I can build a list from your contributions.

I made a major blunder last night and had to revert about a thousand edits. I worked on it late into the night but I got it done. That's why I was a bit short with you above. Let me know how you fell and I'll try to honor that. --droll [chat] 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying until now; today was my last college final exam, and I've been preparing for graduation, so really the only editing that I've been doing is image-related NRHP stuff. As far as your "That's why I was a bit short with you above" — I didn't mind in the least, as it was clear that something was coming up that couldn't wait.

As far as the source of the data: the way the GR1 template works, I believe, is to go to a page whence you can access this kind of data. It's somewhat like the GR2 template, which sends you to http://factfinder.census.gov. Are you saying that the GR1 page is not working now? For the first time it seems to be working for me now, and this page is giving all the results that I can see in basic geography sections.

Finally, as far as excluding articles — I don't think you should treat my watched articles any differently. Either you're wrong and should stop doing this on all articles, or there's nothing wrong with it and I should stop complaining about it for any articles. I'd still rather not see it like this — seeing that you're making a major change to tons of articles without any discussion — but I'm not Arbcom :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First the source of the data is not ad rem as I have not changed the data in any significant way except that I reduced data redundancy.

So the only remaining issue is the reduction of data redundancy. This has been discussed in various places over a long period of time. I believe nothing was ever done because of the amount of work involved. Even my small effort will only address a very small fraction of the articles involved. I refer you to Tuscola, Illinois which displays the coordinates five times. If I was to edit that article again three instances would still remain. Do you believe that an article should refer to the coordinates five times especially since four of them are links. The MOS discourages multiple links to the same data does it not.

I would also like to inquire if you used the rollback feature to revert my edits and why you thought that was appropriate.

Since you mentioned wp:Arbcom I thought it apropriate to consolidate our discussion so far in this one place and use this venue to continue our discussion. I have made a few format changes in order to clarify the author of a section. I recommend that you verify this consolidation with the sources. --droll [chat] 00:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of progress I have decided to modify the way I edit the coordinate template. You can check my contributions if you are interested. --droll [chat] 02:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you until now; my college graduation was last weekend, and this is the first time I've been online at all in several days. Let me note, before everything else, that I mentioned Arbcom to make the point that I don't have any authority to compel behaviour, unlike Arbcom. I wasn't trying to make any threats, so sorry if it sounded that way. As far as rollback, I don't remember if I used it or not. If you find an instance, I'll try to remember why I did it.

As far as the redundency — there's nothing wrong with having something in the infobox and in the text; it's entirely appropriate to have coords in the Geography section; not sure if you're unhappy about it, but I find it quite helpful to have coords in the top left corner; and there are good reasons for having the link in the EL section also, but no point in singlehandedly arguing for something that's been opposed by consensus. But what did you mean about five times? I count the top left corner, the infobox, the Geography section, and the External Links section; what's the other one? Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The coordinates are given twice in the Geography section. That makes five. Even four times is too many IMHO. --droll [chat] 04:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I was curious — what's the effect of adding "|coordinates_display = 1" in this edit? Are you forcing the table to display the coords differently? I couldn't find a difference when I compared the two versions. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

When using {{Infobox Settlement}}, the assignment of any value to coordinates_display causes the coordinates entered in that template to be displayed in the title line. --droll [chat] 07:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Black Butte (Oregon)

You are correct, Black Butte (Oregon) is east of the main Cascade crest. If I reverted it back to the incorrect way I will go and fix it. Thanks for the catch. --Burntnickel (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

replied on my talk page

—EncMstr (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Lewis (actor IV)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Lewis (actor IV). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lewis (actor IV). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Thought you might be interested. I've just added support for new parameters: subheader2, image2 and caption2 to {{infobox}}. Could I redirect {{infobox2}} to this one now? Do you have any other comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please visit

Please visit Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Spaces. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Categoization

Am I right with my explanation in User talk:Ilion2#Nine Sisters or do you think that the exception Wikipedia:Categorization#Duplicate categorization rule is correct in the categorization of the articles in category:Nine Sisters so they should be categorized both in a subcategory and their parent categories? --Ilion2 (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

{{convert}} bug on template documentation

Hi, I have recently encountered the bug in {{convert}} that throws up an expression error message on a transluded documentation page, but not on the actual documentation itself. I've asked MSGJ about this and he directed me to this discussion. Given your past experience with this issue, I was wondering what (if any) conclusions you reached?

Discussion is at User talk:MSGJ#Weird behaviour if you can provide any input. Thanks in advance! PC78 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mount Lyell edits

Howdy, my intention was to add clarification regarding Lyell Glacier. I thought the use of "still remaining" implied that there had been larger glaciers (from the most recent Little Ice Age advance) than Lyell Glacier in Yosemite that have since disappeared. My other edit was to remove Maclure Glacier, as it seemed confuse the location of the glacier, and Maclure Glacier has its own page. Please note, I am still new here. Please feel free to revert my edits. Dotconnect (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox

I've left a few comments here regarding {{Infobox Protected area}}. Regards. PC78 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't still pursue this. There's no real reason why the template couldn't or shouldn't use {{Infobox}}. PC78 (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxen

Yes it is, it's a large job though, because of redirects mainly. I have a list at User:Rich Farmbrough/temp1. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Droll. You have new messages at Spongefrog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hehe, sorry. Perhaps I should have notified you earlier. Sorry. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 12:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bluefin.jpg

You pinged my talk with some long song and dance about image:Bluefin.jpg. If you had investigated, you'd have seen that back in 2005, when I uploaded the file, I listed it as being public domain as a work of the Government of California. Someone else came along and added the improper PD US Government tag to it, which was just recently replaced by a third editor with a "fair use Calif" template (which is being considered for deletion). As can be seen at [6], all the way at the bottom of the page, California is one of the states that commonly places the content they create into the public domain. Just to make things interesting, they then add a copyright statement at the bottom of every page, but who can understand how government's work.

Anyway, I really don't care what happens to the image, especially if there's a better one now available that illustrates the subject. Being used for five years is fine for a PD image I found on the CA government's website. Gentgeen (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of VERTCON

A tag has been placed on VERTCON requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. lease do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• In my own defense it should be noted that the text of this article is the form of the federal government agency and is therefore available for use on wikipedia. I was going to edit the text to make it more wiki friendly but never got the chance. –droll [chat] 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons category Sierra Nevada (USA)?

What's up with that? I never understood why it was called Commons:Category:Sierra Nevada, North America, but then I usually just ignore Commons categories, since they seem to be a total mess. —hike395 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Docu has started a discussion on my Commons talk page. Jump in if you want. –droll [chat] 09:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know: RussBot undid all of your changes on Feb 6. Everytime someone changes this, my entire Commons watchlist lights up. :-o —hike395 (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Mountain Pass

Thanks for updating it to use more parameters! I updated the doc page to reflect that. Note that, until you copy sandbox2 over to main, the elevation_ft and elevation_m parameters will be broken. Not a big deal, since no one calls them yet. —hike395 (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

New K2 book from Ed Viesturs

Hi Droll,

There is a new book on K2, and I was going to add it, but since the article is locked I was hoping that you could add it.

K2: Life and Death on the World's Most Dangerous Mountain Ed Viesturs

1. ISBN-10: 0767932501
2. ISBN-13: 978-0767932509

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlr1967 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with edit window

{{helpme}}

I'm having trouble with my edit window. If I paste text from my text editor all the newlines go away and the text just wraps. This has happened using both Firefox and Chrome. Also If I cut and paste text from an HTML page the text seems to retain its HTML formatting. I consider myself well acquainted with wiki but I can't figure this out. I tried setting my preferences back to default. I've tried clearing my browser history. I even did a clean install of Firefox. I did use the WikEd gadget so I checked my vector.js and monobook.js files. The formating clears up after using the "Show preview" feature but the line feeds are just disappear into the bit bucket. Any ideas appreciated. –droll [chat] 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a result of a new update, I have had the same issue on multiple computers, connections, and browsers.  fetchcomms☛ 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but what can I do about it? –droll [chat] 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. This appears to be due to some of the new experimental features. Please go into your preferences (in the top right), choose the "editing" tab, and scroll to the bottom and ensure all of the experimental features are unchecked. This should resolve your problem. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mount Dana

Why did you remove the convert templates? Eeekster (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Mountain

Droll, I see now that with a new parameter, the convert template is no longer needed in the infobox templates...is this correct...as in this example? I think I went and rechanged back some of the infoboxes since I didn't see the parameter change...I'll work on restoring your work if you can verify that we no longer need the template with the new parameter...thanks.--MONGO 17:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention though that the AWB is fine, but if it is eliminating a cited first instance ref, then the </ref name="Whatever"> used after that is not showing up...--MONGO 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, something else is going on here...I'll figure it out.--MONGO 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

These new elevation_ft and prominence_ft parameters seem to make no provision for the imprecision of the measurements. E.g. converting Baldpate Mtn.'s prominence of 2,240 ft to 683 m — when the first number is only known ±20 feet (6 m) is wrong. Anyway, why go to the trouble of changing something that already works?
—WWoods (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• So first the |elevation= still works and the instance you refer to is kind of an over-site on my part. The parameters |elevation_ft= and |elevation_m= have been around for sometime now and I think they are easier for most editors when creating articles. Once you get used to it its a real time saver and a more consistent style. As to why I'm taking the time to change things, well its mostly because I'm kind of compulsive.

  In regards to your question about imprecision see my changes to Baldpate Mountain (Maine). That's the way peakbagger.com handles the issue and I like it. As for prominence its been the policy of the project to use clean prominence. The Peakbagger page shows a clean prominence of 2,220 feet.

  My edit was not really complete. I just checked the data and provided citations. I didn't really check the text. IMHO the infobox is now in good form. Sorry if this sounds pedantic. I didn't mean it to but as I said I'm a little compulsive. –droll [chat] 08:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Typo in infobox change

This edit broke things badly due to an unclosed comment; I tried to fix things but didn't really understand the purpose of the change so please check my work. Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

*Non*archiving

I happened to notice that Miszabot hasn't archived the eight sections it has deleted since 5 January. The problem is that the bot's code currently has

|archive = User talk:Droll/Archive %(counter)d}}

so it tries to save to "/Archive 1}}" rather than "/Archive 1" — and fails without noticing. You need to change it to

|archive = User talk:Droll/Archive %(counter)d
}} 

, and manually archive the lost sections, if you care.
—WWoods (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Droll. You have new messages at Shadowjams's talk page.
Message added 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shadowjams (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox map in Gangkhar Puensum

I have reverted the last change you made to the Gangkhar Puensum infobox which changed the map. See Talk:Gangkhar_Puensum#Map_and_infobox. However, I am very much hoping you can help sort all this out since there is a long-term underlying issue. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• No problem with the revert. I was just trying to clean things up. Your going to have problems with your location claims. I seems to me like an international boarder problem. The location marker on the standard template map is the result of the coordinates supplied and they don't look highly accurate. The minutes are given as zero and that usually means that the precise location is unknown. Better documentation might be hard to find. –droll [chat] 10:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. AS you may have seen I kept the other aspects of your clean up. Thincat (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mt. Ashland.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mt. Ashland.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox mountain pass

When you add parameters to the infobox, please document them. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do.?

As with {{Infobox mountain}}, elevations which are only known ±20 feet should not have metric conversions which imply they are known ±5 cm. E.g. Franconia Notch.
—WWoods (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Font size in mountain infobox

OK, sounds like split font is not worth the trouble. 95% (as it stands) is just fine for me.

Yep: I live in Mono County, California, north of Bishop. If you live near the Columbia, you must be at the foot of the Cascades: those are good mountains, too! —hike395 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking your work

Hi, Droll. Hey, lil' heads-up: I have been at two Wikipedia pages this AM which had scrambled Info Boxes, first Mt. Adams and second Mt. Jefferson (Montana). You had made the last edits on both (scrambling the Info Box contents, which I fixed). I see from other posts at this page this is a not uncommon pattern. It is nice you take such interest in Info Box editing. Please make sure to check your work before you leave a page you have edited. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have used AWB to check for any other cases and there are none. –droll [chat] 19:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent.Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A FYI AWB does'nt check everything, you still need to look at the page as if you were editing it without an auto program, be careful, what I have found is that AWB will find the pages that need attention, you need to look, find why awb picked the pge to be looked at and why Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mlpearc and thanks for the heads up. Have your found a specific case of a bad edit or are your comments meant generally. I make an effort to detect edit errors and I hope nothing has slipped past me. Also know that I am only human. Having a case would help me improve. –droll [chat] 02:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not looked at any of your edits, I came across this discussion through my watchlist. I recently had my AWB privlages blocked for a month, because I was trusting the program tell what was wrong or needed, and I fixed them (I thought). I thought if AWB pointed out something wrong like "Alerts" that it was something that needed to be fixed and most of the time it did. but just remember AWB finds pages and suggest things that might be wrong. Don't assume there is, it's job is to find the pages but it's up to your knolege to determine what if any is wrong. Just be careful. If you need to bounce something off someone you have my number Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Aoraki/Mount Cook

I notice that you have three times modified the name of this mountain in the infobox, and have not responded to the reverts. I presume this is because you are using AWB as an automated process, and have missed the edit comments and attempts at compromise in others' edits. Is there some way you can alter the process so you do not continue to mangle the name?gadfium 05:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I modified my script so that this should not happen again. Sorry about the misunderstanding. That's an unusual name. There where many articles where the slash indicated a alternate name. This is the only exception I know of. If you are aware of any others please let me know. –droll [chat] 05:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a few New Zealand articles with a similar name. For mountains, Mount Aspiring/Tititea is the other case you should be aware of. Mount Taranaki/Egmont follows different rules, where the official name was set by Act of Parliament to "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" which is somewhat ambiguous but generally interpreted to mean that either "Mount Taranaki" or "Mount Egmont" is acceptable. For features other than mountains, Stewart Island/Rakiura is the only combined name I can think of. Thanks for the response.-gadfium 05:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I added Mount Aspiring/Tititea and Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont to this list of titles that I will not modify. Thanks again. This will no exclude them my other tender mercies D;  –droll [chat] 06:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Permit me to further clarify. "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" was not specified as a five-word title but was interpreted as such. Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont, two separate names, were specified, under the alternative names policy of the Geographic Board. See "What is the difference between alternative naming and dual naming?" where it is explained that Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont are alternative names, not a combined name.Moriori (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I recall during the Stewart Island/Rakiura naming debate that I found an Act of Parliament for the Ngai Tahu treaty settlement which created a couple of hundred "slashed" names, but mostly for relatively minor geographical features. dramatic (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• The script now flags each instance of an alternate name so that I can give it special attention. –droll [chat] 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change "Camel's Hump" to "Camels Hump"?

In this edit.

I just changed that back, but the consistent title to the place is with the apostrophe. I was just curious as to why you would bother to change that in the first place? 96.252.13.17 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page and wrote a new section on Onomatology. I hope this is responsive to your question. –droll [chat] 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for tirelessly going through the hundreds if not thousands of mountain infoboxes to tidy up the templates to the newest version. Especially since I created a couple hundred of those entries. It is a lot of repetitive work and I just wanted to say that I appreciate it. imars (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

{{cite cgn}} was a dumb idea

Sorry to be so blunt, I call it as I see it, and there was no good reason at all to dump the old {{cgndb}} which worked just fine and didn't involve any extra lines or additions. CGNDB, like BCGNIS and GNIS is a permanent record and need not have a "date of access" or anything more to fill in than the unique identifier; all you did by creating this - and having the other, older template deleted, apprarently - is make work for other people. The {{BCGNIS}} and {{gnis}} templates already existed and continue to work just fine without any additional lines being added, or any extra time/labour involved on the part of those using them; the same was done, it seems with {{cite bivouac}}, although in that case, yes, it's not a permanent record and the site does mutate. this is not the case with the Canadian Geographic Names Database and more than it is with the British Columbia Geographical Names Information System or USGS/GNIS. I had to laugh when I saw this line in your template documentation:

Provides an easy way to cite the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base (CGNDB).

No, the easy way would been to have left things as they are; "oh, it only takes a few moments to fill in the blanks" in teh new template is meaningless when there's thousands of items in the database - "few moments" times "thousands" is a huge waste of time. If I knew how to simplify this template back to just needing the unique identifier, and dumping all the crap, I'd do it. I'm sure you had fun making it, but it has nothing to do with utility or relevance. I see way too many people fiddling with code in Wikipedia but doing little to add content, or making it easier to add or cite content; instead I see make-work projects like this all over the place....ultimately Wikipedia will, proportionately, be a mass of highly-formatted code templates, and nothing left of useful content. PS I'm the guy who originally suggested that there BE a CGNDB template and was very happy with the one that was come up with, but which has now been deleted; I'm complaining tonight because I have to use this frigging thing for a number of items and it's just making me work, instead of making things easier...even its name is obscure now, as "CGNDB" is how we refer to the databse, not "CGN" ("Canadian Geographical Names" is the name of an office/department, not of the database itself.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Before you call start calling people names your should be sure of your facts. Cite cgn and Cite cgndb had exactly the same syntax. Check the history of {{Cite cgndb}}. I did a simple page move. Cite cgndb still exists as a redirect. I think an apology is in order. –droll [chat] 01:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did some research and I see that {{CGNDB}} was deleted. I had nothing to do with that. I simply created a template that uses {{cite web}} internally. I realize that there is an ongoing discussion about the use of templates like cite web. That's not my problem. Best of luck. –droll [chat] 01:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry that I thought it was you who deleted {{CGNDB}} and I'm sorry I made that assumption; I still think this one is more work than it's worth to use and from now on, until CGNDB is maybe reinstated, I'm just going to use the full URL for CGNDB citations when they're needed, as I just did on Teslin Mountain; the ease-of-use of the other one, which I don't understand at all why it was deleted, vs the cumbersome usage involved with this one, is just too much bother; it was handy for double-cites on BC geography articles, and the only one usable that I know of for other Canadian geography articles; I'll take up a deletion review on the other item. Sorry for your time, but please understand my frustration with being presented more work than necessary (when you create the number of geography articles that I do, you'd understand that frustration).Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing, though, I looked at the deletion discussion and here's what was said:

* Delete per above. Samwb123Please read 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   * Comment: Redundant to what? Deprecated in favor of what? Please provide more details when you make such claims so we can properly make a judgement in these cases. Thanks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
   * Delete. Deprecated in favor of  as stated in the banner on the template page, and no longer used. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt' sound like it was you who put the statement in that CGNDB got deprecated "in favour of" cgndb....seems like that must have gotten added in the course of this discussion, as it doesnt' sound like you created cite cgn in order to deprecate CGNDB.....I haven't reviewed cite cng's edit history but it seems like somebody put something in your template to justify the other one's deletion....Skookum1 (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, you should be in politics. It turns out, yeah, that YOU didn't "delete" it, but YOU deliberately deprecated it, and the TfD was launched the next day. LOL that's playing games with words, isn't it? There was no useful reason to create it given the existence of a perfectly functional predecessor; so in order to justify your code-baby, you put a hit squad on what you didn't use yourself and was doing just fine all by itself. thanks for wasting a good couple of hours of my time tonight....it's because of shit like this I'll be leavingt wikipedia, ultimately, as there's more time-wasting going on than encyclopedifying.....nobody creates content anymore, it seems, only re-designs ways to control it and/or engage in deletion/deprecating games....Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no memory of deprecating the template in question but it seems that I did. So now you say that I lied. Well I didn't. Nothing I stated above is untrue. I think you are over reacting. –droll [chat] 04:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cite cgn page still uses Cite cgndb in its usage notes

Hello, I just learned about this {{Cite cgn}} stuff. I see that you renamed it from {{Cite cgndb}} to cgn, but noticed that the usage notes and the example given still say "cite cgndb". That's kind of confusing. I would just fix it myself but am not sure how to. It looks like I could just change it at Template:Cite cgn/doc, but being unsure and not wanting to break anything, thought I'd just write to you. Pfly (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up. I'll take care of it. –droll [chat] 05:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though if you just added the PAGENAME default for parameter 2 we could just redirect CGNDB to Cite cgn and remove the second template? What do you think? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like that idea. The syntax of cite cgn reflects the syntax of cite web and {{Citation/core}} which do not allow default values and use named parameters. I think this should be accepted as a precedent when implementing citation templates. Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. Using PAGENAME as a lazy way to fill in the name (title) field has lead to errors in the past. I wrote {{cite gnis}} with the PAGENAME default and then went back after many months and reviewed its use. Some editors that used the default did not notice that the page name was not the same as the feature name because of added disambiguation.
2. Page names change over time as is the case when a page name requires further disambiguation. Using an explicit feature name precludes degeneration.
3. It is also my opinion that the title (name) used should be the title of the web page being cited. Abbreviations and alternate spellings are sometimes used in the web page titles, etc.

You should know that I intend to convert every instance of cite CGNDB to cite cgn as time passes. I could write an enitre rant on this but I'll stop for now. –droll [chat] 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sheslay River

The edit warring on Sheslay River is a bit out of control? I would suggest we get an outside opinion on the matter. As far as I can tell, {{BCGNIS}} has existed since 2007 and {{cite bcgnis}} was created by you in January of this year. I am all for standardization of names, but there should probably be some wider discussion on this before one goes and replaces all occurrences of an older, and working, template with a newer one. For all I know, there has been such a discussion, but it does not appear as though the older template has been deprecated. I think the best way to proceed at this point is to draw up a proposal to (1) unify the usage and naming of citation templates, (2) propose changing the syntax for non-conforming templates, and (3) going forward with deprecation and replacement once consensus has been reached. I agree that Skookum1's conduct has been a bit uncivil, and I would hope that he/she would engage in a civil discussion as well. What do you think? Plastikspork (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I completely understand the logic behind deprecating the use of {{PAGNENAME}} in templates. It's not so much an issue of "laziness" as it is a problem when pages are moved to resolve disambiguation. Suddenly all PAGENAME returns something different, which can be a problem. In any event, we should start this discussion if it hasn't been started already. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, your talk page is on my watchlist because I posted here the other day, and I have my options set to watch pages I've edited (usually I remove talk pages but hadn't here yet). Anyway, so I just read this and thought I'd respond. Is there a desire to replace {{BCGNIS}} with {{Cite bcgnis}}? If so I'd guess {{GNIS}} would also be replaced with {{Cite gnis}}. If a proposal like Plastikspork is made, where would it be posted? I'm not familiar with the processes of template change proposals, deprecation, etc. Usually I don't care about template issues much, but in this case I'd want to follow along. I've been using {{GNIS}} and {{BCGNIS}} regularly for years, and will likely continue to do so. I wouldn't be against a change to the "Cite" style, and a deprecation/replacement of the older templates, if there was a good reason for it. I'm not sure I understand the benefit of adding the word "cite". I admit to being somewhat biased, since I've been using the older GNIS and BCGNIS templates for so long. Still, being required to switch to the "cite" style would be annoying, unless there was an opportunity to discuss it, learn why people think switching is good, and hopefully becoming convinced myself. Finally, if there were to be a general change in these templates, I would want to propose a few additional (optional) fields for changing the template output in various ways. So.. if any of this goes forward, would you please let me know? Thanks. Pfly (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for this opportunity to address these issues. Unfortunately I leaving on a trip tomorrow and will be off the grid for a time.

The original motivation in creating geographically oriented citation templates was that I was too lazy to fill in all the data required by {{cite web}}. I believed that the output format used by cite web presented a standard that was widely accepted. At first I allowed for the automatic substitution of the page name. If memory serves {{cite peakbagger}} was the first citation template I created. It was originally named {{cite pb}}. After some time it became apparent that there was a problem. The web page title (feature name) was often not the same as the PAGENAME mostly because of disambiguation. At that time there were only a few hundred transcutions of the template and so I went through and added the feature name explicitly. This allow me to change the template so that it required a feature name.

I named that template cite peakbagger because it was just a frontend for cite web. Since then I have created a number of other specific source citation templates such as {{cite gnis}}, {{cite summitpost}}, {{cite peakfinder}} and {{cite ngs}}.

So here are my responses to a few questions:

1. Should the feature name be a required input field? Yes. I think it is a already accepted prescident set by cite web, cite book, cite journal as well as the citation template I wrote and are generally accepted.
2. Should the output format of cite web, etc. be accepted as normative. This question is open and is the subject of an ongoing discussion. There are those who no not to use citation templates and insist on using external link format. This is a larger issue and cannot be resolved in this forum.
3. Should I substitute cite bcgnis for BCGINIS. I started out by simply adding a feature name to BCGNIS where none was supplied. I encountered a fairly high error rate. For the VIA rail station articles it was close to 100%. I realized that I wanted to go through all the articles that transcluded BCGNIS and check them. Doing this, I thought, could be simplified by substituting cite bcgnis of BCGNIS. I figured that when BCGNIS was depopulated I would know that I was finished. I had no intention to offend others but in hindsight it is obvious that was a poor judgment on my part.

I have tried to briefly outline my motivations and preferences. I am open to other thoughtful points of view. I think we all need to be careful to avoid proprietary judgments and try to divine what will be best of Wikipedia in the future. –droll [chat] 15:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, and I have thought about it a bit more. As a result, I have started a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here, once this is discussed we can always look at others. I will do my best to inform everyone who might be interested without violating WP:CANVASS. Thanks for your input in this matter. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates

Thanks for that information about templates. I understand a little better now. I've put some templates on my watchlist, including cite web and Citation/core. Maybe if I read their talk pages over time I'll get a better sense of the whole thing--not just how it works technically but perhaps something about the different schools of thought and how they effect things, etc. Pfly (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I've used {{cite pb}} a bit. It was nice to find it existed. Didn't know it had been moved to {{cite peakbagger}} (haven't used it in a while). Pfly (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My trip when up in smoke

I mention above that I would be away for awhile. Well, things fell through at the last minute. –droll [chat] 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Better maps in Infobox mountain

WikiThanks

Thank you so much for adding the code to {{Infobox mountain/sandbox/map}} !!! That was completely beyond my skill -- I really appreciate it.

It took me a few attempts to get {{Infobox mountain/testcases#Hualālai}} right: I wonder if {{Superimpose}} refers to the upper left corner of the image being superimposed? Can we subtract off the size of the little red triangle? Or is it just a Firefox thing?

Anyway, thanks again! —hike395 (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Location map}} code compensates for the size of the marker but {{Superimpose}} does not. I forgot about that. Yes I think we can make the adjustment in {{Infobox mountain/sandbox/map}}. I think the solution is to subtract 4 form x and 4 from y since the marker is 8 pixels. I'll modify the code now but I'll have to wait till tomorrow to test it. It's my bedtime. –droll [chat] 07:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I made the edit to sandbox/map and added 4 to x and y in the Hualālai testcase. Looks OK but I'm sleepy so I'll check it closer in the morning sometime. Nice catch. –droll [chat] 07:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Later: you labeled your edit request at Template Talk:Infobox mountain as having a conflict of interest? Was that real, or a template mistake? —hike395 (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I just goofed up and used the wrong template.  –droll [chat]

Box Springs Mountains

It does appear the comment about mules was somewhat wrong, but there are wild burros on the mountains. Please see this Press-Enterprise article. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Thanks. The mule thing just caught my attention. I think mules are great and I've ridden them in the Sierra but the idea of a self sustaining population didn't seem too plausible. –droll [chat] 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:IUCN

I don't really understand the edits you just made to this template. First, this is widely used, and most transclusions don't display properly now. Second, the template was previously in line with typical citation templates, rather being slightly more like the odd way the IUCN suggests citations be made. —innotata 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The template is transcluded on 80 pages in the article space and 5 other pages. It is linked to a total of 180 times but links are not effected by the template's syntax. I admit that last night I goofed up some. I should have been more careful but all is working now. The citation style conforms with that of {{cite web}} (which it now transcludes) and it conforms closely with the the style requested by the IUCN. I believe the wishes of the source should have some weight as long as they do not conflict with Wiki's MOS. Currently the old parameter names are functional but there is a new syntax which is self documenting and more functional. I rewrote the documentation page which explains the template's functionality. The old documentation page included only a "See also" section and no other information.

I going to try to cleanup some links to the IUCN. It looks like a long term project and I would be thankful for any collaboration. I have not checked extensively but some of the links created in the past are probable dead now because ID numbers changed over time, at least they have for some taxa.

If you can find a page were the template is malfunctioning please drop another note on my talk page. I have been unable to find any such pages. You can find a list of all pages which transclude the template here. You should know that I intend impediment the new syntax in the articles. It is my hope that this template becomes the one commonly used. The other IUCN templates should probably be deprecated but this cannot, in my opinion, be implemented robotically.

If you know of a forum interested in these changes please let me know.

If you would like a further explanation please feel free to drop a note.  –droll [chat] 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As for the transclusions, I'm guessing someone has gone and replaced the template since I last checked (not recently); this happens frequently. The problem with the layout is that "In: IUCN" is given for the publisher parameter; something like 2010.2 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species should be given in the work parameter, and somewhat like International Union for Conservation of Nature in the publisher parameter. The "In:" should certainly not be given is conformity with existing citation templates is wanted. —innotata 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You might have a point. Let me think on it some. I'll probably look for a third opinion.  –droll [chat] 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life is the most appropriate forum. I also think this is the most suitable template to be used due to its flexibility with dates, and have been using this when updating pages linking the 2006 red list. But each time a new redlist comes out, a template is created and often replaces others widely. Sparrow]] is an example of a malfunction caused by the replacement of "IUCN_Year" with "iucn_year". —innotata 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with the version specific citations as well. They are handy if someone want to sort citations by version but this functionality could be duplicated in this template by having articles added to various categories by the version number.

By the way do you know which version numbers are valid. For example, I've seen "version 2010" mentioned. Is there such a version? I'm thinking about adding some error checking to the template. I've not been able to find anyway to cite older versions of the list. It seems to me that as soon as a new version is published a citation referring to the old version becomes invalid.

P.S. Which sparrow page was that.

P.P.S. Looked at the Sparrow and it seems a bit P.O.V., IMHO.  –droll [chat] 22:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the Passer species, I suppose. What's the big problem with the page sparrow, besides the trivia? I'd like to work on the article some time, but haven't rally done anything with it yet as I am focusing on Passer species. —innotata 23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sparrow article is exclusively about Passeridae. To a North or South American this seems totally unrelated to what they expected. We would expect information about the Emberizidae to be included. It seems to me that the Sparrow article should be moved to Old World sparrows and Sparrows should be a disambiguation page.

Also, please take a look at Template:IUCN/testcases. Especially what's displayed in the "new version" sections.  –droll [chat] 23:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the name of "sparrow" was brought up at WT:BIRD earlier. I don't feel very strongly about that, but I'm a little inclined to think the situation should stay as it is. Some issues raised include that sparrow is a special case, as most people (including people who are not birders etc. in the Americas) in most of the world see "sparrow" as referring to the House Sparrow or Eurasian Tree Sparrow; and that the Passeridae are usually considered a coherent taxonomic group, but the American sparrows are just random seed-eating birds. Surely not a POV problem with the article. —innotata 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the point but maybe the confusion should be discussed in the lead.  –droll [chat] 23:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is the hatnote, and there's not much to the article yet.

By the way, can you make "accessdate" an optional parameter, so that transclusions not giving this don't show an extra period? This isn't the most necessary parameter, since I don't think IUCN entries change much if at all between versions. —innotata 20:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

longitude/latitude, location map, ...

I made some updates to {{Location map}} to allow for more general map projections. The good news is that Antarctica now works, and {{latitude}}/{{longitude}} are not necessary. The bad news is that in the process, I created {{Location map/decdeg}}, which was in an effort to simplify the code and is almost redundant to {{decdeg}}. However, now that I look at it, I don't think that was necessary. One way the code could be simplified further by creating a "main" subtemplate of {{Location map}} which requires coordinates in decimal format, then all the repeated conversions to decimal could be moved out of the main part. However, I always wonder about problems like transclusion limits, etc. In any event, I am not opposed to any tweaking to make things cleaner. By the way, you probably noticed the polar map series, which appear to be orphaned and somewhat redundant, although they don't exactly do the same thing. There is also {{Location map skew}} which doesn't seem entirely necessary. I don't really know about the whole sock thing surrounding these templates, but I can say they were helpful in facilitating the eventual improvements to location map. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been cogitating. In regards to templates in general I have two issues: modularity and consistency of parameter names.

By modularity I mean that there should be a set of well developed templates (or extensions) that handle common tasks. For example, many templates implement their own coordinated conversion code. I've been writing coding for over a quarter century and I've seen the transition to [object-oriented programming]. It was painful. I've seen your work at WP:TfD and share you concerns about redundancy.

The lack of consistent parameter names is a personal grip of mine. Coordinate parameter names is a good example. For latitude degree {{Infobox settlement}} uses "latd", {{Location map}} uses "lat_deg" WikiProject Geographical coordinates recommends "lat_d". I generally favor anarchy but all this variation bothers me.

To put the rant in a nutshell I think {{decdeg}} should be transcluded but I'll have to think over how to do it. I'll leave a note on your talk page after my brain heals. That's a third issue I guess. I hate obfuscated code. Take a look at Obfuscated Perl Contest. I think Wikipedia should have an "obfuscated wiki markup contest" or better yet a "wiki markup deobfuscation contest".  –droll [chat] 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may bung in. I created one location map, Template:Location map Kingdom of Hungary, in case it would be useful on older articles related to the Kingdom of Hungary instead of the current Hungary. But I couldn't get the coordinates right for it even though I got them fairly accurately from a large printout of the map, and from articles on various places that are on or near the then borders. (The image I used was a Mercator projection but at the latitude of the Kingdom of Hungary, and the shape and scale of the map for use in Wikipedia infoboxes etc, it shouldn't matter too much – a couple of pixels error at the most, which is far smaller than the standard pushpin –, but my bounding coordinates were not wrong by just a bit, they were way off.) So I gave up in frustration. That's irrelevant in itself except to say that the template should probably be deleted as I've no plan really to continue fiddling with it and I doubt anyone else will either. That's all just background to main point, which is about the creation/debugging process for these maps.

In particular, this template really had to be created and debugged in the template namespace under Location Map, not in user space which would be the usual and preferred thing to do. Because of the way Template:Location map transcludes subtemplates, in particular for transclusion in the documentation, it just won't find the "subtemplate" if it's in the "wrong place" i.e. in user space or outside its own "hierarchy". As far as I am aware, the kinda upside-down way the master template transcludes the slave which then transcludes the master makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to create this template in user space as was recommended at the TfD for Template:Location map2. In practical terms it has to be created ab initio in template space, and on balance I took the view that since no article was using it, my attempts to "tweak" it while in template space instead of developing it in user space would do more good than harm, and I think on the edit summaries I tried to be clear that it had to be done that way and I wasn't just flying in the face of convention. I don't know if Template:Location map can be restructured to avoid that problem, though it would be good if it could.

A similar issue exists at, say {{convert}}, and again I think all good-faith editors can do is create the subtemplate at its expected destination and keep quiet about its existence until it's ready (and at that time document it etc). Of course that is not ideal because any keen watcher will see the creation and perhaps propose it for deletion etc. unnecessarily – while I accept that templates should be scrutinized for deletion if they are redundant and so on, this might be premature while the template is actively being debugged and once working is intended to be applied to a particular set of articles, i.e. in the author's view at least it will have utility, but it doesn't while it's being created and debugged. It's not a question of WP:CRYSTAL or whatever, it's just a question of not wasting everyone's time at a TfD etc which may be premature and having to argue it out which might actually slow the process of getting the template up and running and of genuine utility, and arguments along the lines of "this will be useful once I get it working" tend not to hold much water at TfD. I don't see any easy way around that, it's quite right anyone can nominate anything for deletion and consensus be reached, but certainly if there were a way practically to let these location subtemplates, and similar things, be created in user space, that would be good. The only way I can see to do it is to copy over the whole template hierarchy (or relevant part) into user space and change the names etc. I've tried in the past to use {{FULLBASEPAGENAME}} and things like that to make template references relative to a parent template, but it doesn't work because the base page name is that of the ultimate transcluding page, not the template itself. Unless I am unaware of it, there does not seem to be a construct that produces the name of the transcluded template itself (regardless of what's transcluding it). I am not sure that using a "sandbox" page in the template space is appropriate either, since the point of a sandbox (I think) is to transclude a template and play around with it, not to implement the template itself.

Sorry to ramble on so, but I'd appreciate your views. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not be able to respond to all your concerns tonight. It's late and time to turn in. I'm sorry you had trouble with {{Location map}}. It and the Location map templates that depend on it can be rather esoteric. The truth is that I'm just a gnome. I live in the garden and play with the pretty templates. I try my best to stay away from controversy although I've been know to go on a rant occasionally. So I'm the last person you should ask for an opinion. However, if I can be of help in using templates related to geography then I'll give it a go.

It sounds to me that Location map failed to give the result you expected because it only works on a subset of maps that use equirectangular projection. You say your map uses a Mercator projection which is a cylindrical projection. You were doomed from the outset. {{Location map skew}} might be better suited to your your needs. It is even more esoteric. It needs to know the "origin" of the map (that is, the coordinates of the center of the map (although it asks the question in a different way).

It might be easier to use {{Superimpose}}. It relies on pixel coordinates. This approach works fine if the image dimensions do not change. I've been looking at a template that relies on percentage coordinates that was was imported from de.wikipedia and I think it shows promise but it requires calculations by the user that might be difficult for some. That's what is good about Location map. The user just needs to input the geographical coordinates and it works (with the right kind of map).

This is all off the top of my head. I'll try to look into tomorrow but I have too many irons in the fire already. By the way, the map looks very impressive.

Disclaimer: It's after midnight. Errors should be expected.  –droll [chat] 07:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Droll. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 02:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mt Wilson & KCBS

Droll, I readded a little more of the info you deleted about the KCBS-TV mast on Mt Wilson. The site is very historically important to broadcasting and it is important to note that such a tall tower exists on the top of the mountain. I just merged it in with what you had changed, so it fits it correctly. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Outer layer of Infobox mountain now obsolete?

Hi, Droll. Did you ever go through and eliminate obsolete parameters to {{Infobox mountain}} from article space? If so, then {{Infobox mountain}} is now obsolete and can be replaced by {{Infobox mountain/main}}, and {{Infobox mountain/sandbox}} with {{Infobox mountain/sandbox/main}}. Both {{Infobox mountain}} and {{Infobox mountain/main}} are now editable only by admins. —hike395 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did and no there aren't. There is a new sandbox version but I've been fiddling with it. I'll check the parameters again just before the sandbox goes live. I was frustrated with it for a while and then I was busy for a while. I'll leave notes in the usual places when I think its good to go. The current version has a little bug. I don't know when it started. The reference for coordinates wraps to a new line on every page I've seen. Also, I've asked clarification on something and I want to wait for the answer.

It's only some appearance changes that need to be discussed. I think the code in the sandbox is solid.

As far as I can tell, the two changes that I am proposing would not make the sandbox go live. It's just to get rid of an extra layer of (now completely useless) indirection. I'll propose it as an {{editprotected}}.

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)

Hello, Droll. You have new messages at Hike395's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Infobox coord

Just letting you know that, due to reported cases of the template breaking, I've reverted the implementation of your proposed change to "Infobox coord". See Template talk:Infobox coord#Display parameter undate. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Droll -- I didn't realize it was your change! Check out User talk:Hike395/Oak Creek Canyon, which calls the sandbox version of {{Infobox coord}} with a previous version of {{Infobox valley}} (before I fixed it). Look at the coordinates: they're broken. That's because in {{Infobox mountain/main}}, {{Infobox valley}}, and perhaps other places, {{Infobox coord}} wasn't being called properly: the "format" and "display" arguments were switched. I've fixed this in {{Infobox valley}}, and I've proposed fixing it at {{Infobox mountain}}. It may be other places, too: I'm just starting to look around.

Once we fix {{Infobox mountain/main}}, we can unrevert your change. Does that sound good? —hike395 (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. Infobox coord defaults to dms and inline,title. I think it would be better to not provide a default value in Infobox mountain, valley, etc. unless another value would be better. I'm finding the the {{{param|default}}} is an error prone construct. I'm trying to remember to use {{#if:{{{param|}}}|{{{param|}}}|default}}. I get fewer unexpected results.  –droll [chat] 22:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox protected area

In your cleaning up of {{Infobox protected area}}, you've been renaming the native_name parameter to other_name, when it should be called alt_name. The parameter other_name does not exist in that template. - htonl (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I'll fix it. I just assumed too much. The parameter other_name is used for this purpose in another template I've been working on. Thanks for the heads up.  –droll [chat] 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just thought I should let you know. - htonl (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request DrollBot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DrollBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 04:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Talkback

Hello, Droll. You have new messages at Innotata's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since you haven't replied to my comments, I've brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates. —innotata 16:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mountains of Mendocino County, California

Hi — can you explain why you reverted the change of category of Anthony Peak (California) from the less-specific "geography of..." to the more-specific "mountains of..." category? It seems very much to be a mountain in Mendocino county, hence the more specific category. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that Anthony Peak is a mountain and not a range. Check the USGS link. Also, I don't like ranges by county idea. Most ranges span multiple counties. See Category:Mountain ranges of California. –droll [chat] 22:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Without subcategories, the "geography of mendocino county" category was a bit of a mess. And the category in question was a subcategory of Category:Mountain ranges of California. But would it work for you if I renamed the category to "Mountains of Mendocino County" instead of "Mountain ranges of Mendocino County"? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this sort of thing and you should probably ask someone with more insight in this matter than I have. For most counties, that I have looked at, it seems that mountains, mountain ranges, lakes and all such end up in the geography category without any further categorization. A massive county like Los Angeles county has a subcategory for each mountain range which includes the features in that range. It's problematic because it seems Anthony peak is not in any well defined range. There is no category for the North Coast Ranges, which would be a rather broad categorization. I would just leave it in the geography category. –droll [chat] 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Review please

Hi Droll, it seems as though your changes to the {{BCGNIS}} template in May are causing breakages. The initiating discussion is here. There is quite some vitriol expressed there, but that's a whole different issue I'm also trying to get settled, so maybe you could ignore it for now?

Could you have a look here and comment? I have a strong suspicion that double-nesting of template calls has blown past the pre-processor limits for the page in question. That's breakage, and we always try not to break stuff here, right? :) If you could comment on the technical issue that would be great. Regards! Franamax (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: GNIS listing

Hi Droll, no problem, thanks for note. however I was not the editor involved so someone else deserves your kind message.---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 00:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Cite ngs}}

Hi. The actual URL is now broken. RedWolf (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• All good now. It was just a typo. I need to watch that for that sort of thing. Thanks!  –droll [chat] 16:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox protected area

You're welcome. If you look at admin talk pages, you'll often see lots of complaints about admin actions; it's nice to get thanks for admin actions :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

infoboxmountain

Thanks for doing the update of the template I use, I wouldn't have known to change it. Cheers. --KenWalker | Talk 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably even better to remove it in my case - feel free! SatuSuro 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Buster7/Infoboxes

Fell free to make the changes your require. I'll check out what you do to gain understanding of the process. Buster7 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. It was mostly just a change in capitalization on your page. The move to new parameter names is just an attempt make the names conform to some standard. See {{Infobox mountain}} for all the new parameters names. –droll [chat] 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Template update

Regarding your note, it was perfectly okay to update my subpage. I'd forgotten that I'd created it, so thank you for the change and the notice. Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 10:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Site plan

I just closed this discussion, and I was hoping that you, Sameboat, and Chris could work out a suitable compromise (e.g., adding relative positioning to superimpose, and perhaps keeping a redirect or a wrapper). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

MOS:HPP listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:HPP. Since you had some involvement with the MOS:HPP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moelfre (hill)

The article Moelfre (hill) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced article with no mention of notability, fails WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Not sure why you placed this tag. Was the confusion (my bad) of naming Nazca as the plate subducting beneath the North American Plate? Regards, ceranthor 13:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the discussion page. Your right, It was the plate thing. I wasn't positive of my facts so I left the tag and the note.  –droll [chat] 18:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox park

What is the update [7]? As far as I can tell, the px template works fine if you pass it a value with the px already appended. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it. It's in the sandbox. The parameter names and functionality I want to implement will match that of {{Infobox protected area}} in all but font size. I went through all the articles that transclude the template and removed the px.  –droll [chat] 05:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Inset maps

See Template talk:Location map#Inset Maps. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Sandbox/doc

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument

As far as I know, we don't change the spelling of titles used in references like you did in Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox park

See the red errors in [8]. Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The error happens in {{convert}}. I working on it. Temporarily, I'm going to use a "workaround" in that article while I work on the bug.  –droll [chat] 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the rnd function, so specifying the precision or sigfig also works. Frietjes (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a combination of things but mostly it's the nesting level used by {{convert}}. It is a well known bug. I think I can fix it by reducing the level of nesting in Infobox Park.  –droll [chat] 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that fixed it. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There were a load of parks in [9], so I replaced the "if empty" template, which seems to fix it. Frietjes (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Visitors field in Infobox park

Hi Droll, please have a look at Bedrock Gardens. It appears something goes wrong with the number of opening and closing brackets in the "visitor" field of the template. Can you have a look and fix this? Thanks, Crowsnest (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it here. I changed {{{foo|{{{bar|}}}} }} to {{{foo|{{{bar|}}} }}} Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Frietjes !!! -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm working on new documentation presently. It might take a while. All the changes should be transparent so the old documentation should be good for a bit.  –droll [chat] 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi. I fixed the redirect from Grasswidows (you had written DEFAULTSORT instead). Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you caught the other one as well. Thanks.  –droll [chat] 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

New infobox template

Indeed, I have made a new infobox location map for Afghanistan, after noting the location map on yesterday's featured article Battle of Musa Qala was missing the "dot" indicating its location. I liked the clean look of the map much better than the normal Afghanistan locator map, so I created this one using the same graphic that was already on the page. Since the bounding lat/long was different, using "alternate map" gave a (slightly) inaccurate result.

To deal with the centering issue, you suggested wrapping the map in a <div align="center">, but this doesn't work inside of another template (e.g., in the article mentioned above). I will probably try to code a {{{center}}} template that takes advantage of CSS's handling of margin:auto. Wilford Nusser (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the code so that the map is centered using a div block. {{infobox military conflict}} wants to display the map at the bottom of the template but if you want it at the top, that's OK with me. The difault map display works using the code below:

| map_type    = Afghanistan2
| latitude    = 32.4433
| longitude   = 64.7444

I hope this helps.  –droll [chat] 02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mission Accomplished. (Laugh track.) Thank you. Wilford Nusser (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Geography Barnstar
		Your work hasn't gone unnoticed...thank you! MONGO 23:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

earthquake location maps

Hi Droll, I noticed that you changed the 'Template:Location map many' to 'Template:Location map+' in the infobox for the 1703 Apennine earthquakes page. Is this the preferred way of adding multiple markers? Mikenorton (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A few users got together and did an update to {{location map+}} which {{location map many}} transcludes. So I was just checking a few articles after the update. I don't think there is any compelling reason to prefer one over the other. Personally I like {{location map+}} because I think it's easier to use.  –droll [chat] 17:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation, I'll maybe try out '+' the next time that I need multiple markers, I guess it means that you don't have to remember the numbers for each marker, which would be easier. Mikenorton (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Spirit Mountain (Nevada)‎

Notice the little trick I just did to convert the two infoboxes to display as one. The trick here is to embed (using the embed parameter) the NRPH template after the last parameter actually displayed by the other template. So positing can vary based on the contents of the first template. The end result is a better looking page. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with Location map/marker

Hey, Droll. Hope you don't mind me coming to your talk page to for help. Can you take a look at the message here, please? Thank you :) -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 01:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I created a simple test case for cy:Nodyn:Location map at cy:Nodyn:Location map/testcases and it looks good. So I doubt its a problem with Location map. It might be a typo somewhere in cy:Nodyn:Gwybodlen lle'r DU. I have a hard time understanding Template:Infobox UK place in English. –droll [chat] 03:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Droll. Thank you for taking a look. I'll see if it's something with the actual infobox :) -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:OldFaithfulConeStereo1897.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:OldFaithfulConeStereo1897.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruby peak (California) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ruby peak (California). Since you had some involvement with the Ruby peak (California) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –droll [chat] 05:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

2 questions

Greetings, I just noticed a couple things with your name on them and I hope you don't mind me asking about them. 1st it looks like you created a template Template:Cite database to cite databes but its still under development. Are you done with it and is it used or should we eliminate that one?

The second question was about your activities with AWB renaming infobox fields. There seems to be several of us all working on similar things relating to infoboxes so I was wondering if you are using a custom module or how you were doing that and if you would be willing to share/trade. --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

module/embedded/extra/nrhp

I responded on my talk page. I agree we need some level of consistency. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

{{location map+}}

Hey,

Just letting you know I've pushed a slight change to the deployed {{location map+}} code: looks like the default thumbnail class when no float is specified wasn't working as it should (the default should be floating right). I've pinged Plastikspork as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oregon Caves National Monument.

Hello, My name is Cedar Cosner and I am currently representing the National Park Service at Oregon Caves National Monument. We are trying to employ Wikipedia in our education program, and I would like to discuss a possible transition of administrative rights of the current Oregon Caves National Monument page over to the NPS. We appreciate the work that has been compiled on the current page, and we would like to utilize what exists as well as update information as needed to ensure optimal accuracy. You can contact my supervisor, George Herring, at george_herring@nps.gov. Thank you very much. Cedar Cosner Park Interpreter Oregon Caves National Monument — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cqcosner (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I can find a qualified person with whom you can discuss your proposal. Further discussion should occur on your discussion page. –droll [chat] 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Replies at User talk:Cqcosner. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Join the Oregon project!

You are invited to join WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon . You received this invitation because of your history editing Oregon articles or discussion of Oregon topics. The Oregon WikiProject group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. New members may read about existing members and introduce themselves here.

--Jsayre64 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Protected areas

Hi Droll, sorry for the confusion. Currently the main page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas suggests that the WikiProject's main scope is to cover natural areas, but I understand that the broad meaning of "protected areas" covers cultural-only protection as well. I wonder if the overlap with WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is useful, or should the later be considered a related/sub-project? --Elekhh (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Geobox removal

Hi Droll. I'm concerned to see you replacing geoboxes with infoboxes as a matter of course. The latest is the one for Tryon Creek State Natural Area. The infoboxes are generally less accommodating than the geoboxes and to go from geobox to infobox sometimes forces deletion of useful data. For example, in making the Tryon Creek swap, you deleted the etymology section of the geobox and the supporting citation to McArthur. Also gone is any mention of the Tualatin Mountains, the park elevation, and perhaps other data. I don't think this is an improvement. Do you mind if I revert to the geobox? Finetooth (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove it as "as a matter of course". I needed to update a citation and I will not waste my time learning the ins and outs of the geobox template. As for the etymology, I think that information should be in the article (as it is) and it just clutters up an infobox. If you want to revert my edit, I will not be offended, but I think my edit fixed a few problems. –droll [chat] 00:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did not mean to annoy you with my note, and I don't disagree with many of your changes to the page. However, I hate to see good information removed entirely or supporting citations removed entirely from any article unless there's some special reason to do so. I'll do a partial restoration, and if you see further problems, we can work out a compromise. By the way, I use the infobox too; I like both the infobox and the geobox, depending on the circumstances. I normally use the geobox for rivers and parks. Finetooth (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't read the documentation for {{Infobox park}} you should take a look. Its been completely rewritten and has many new features. If you see any room for improvement, please update it yourself or let me know what your have in mind. I've been thinking about adding an elevation parameter but I don't know how useful that information would be unless the reader has some physical limitation. –droll [chat] 02:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't read it recently. I'll put that at the top of my to-do list for tomorrow (Friday) and get back to you. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's Friday morning. I've reviewed {{Infobox park}}, and it looks fine. I also ran a quick survey of the first 10 parks in the list of featured park articles at WP:FA#Geography and places to see what kind of infobox they used. Of these ten, six used an infobox, and four (one of which was mine) used a geobox. They both have survived a lot of editorial scrutiny. Which box got used seems to have been a matter of personal preference by the main contributor(s).

I used the rather snippy phrase "matter of course" yesterday because I remember flinching when you changed my geobox in Dog Mountain last December to an infobox. When you did that, you made changes to the data and supporting citations that are a little unsettling. (For example, is peakbagger.com a reliable source per WP:RS? Why do citations 1 and 2 now lack an access date? I hasten to add that I don't take issue with all of the changes you made to Dog Mountain, just some of them.) When you swapped the Tryon geobox for an infobox, I thought, uh oh, is this an emerging pattern?

Perhaps the best approach is to discuss swapping the box types before actually doing it. In that spirit, I will say that I would like to substitute a geobox for the infobox in John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, which we both have worked on. My intent is to push the article to FA if I can, and I'm using Petrified Forest National Park, a featured article, as my model. Do you mind if I switch to a geobox in that particular article? Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to you question about peakbagger.com, I would say that, with the the exception of range data, it is a very reliable source. The elevation data is the same as that available from the USGS topographic maps with a few well considered exceptions.

To be truthful, I just don't like the geobox template but its not up to me whether you use it or not. I think I remember reading a policy somewhere that recommends not changing from one to the other without cause. That is why I have been very restrained in my edits. It seems to me that you prefer using geobox and that is fine, but I think that you should be as restrained in changing from one to the other you would wish me to be. I'm sorry, but discussing the the use of the geobox template will probably not change the way I feel about it. –droll [chat] 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for catching the typo in the infobox park documentation. –droll [chat] 19:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't try to convert you. :-) I will continue to be cautious about switching from info to geo. Thanks for adding a map recently to Wallowa Lake State Park. Do you mind if I make the switch in the fossil beds article if I'm careful to retain all of the information that's in the infobox. Finetooth (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being considerate but I just don't thinks its up to me. I would mind but that is not at issue. I assume your talking about the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument article. I'm curious as to what advantage you see in using the geobox in this case. –droll [chat] 20:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Specifically, I want to include the brief etymology line and the average, highest, and lowest elevations, but there might turn out to be other things. I can't be sure until I do more research and write more of the sections. It may be possible to add all of this to an infobox too, so I suppose it comes down to what I'm most familiar with and what looks good to me. These last two are subjective criteria, I realize, and no more right or wrong than a preference for the infobox. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of this National Monument, there are three, geographically isolated units; Sheep Rock, Painted Hills Unit, and the Clarno Unit. Listing the elevations of all in the infobox seems appropriate to me. I can understand listing the coordinates of the main unit in the box, but that should be clarified in the text. As I mentioned, I really don't like the Geobox template. I don't like its appearance or the its complexity. You should do as you think is right, you don't need my approval. As you say, Its subjective. –droll [chat] 01:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You should know that that I played a significant roll in developing the current version of Infobox mountain, Infobox protected area, Infobox park, and some others. So, I probably have some prejudices. –droll [chat] 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the two new parameters to the infobox and the tip (and source link) about Oregon Caves National Monument. Another important park article is Crater Lake National Park. I don't know if I'll have the stamina for all three, but I'm making a bit of headway at last on John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. The hours needed to get a big park or a big river up to FA standards typically run into the hundreds. (This is a seat-of-the-pants estimate; I don't work on a time clock, and I've never tracked my hours.) I imagine that getting a complex template just right must also involve hundreds of hours and nearly endless tweaking to accommodate a wide variety of editors and their varied notions of the ideal encyclopedia. Are we nuts, or is this just our idea of a good time? My best, Finetooth (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer working on templates to editing articles although I do both. I find the editing more difficult and I have never even tried to get an article to good status. Keep up the good work. –droll [chat] 18:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

re "unconstructive edits" by me

Why did you remove the image of the park? Re Belle Vale Park? Although i did not upload this image it has been there for quite some time since the article was set up. Why did you come along and delete it? Frankly i call that unconstructive Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to check your facts. I did not delete the image. I restored the article to the state before your last two edits because those edits where not constructive. The deletion of the reference to a deleted image was done by ImageRemovalBot because the image no longer exists. I looked around and I discovered that the image file was deleted by SchuminWeb on 3 July 2011. The reason given is "‎F11: No evidence of permission". –droll [chat] 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Buddhika.jm (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Waterfalls

I noticed that you updated the template and then started on the articles. I was curious as to why you didn't remove the entire {{Coord}} at the same time (see Virginia Falls)? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If the lad_d method is used then the {{coord}} template is ignored, so nothing was broken. I might go back through and remove the coords parameter in cases like this, but it requires parsing the coord template so that information such as region is not lost. Thanks for the note. –droll [chat] 17:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

Thought you should know, you spelled "parameter" wrong for your last 500 edit summaries or so. I myself can still understand, no worries... :) Shannon⁺º^! 21:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should get my speller checked. Thankfully I'm done with that part of the task. Thanks for the note. –droll [chat] 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AMIS

Just wondering if you could make a template for the Abandoned Mines Information System as done for BC Geographical Names ({{Cite bcgnis}}). I would do it myself but I am not skilled to create such templates. Volcanoguy 14:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem but I need to know where the search engine is and an example of a link to page. –droll [chat] 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the search engine. Use Hermiston-McCauley Mine as an example, which can be found in the database by searching Hermiston-McCauley. The search is a bit different than the BCGNIS search though because the id isn't in the website link, which is why I don't know how to create a template for the AMIS. Insted, the id is on the mine detail page. The abandoned mine identifier for Hermiston-McCauley is 03777. Volcanoguy 15:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So is the page you want to link to this one, this one or something else? –droll [chat] 16:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The first link. The seconed link can be accessed by clicking "MDI31M04SW00021" on the first link. Or perhaps there should be two separate templates for each page. If someone wants to use the template for sourcing and the template is using this link, how would someone know if an article is using information from here? Volcanoguy 20:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Wrote {{cite amis}} and {{cite mdi}}. You will probably want to change the Publisher information. It is a bit long but I'm not familiar with Canadian ministries and such. If you would like me to help with further tweaking let me know. –droll [chat] 23:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks alright to me. One thing I'm wondering about - should the wording be changed from "Abandoned Mines Information System, Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry." to "Abandoned Mines Information System. Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry."? Just judging on other templates. Volcanoguy 04:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. –droll [chat] 05:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Cite mdi}} dosen't appear to be work correctly with the accessdate. The mdi file is a bunch of No data. Volcanoguy 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a mistake in the example. Also, I made the template markup more consistent. –droll [chat] 16:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wide image

Thanks for spotting the problem with the wide image in John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. I took your advice and moved the image to the bottom of the article. I'm planning to add at least three more sections: "Activities", "Paleontology" or maybe "Fossils", and "Flora and fauna", although I'm not sure at this point how long each will be or whether they all need to be separate. Adding more text will make room for more illustrations. The lead will then need to be completely rewritten, and the final layout will no doubt be different from the existing layout. The wide image will look good at the bottom in any case, especially since the horizontal climate chart will no doubt be higher in the final article; in the final version there won't be two stacked horizontals at the bottom. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mount Juneau

Per talk page, the coords point to a spot within Canada east of Haines. It looks like the coords you deleted were closer to correct, but not exact. If you can figure it out before I can get a look at a better map, go for it.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a typo happened when the map was added. I used decimal degrees because they are easier to enter. They're from GNIS. Probably not exact but well sourced. The stuff I deleted was ignored by {{Infobox mountain}}. –droll [chat] 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Template:Location map USA2

In response to your comments on my talk page: I have updated the brief "how to" at {{Location map USA2}} to include mention of the relief parameter and a pointer to the documentation at Template:Location map#Relief. I believe that Category:Location map by country templates is the proper category for a location map templates showing an entire country, while subcategories such as Category:United States location map templates are for maps showing a smaller area such as a state. As for {{Location map USA relief}}, there is a separate Category:Location relief map by country templates that contains all templates showing an entire country where the primary image is a relief map. -- Zyxw (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have been adding location maps in infoboxes for major mountains that don't have them. When I do this I have been adding a duplicate set of coords in the format the location maps accept. I noticed recently you have been removing the original set of coords after my edits. I was unsure about doing this myself, not knowing if it could cause any negative effects, but after seeing your edits I began cleaning up after myself after my latest batch of edits. I am still unsure however, of exactly what to do when there is a coordinate reference in the infobox. I have been leaving them where they are at times; and sometimes moving them to the "coordinates ref =" field. In any case I don't see where these refereces appear on the page proper. Are they only visible in the edit window? Also I have been leaving the "coordinates =" field prompt? (not sure what to call that) remaining in the infobox data even though my new set of coords do not appear behing it but generally below it (I think you removed the text altogether in your edits). I hope this is all OK. Thanks --Racerx11 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The motivation for my edits was that I was trying to determine which articles were writing contaminates to the title line twice. It's a long story, but in that process I removed the coordinates parameter and its assigned value when the lat_d method was being used. As you know, when that method is used the coordinates parameter is ignored. IMHO, this ignored data becomes clutter. It can only confuse for new editors. In every case, I assigned any useful data that was in the coord template, such as region and source, to the appropriate parameters, so that it was not lost. I also assigned any citations to the coordinates_ref parameter. I think that the source of the coordinates should always be cited. Cheers. –droll [chat] 16:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. That makes sense, and I will remove both the coord parameter and its value from now on and I will assign the citations to the coords ref parameter. But I dont think you answered my question of where the coordinate citations are supposed to appear on the visible page proper. --Racerx11 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation should appear in a section named References or, sometimes, Notes. Use <ref>...</ref> tags around any citation in the article and make sure the {{reflist}} template, or the <references/> tag, is included in the References section. The citations will then appear in the right place automatically. For a good example see the Mount Mills (California) article. The References section should appear towards the bottom of the article, after the See also section (if there is one) and before the External links section (if there is one). See the Mount Ritter page for an example.

You can read Help:Footnotes but it is probably includes more information than you need. If I answered the wrong question, please try again. –droll [chat] 18:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, Im seeing it now. I was expecting to see a superscripted number or something next to the actual coordinates like for an inline cite that would take me to the right reference in the ref list. I glanced at the reference section and didn't recognize a coord ref, I do now. Thanks, take care.

USA relief map in Alaska

Hey Droll,

I have been working through some protected area articles that you have also recently edited adding the USA relief map to. Much better map, though the coordinates in Alaska cause the red locator dot to go crazy. Have look at Chuck River Wilderness. I suppose Hawaiian articles might be the same although I haven't looked. Ideas? Bleakcomb (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to be careful about that but one slipped by anyway. I fixed it using a map of Alaska. I run back through and check for others. Thanks for catching that. –droll [chat] 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Look like that was the only one. Thanks again. –droll [chat] 16:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for fixing. Bleakcomb (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Location map documentation

Hello. Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I agree that your first option was the best solution, where {{Location map/Info}} now uses {{BASEPAGENAME}} so it can be transcluded in the /doc subpage. That is better than your second option, which would have introduced a non-standard format for transcluding the documentation. I think it best to stick with the standard {{Documentation}} template for that. -- Zyxw (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. –droll [chat] 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

List of volcanoes in Indonesia

Hi Droll,

I am messaging you because Plastikspork suggested that you might be able to help me. I'm trying to get List of volcanoes in Indonesia up on the main page in the "Today's Featured List" section, but the list will only be approved if all the tables are properly sortable. Unfortunately, the Sulawesi and Sangihe Islands table isn't sorting properly because some of the volcano elevations are negative (ie. submarine). The elevations all employ the "Convert" template and have "sortable" switched on, but when the table is sorted by elevation, -5 displays as a lower number than -5000. Do you know how to fix the "Covert" template to make negative numbers sort consistently with positive numbers? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have bad news. Currently, no one has come up with a way to make a column with negative numbers sort correctly. I tried to hack something a while back didn't come with a solution. I wish I could have helped. –droll [chat] 18:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• You could hack the column manually. Let me see what I can come up with. –droll [chat] 18:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

---

OK. This sorts correctly but the negative numbers are hand coded. I don't know how that will go over. the span block is what the sortable option generates in the HTML. I just hand coded the span blocks for the negative numbers. It is no a general solution. It's not even a clean solution. I wouldn't want to claim credit for it. –droll [chat] 18:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Name	Shape	Elevation	Last eruption (VEI)	Geolocation
Colo	stratovolcano	507 metres (1,663 ft)	18 July 1983 (4)	0.17°S 121.608°E / -0.17; 121.608
Ambang	complex volcano	1,795 metres (5,889 ft)	1845 ± 5 years	0.75°N 124.42°E / 0.75; 124.42
Soputan	stratovolcano	1,784 metres (5,853 ft)	24–30 October 2007	1.108°N 124.73°E / 1.108; 124.73
Sempu	caldera	1,549 metres (5,082 ft)	unknown	1.13°N 124.758°E / 1.13; 124.758
Tondano	caldera	1,202 metres (3,944 ft)	unknown	1.23°N 124.83°E / 1.23; 124.83
Lokon-Empung	stratovolcano	1,580 metres (5,180 ft)	15 July 2011	1.358°N 124.792°E / 1.358; 124.792
Mahawu	stratovolcano	1,324 metres (4,344 ft)	16 November 1977 (0)	1.358°N 124.858°E / 1.358; 124.858
Klabat	stratovolcano	1,995 metres (6,545 ft)	unknown	1.47°N 125.03°E / 1.47; 125.03
Tongkoko	stratovolcano	1,149 metres (3,770 ft)	1880 (1)	1.52°N 125.20°E / 1.52; 125.20
Ruang	stratovolcano	725 metres (2,379 ft)	25 September 2002 (4)	2.30°N 125.37°E / 2.30; 125.37
Karangetang	stratovolcano	1,784 metres (5,853 ft)	August 2007	2.78°N 125.40°E / 2.78; 125.40
Banua Wuhu	submarine	&0000000000000000000002−5 metres (−16 ft)	18 July 1919 (3)	3.138°N 125.491°E / 3.138; 125.491
Awu	stratovolcano	1,320 metres (4,330 ft)	2 June 2004 (2)	3.67°N 125.50°E / 3.67; 125.50
Submarine 1922	submarine	&0000000000000000000001−5,000 metres (−16,000 ft)	unknown	3.97°N 125.17°E / 3.97; 125.17

Notice that sorting coordinates is problematic. –droll [chat] 19:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB problem at Grand Teton National Park

Hi, Droll. There was some sort of problem with your edit at at Grand Teton National Park. I reverted. —hike395 (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Vista House, Crown Point (Oregon)

Thanks for fixing my typo--I was about to in my next edit, honest! That's what I get for trying to edit in a hurry. I'm all done working on both articles for now if there's anything more you'd like to do. I've left them in a rather sorry state. Valfontis (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If I remember correctly, you have been able to fix a some of my errors. From what I've seen, you are a real asset to the Oregon Wiki community. Somewhere, Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying that Wikipedia will never be finished. –droll [chat] 22:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cave

Thanks. I've been in a lot of caves but not this one. I'll try to get down there at some point, most likely not until next spring. I began looking at Oregon Caves National Monument at your suggestion, which was a good one. Finetooth (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing styles in infobox glacier?

Is there an explicit guideline for infobox styles in WP? Or are there simply default styles in {{infobox}}? I liked the old styles in {{Infobox glacier}} better than the default ones. —hike395 (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Read the discussion at Template talk:Infobox protected area#Sandbox sync. It started me thinking that a common look and feel is a good thing. I mean that there is some value in using the CSS defaults when there is no good reason to deviate from them. Most of the stuff I removed was fairly trivial. Is there anything about the defaults that you are not happen with. I don't really have strong feelings about this. I moved the template markup that the template was using before my edit into the sandbox so that you can compare the versions on the testcases page. –droll [chat] 05:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that a font size of 90% affects readability --- it certainly hurts my poor old eyes. I've been an advocate of font size of 95% in infoboxes for a while --- that is what seems to have stuck at {{Infobox mountain}}, for example. That would be the only thing I would restore. —hike395 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think that the formatting and API of {{geobox}} didn't really undergo a full community discussion, so I agree it shouldn't be the default style for infoboxes. —hike395 (talk)

I set the font to 95% and cleaned up a couple of other things that didn't need to be there. Its always good to hear from you. –droll [chat] 17:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ntsh

Hey, I reverted your recent changes to this template in response to this helpdesk thread. I don't know much about templates, so if you can indentify and fix the actual error please do. Yoenit (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the problem and the template now uses the new markup. Turns out there are a lot of instances where the template was used to generate a sort key for a non numeric value. The new markup fails gracefully. The old markup was not capable of generating keys for negative numbers. –droll [chat] 23:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox glacier

I copied your last edit into the sandbox, and reverted. The images on all the glacier pages had disappeared. When you fix the bug, feel free to copy it back into the main template. —hike395 (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Busy day! I'll probably work on it tomorrow. The idea was to not allow images to stretch the table width. It's a really minor thing. Thanks. –droll [chat] 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Onondaga / NTSH

You can fix them, of over 225 subpages that I have, those two are no longer being tended to. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 07:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Convert

Hi Droll,

Thanks so much for making that update to the Convert template! The sorting with negative numbers works great; there should be no problems in getting List of volcanoes in Indonesia up on the main page now.

Thanks again,

Neelix (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you remove photos?

You have removed "ArchesParadeOfElephantsPanorama" three times. Despite my request, you have never stated why. Why are you removing this photograph?

I took this photo (Arches National Park) and it shows (in its expanded size) an extra long look at an entire section of the park. There are some jagged edge to the photo so all of the photos would blend properly without having to add faked filler.

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The ability of cameras and software to create panoramic images has improved over time. The image you refer to is of low quality (IMHO) compared to what can be done today. I just don't think it adds value to the article. In general the article contains way too many images in relation to the amount of text. Read WP:NOTGALLERY. There is a link to Commons at the bottom of the page. Readers interested in viewing images of the park can go there. Commons is the right place to for many of the images in this article. I'll try to remember to leave your images alone since you seem to feel strongly about them. –droll [chat] 19:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox park/coordinate methods

Template:Infobox park/coordinate methods has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox park/examples

Template:Infobox park/examples has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite database

Template:Cite database has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved this comment from my user page to here.

Re: Bald Rock Dome

I moved this comment my user page but I don't know who wrote it nor that it means.

"Bald Rock Dome, was actualy about Bald Rock. And the picture at the bottom -- –droll [chat] 09:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you

A longish hiatus I see but I hope you've returned...best wishes!--MONGO 01:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, MONGO. I was getting so that I wasn't enjoying the time spent here, so I backed off for a while. –droll [chat] 01:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Understandable...breaks are good...for the record, your contributions have been very helpful.--MONGO 01:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

location map help

hi, i saw some of your comments on the location map page and am assuming you have some knowledge about it. how do i make a name appear on mouseover to a marker:

you can see my code here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Misconceptions2/sandbox, it has a part which says "link=Rayyis", but it does not say rayyis on mouse over to the market which has the label=Exp. of Zaid ibn Haritha (Al-Is)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you found a problem that cannot be resolved. I tried to find a work around and could not. –droll [chat] 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that in my sandbox, is there any software that would help me determine the x and y coordinates of certian places on the map? How did you find it, i am assuming you just used trial and error and played around with it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

User has since posted identical q on five other user talk pages incl. my own. Have responded at User talk:Misconceptions2#Location maps. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar may be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly difficult problem. I give you this barnstar because of your help in solving some location map issues. Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts

Hey Droll,

I like your work on the protected area articles tidying up the infoboxes, especially giving hectares as the metric converted unit for acres where needed. I think it is a more natural conversion unit for acres than square kilometres. It's a bit of a "crusade" (horrible word) of mine on WP. Anyway, thanks again. Bleakcomb (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that you stopped fixing the acres to hectares today, :-( Bleakcomb (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably get back to it. I was trying to update or verify acreages and it was taking a great deal of time so I decided to do the map replacement using AutoWikiBrowser. Thanks for the encouragement –droll [chat] 21:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Glaciers

Hiya Droll...as the alleged founder of the WikiProject Glaciers...just wanted to stop by and thank you for the good work you've done updating the infobox parameters and cleaning up so many project articles...fine job! MONGO 03:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Meek Mansion

Hey thanks for using that "cite ohp" template. I wasn't aware of its existence. After looking at the article again, I realized that it could potentially be a GA. It's pretty well-sourced, includes pictures, etc. I've seen other GAs where the article wasn't necessarily very long. What do you think? I've never nominated one but if there's a good chance of it passing I'd probably do it. Killiondude (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The "cite ohp" template is new. I'm not very good at evaluating articles and I've always stayed away from that part of the Wiki. It is a nice little article but I have no idea if it meets the criteria. It has been a long time since I even read WP:GOOD. If you think it is worth a try, go for it. –droll [chat] 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for fixing the parent peak in many Sierra mountain infoboxes. I didn't realize that they were wrong for so many years! —hike395 (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the cause was. There are at least three definitions of "parent peak." One of the terms used is "proximate parent", which means the closest higher peak. Many of the ones I've replaced fell into that category. Thanks for the cupcake. –droll [chat] 02:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Wilderness Society

Mount Clarence King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mount Gould

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox mountain pass

Hi, Droll. I noticed that you expanded {{infobox mountain pass}} to call {{infobox}} directly. I had originally place {{infobox mountain pass}} on top of {{infobox mountain/main}} for maintainability: if the format or functionality of {{infobox mountain}} changed, the {{infobox mountain pass}} would automatically get those changes.

I see that you added some map marker functionality to {{infobox mountain pass}}. Was that functionality already in {{infobox mountain/main}}? If so, you may wish to consider recombining the two templates. It's up to you: I just wanted to explain the previous structure. —hike395 (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it over for some time and I think it's better the way it is now. All the heavy lifting is done by {{Infobox}}, {{Infobox map}}, {{Infobox coord}} and {{decdeg}}. I don't feel it is that hard to maintain. One of my motivations was that I whould like to cleanup {{Infobox mountain}}. Using the sub template {{Infobox mountain/main}} is messy and an unnecessary drain on resources, IMHO. When Lua becomes available, I suppose most of these templates will slowly be migrated anyway.

Another motivating factor was that the Location header was a bit much in such a simple infobox. In my opinion it was typographically unappealing. –droll [chat] 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox cave parameters

Hi Droll. I came across these parameters when translating articles from German Wikipedia. The German infobox has them as "KATASTERNUMMER" and "NIVEAUDIFFERENZ". The former is the official registry number for the cave for countries (e.g. Germany and Austria) that have such a system. An example of both parameters in use is the Unicorn Cave in Austria. Another (German) example is de:Eisensteinhöhle. The national registers or "Kataster" record the structural information about caves, see de:Höhlenkataster. This site seems to be a reference to the German register in English [10]. Hope that helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're idea sounds fine if only Germany and Austria use such a system - I wouldn't know about other countries. For me the key is not to lose information unnecessarily. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Droll. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
Message added 19:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Location map USA

Hello. I responded to your question on my talk page with two examples showing how the value of {{{name}}} in {{Location map USA}} is used in the default captions created by {{Location map}} and {{Location map+}}. The reason I changed {{{name}}} to "United States" was so the default caption would be "Chicago (United States)" instead of "Chicago (the USA)". -- Zyxw (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Location map template tweak

Message at Template_talk:Location_map#Having_a_border_without_a_caption that may be you cup of tea. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Location map USA2

Re: [11] – my edit is proved correct by the distributive property of multiplication over addition, that is, grade school math. The inherent lack of precision of floating point numbers should play no role here, as we're not dealing with extraordinarily small or big numbers, and the decimal part of final result is truncated in the end. I though this change was obvious enough... Matma Rex pl.wiki talk 18:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You might well be correct, I'm no great mathematician. To make everyone feel comfortable, however, it would be best, IMHO, to run a few tests. I have no doubt you are well intentioned but you might be surprised at the number of malicious edits that occur every day. I just checked you user contributions I see you've been around awhile. That gives me more confidence but give me a some time to run a few tests. If you are correct it will save a little processor time but it will be trivial. –droll [chat] 19:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I did the tests and you were correct. I reverted the template so that your version is active. I guess I'm getting overly paranoid. –droll [chat] 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It didn't really change much, anyway :) Matma Rex pl.wiki talk 08:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox coord error checking

Just fyi: in Safari, I can't see the difference between your sandbox test cases with and without the error checking. —hike395 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a bit to my comment about having a preference enabled. Without the added information, I see how my comment was obscure. –droll [chat] 05:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.

Hi, Droll. Is there a reason why we can't use {{decdeg}} directly in {{Infobox coord}}? It would make my life infinitely simpler in the rounding of {{Infobox mountain range}}. See Template:Infobox coord/sandbox and Template:Infobox coord/testcases for an implementation. —hike395 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied on at Template talk:Infobox coord#Why not just call decdeg directly?. –droll [chat] 08:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm trying to understand your edit at Sierra Nevada. You edited the coordinates of the highest point, rather than the range. I think it's ok to specify the location of the highest point with high precision (i.e., to the nearest 3m), especially for the highest point in the continental United States. What's your thinking behind the edit? —hike395 (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I just copied the the coordinates form the Mount Whitney article. If you count the decimal places you will notice that the precision is very high. When Coord converts decimal degrees to DMS, it rounds seconds to 0 decimal places. The Geohack sees the decimal value and rounds to what it thinks is appropriate. I think that the displayed value is fine. Showing too much precision is unnecessary. See WP:Coordinates for a brief mention. Also see Geographic coordinate conversion#Conversion from Decimal Degree to DMS. –droll [chat] 18:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite cgndb

Hi. I update {{Cite cgndb}} with a new URL as it appears the previous URL is no longer valid for queries. I tested it in my sandbox, and tested it against a several existing articles to verify that it works. I'm not particularly familiar with coding of templates, so it would be good if you could just double check what I did. Regards. Whpq (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Good job. –droll [chat] 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Location map border

I am still keen on a border being available for Template:Location map per Template_talk:Location_map#Having_a_border_without_a_caption. I have many cases, eg Kahurangi Point, where a border and no caption is the best option. Also, there should be some sort of ability to select the border contrast. The default on Template:Location mark is a bit to faint. Cheers-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See below.

Documentation

Hi, I updated your documentation for Template:IUCN/doc. Does the update look right to you? Snowman (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break

I'm sorry that it has taken so long for me to respond. I'm taking a wikibreak. I don't know when I'll become active again or if I ever will. I will seldom or never check this page. Best wishes. –droll [chat] 16:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For all of the work you've done on infoboxes, I award you this technical barnstar. I hope you enjoy your wikibreak and come back! —hike395 (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've returned after my wikibreak

Thanks for the barnstar. I have started to edit again. –droll [chat] 18:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurray!! Welcome back! I'm glad you decided to return! —hike395 (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. –droll [chat] 05:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for checking the high point data. It's amazing how errors creep in. Take Mauna Kea: you used the correct NGS elevation back in 2008. Some IP bozo changed the value in 2009, but did not check the reference. So, bad data has been there for 3 years! I'm sure glad you double-checked! Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cheaha Mountain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benchmark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Cross diatreme edit

Can you explain this edit of yours that you made to Cross diatreme? The Cross diatreme has nothing to do with Currahee Mountain. Volcanoguy 05:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't. It seems sometimes everything just goes wrong. Thanks for piking it up. –droll [chat] 06:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox mountain

I was going to perform the requested edit at {{infobox mountain}} until I saw what you said about similar changes to {{infobox protected area}}. I've now performed the edits at the latter page; would you please look at them and then go to Template talk:Infobox mountain to explain what's wrong or to note that the mountain infobox is ready to go? Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes need padding

Hi, Droll. just looking at the Sandbox for {{Infobox mountain}} ... I think that infoboxes need padding, if they don't have horizontal lines. Otherwise, the fields blend into one another. For {{Infobox mountain}}, the Range and Coordinates labels could be confusable with the "Range Coordinates" label of {{Infobox mountain range}}. Happy Christmas! —hike395 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The markup that was in the sandbox was just an experiment. Infobox mountain is somewhat unique because of the styling assigned to the |bodystyle=, especially line-height:normal;. If I remember correctly that is a hold over from before {{infobox}} was introduced. I'll put something together that uses more of the default styles. There is something to what Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) says. There is value in a common look and feel. More latter. –droll [chat] 19:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Droll, I really hope I'm doing this right (the format is kind of confusing). As for my edit on Ashokan High Point I believe the elevation of 3081' is correct and 3061' is incorrect. Here is my source http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:8886348462970513::NO::P3_FID:952753. I also checked the official USGS topographical maps and High Point has a 3080' contour line so a peak elevation of only 3061' makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.81.151 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I marked you edit as vandalism. Your edit resembles a kind of malicious edit that I have seen in the past. If I could change my edit summary I would. Elevations listed by GNIS for mountain summits are frequently inaccurate. The National Elevation Dataset is a work in progress. The elevation of 3061 feet is from on a U.S. National Geodetic Survey (NGS) datasheet. The NGS is generally considered the most accurate source available. In this case the elevation on the datasheet is based on a USGS topographic map, which is a bit unexpected. A close examination of the topographic map (available here) shows the summit is above 3080 ft and the benchmark below 3080 feet. This means that the datasheet is an inappropriate source for both the elevation and the coordinates. The topo only shows that the elevation is above 3080 feet and less than 4000 feet.

To avoid this kind of misunderstanding, I suggest that you use a good edit summary. Most importantly, you need to change the citation. I know that the formatting is confusing. If you need help, leave a message here. I'll try to point you in the right direction. –droll [chat] 03:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Droll, I'll use an edit summary next time and change the source (two things I didn't know existed/didn't know I could change!). Hope I didn't mess anyhting up too badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.81.151 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bird Woman Falls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glacier National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taylor Ridge (Georgia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Droll. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 08:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit summary says "(Reverted to revision 534621450 by Droll: thought I'd done this! dl copyvio. (TW)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo) - I'd appreciate it if you would reply on my talk page. No harm done, just a bit ironic. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Smith Rock State Park

{{Infobox park}} is meant for parks developed for intensive use, usually in urban areas, such as Central Park and Regent's Park. Most other protected areas use the protected-area infobox. You should probably make similar changes to the other Oregon state-park articles, per the note at the top of the template page.

Unfortunately the wording of IUCN Category II does not reflect the fact that subnational entities such as states (in the US) can and do set aside land which is managed in ways otherwise identical to national parks. That should be changed, but I don't have the energy to do this now.

I suppose we should try {{Geobox/type/nature}} instead ... I frankly prefer the geobox template anyway, and it doesn't drop the category in like the protected-area infobox. Plus you can get a lot more info in. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Most state parks in both urban and rural areas in Oregon use Infobox park. However, some use Geobox. I personally don't like Geobox but I know others do. –droll [chat] 04:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is, if you go there to play softball, have a cookout or jog, use the park infobox: if you go there to hike, fish, hunt or climb, use the protected-area box. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Do whatever you want. –droll [chat] 04:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mount Field (New Hampshire) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to White Mountains

Mount Kelsey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to White Mountains

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

FFD notice

I've sent File:PilotButte84 pilot butte bend oregon 10-01-84 med.jpg to FFD (log) because it's a lower-quality version of File:Pilot Butte, Bend, Oregon.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

USA lakes

I have noticed contributions of yours like this and thought maybe you can help. Per MOS:NOTUSA it sounds like we should in general use U.S. or US in geographic articles. In the infoboxes of nearly every small US lake I have checked, there is "USA" for location. I have changed several of them example, but decided to stop to make sure I am doing the right thing because it seems as though there may be an enormous number of them.

BTW, I have replied to your post at my talk page about a mountain related revert you made. I didn't send a talkback notice and you never replied. No biggy, just wondering if you saw it. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to call Lua code for Template:decdeg

Your insight is more than welcome at the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

New page from Arkansas Post National Memorial?

Hey. I've been working on a few articles related to Arkansas Post and I noticed you've made quite a few edits on that article. What would you think about moving Arkansas Post National Memorial to a new page dedicated solely to the historical settlement (Arkansas Post (Historical Settlement)?), while keeping a separate page for the memorial itself? I'm planning to do an overhaul of the page soon anyway (just organizing some sources) and the page mostly discusses the history of the settlement anyway instead of the actual memorial. I posted on the article's talk page about it, so feel free to reply there or here with your input/opinion. Samuel Peoples (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: The article has been moved to a new page at Arkansas Post. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for move reason. Samuel Peoples (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Coords removed from Karakoram Pass

Hi. At here, you removed the coordinates from Karakoram Pass, with the comment "cleanup using AWB". Any idea why? The only other thing that it did was add spaces after the "=" after blank params and separate all params onto their own lines in the Infobox. Is there a bug in AWB? Are there more articles that have quietly had their coordinates deleted? Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey

I am Piotr Konieczny, a fellow Wikipedian (User:Piotrus) and a researcher of Wikipedia (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ). I am currently (in collaboration with WMF) embarking on a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. We have a growing understanding of why an average editor may do so (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), but we have a very limited understanding of why the top editors would limit their contributions. Yet it is the top editors like yourself who contribute most of Wikiepdia's content, thus understanding this is of vital concern to Wikipedia's project future.

I am contacting you because you are among the top Wikipediana by number of edits, yet your editing activity shows a decline. I would very much appreciate if you would take a minute and answer the following four short questions. Please note this is not a mass email; I am contacting only few dozen of editors like yourself, and each response is extremely valuable. Your response will not be made public, and your privacy will be fully respected.

If you would like to help out in this project and take part in a very short survey, please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, did you have time to consider my request? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Droll. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox protected area.
Message added 12:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User right designed just for you :-)

Check it out. I asked for this, and got it without much hassle. You may enjoy editing WP more if you became a template editor. —hike395 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mount Irvine (California), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Irvine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Whitewater Baldy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] of [[New Mexico]]. It is also the highest point in the entire southwest portion of New Mexico (south of [[Interstate 40]] and west of the [[Rio Grande]]. It is located in [[Catron County, New

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mount Mendel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Sierra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Box Springs Mountain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• M" to celebrate the 25th anniversary of cityhood.<ref>Between December 2, 2009 and December 6, 2009]</ref>{{Citation needed|date=April 2010}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits reverted

Hi Droll: I reverted your edit to Island Mountain because the article was correct before you changed it. Island mountain really is in southwestern Trinity county, not Mendocino County. The LOJ citation was mapping "South Peak" in Mendocino, not Island Mountain which is shown here on Bing Maps quite clearly in Trinity County. Please take some time to check facts before making substantial edits to articles here in Wikipedia. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think whoever created this article intended to refer to only the one peak known as "Island Mountain" and outside of the populated place "Island Mountain", both in Trinity County, California. I have spent about 1/2 hour looking for an Island Mountain massif that goes all the way from Mendocino to Trinity, and I find only references to the isolated peak in Trinity County. I found the following which may be of help:

• USGS topo Quad showing Island Mountain in Trinity.
• About Island Mountain Mine with TRS location data.
• Explanation of GNIS codes again in Trinity.
• Island Mountain district history.

Unfortunately what I'm not finding are references to the range extending as you describe it on my talk page. I am certain that there will be a useful resolution of our discussion, however, it seems to me that this page was intended to refer to a specific peak, not an entire range. I am certain we can work it out. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) PS, I get a pile of dross searching google for "Island Mountain" California + Range, See? EB

My position depends on these sources.

1. The GNIS page asserts that Island Mountain is in both Mendocino and Trinity counties.
2. The USGS topo map shows that the coordinates listed first on the GNIS page point to a location in Mendocino County. See this map.

If you zoom in on the location marked "A", on the map page mentioned above, you will see that it marks the highest point on the landform in question. This location is in Mendocino County and marks the location of a benchmark named South Peak. The location marked "B" shows the location of a benchmark named Island Mountain. This location is in Humboldt County. The location marked "C" is a prominence on Island Mountain named Booth Knoll which is in Trinity County. None of these locations are in the GNIS database. Neither of the benchmarks are currently available in the NGS database. I'm not going to spend anymore time on this issue. I will note that the common practice of WikiProject Mountains is to use the coordinates of the highest point and that, in my opinion, not mentioning Mendocino County would be inappropriate. Whatever coordinates you use should be sourced. Best of luck. –droll [chat] 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The page as it is "Island Mountain" refers to a specific peak in an unnamed range. This range or massif at present has no Wiki article unless it is part of the coast ranges page of Mendocino County. The article is about only one peak on that range because it is that peak which was both economically beneficial (from its minerals) but also a huge obstacle to the construction of the railroad to Eureka. However, to put a dot in Mendocino county when the actual item that the article is about is in Trinity county doesn't help the reader who is not up on the finer points of mountain range terminology and is only seeking a nice day trip to the actual "Island Mountain" which cost so much money, time and lives to build through it.

I took a look elsewhere on Wikipedia to see the format for other peaks and mountain ranges, specifically a range that had a nominate peak. The example I selected from several choices was the Wind River Range in Wyoming which is represented by multiple Wikipedia articles including: Fremont Peak, Gannet Peak, Mount Helen, Jackson Peak, Mount Febbas, Flagstone Peak, Pingora Peak, Mount Sacagawea, Split Mountain, Mount Warren, and the nominate "Wind River Peak". Each one of those peaks is given its own locality point, they area not all redirected to the nominate peak.

I'd suggest that since "Island Mountain" is a specific peak in a range (which needs sourcing and citationing), that the page on Island Mountain stay only for that one peak and that a page be constructed for the entire range - if it is separate from the Coast Range in Mendocino which already has its own page.

I think that putting the elevational point and locational point for an entire range on this page breaks the content and intent of this page which was to discuss only one peak in a range. And South Peak is only the name of the benchmark for the high point; it's not part of the history of Island Mountain as pertains to resource extraction and railroad construction.

I am not being argumentative other than we seem to have two items on our brains. You're concerned (and rightly so) about the entire massif and the technical aspects of defining mountain ranges. I'm concerned about the content on a page that speaks only about the history and geology of one peak of that range. Wikipedia has room for all of it I am sure. Let us work together on making it all better. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I poked the article again tonight and I hope this form will achieve at least temporary consensus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Purisima Hills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Santa Barbara

Waterman Mountain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Station fire

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Location map2+

Template:Location map2+ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

WP Mountains in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Mountains for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Droll! I noticed that you helped clean up many of my mountain articles. I am a new editor and one of the best parts of contributing to wikipedia is creating an article and seeing and grow and get better over time. I just wanted to say THANK YOU. :) Adorabutton (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Pedro River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

TfD discussion about Infobox valley and Infobox landform

Hi, Droll. I thought you should take a look at the TfD here. I hope you see this in time! —hike395 (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

TfD discussion about Infobox park and Infobox protected area

Hi, Droll. It looks like you're not around much (which makes me sad), but in case you read this, please take a look at the TfD. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox hotspot custom

Hello Droll. I am having a problem with {{Infobox hotspot custom}}}}. A couple of days ago I added more parameters to {{Infobox hotspot custom/doc}}}} so it is more useful for hotspots found on Earth. However, I do not know much on how these infobox templates work so I am stuck with the main infobox template. I was wondering maybe you could help here. Thanks. Volcanoguy 04:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memphis, Tennessee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I-22. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castle Peak (California), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scramble. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mount Humphreys

Hi, Droll. Good to see you return to active editing!

Apropos of our recent edits, I just love Mount Humphreys: it looks so different from different angles. Humphreys Basin (to its immediate south) is quite spectacular. —hike395 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox mountain range

Template:Infobox mountain range has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox mountain. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —hike395 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Location map- listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Location map-. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Location map- redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Tolicha Peak listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tolicha Peak. Since you had some involvement with the Tolicha Peak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Brycehughes (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mt. Ashland.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mt. Ashland.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Western capercaillie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• urogallus |title=Western capercaillie |publisher=[[World Association of Zoos and Aquariums]] (WAZA)]}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite Catskill 3500 Club

Template:Cite Catskill 3500 Club has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite mcra

Template:Cite mcra has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Decdeg

Template:Decdeg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding convert templates to mountain elevation and prominences using AWB

Unfortunately, your conversions are adding significant figures to the elevations and prominences that may not be justified by sources. Not all elevations or prominences are known to 1 meter of accuracy. See the discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Altitude conversion error. I've gone through for elevations ending in 00 and 000 and manually added {{convert}} for those mountains whose elevations are known to 1 meter. Unfortunately, I think we'll need to go back and manually check the ones that you've changed.

Thanks in advance for your help! —hike395 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken in your evaluation. Please do not revert any of my edits until I get time to respond in full. –droll [chat] 05:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted Johannesburg Mountain (one of my favorite mountains, btw), because it's clear from Peakbagger that the prominence is not known to 1 meter (since the peak elevation is uncertain to 40 feet). But, that's the only one that I touched. I don't really have time to fix more, because manual checking is quite tedious.

I'm happy to discuss further. In the meanwhile, check out MOS:CONVERSIONS and MOS:UNCERTAINTY for the WP guidelines on precision. —hike395 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that your edit constitutes original research. Information on Wikipedia should reflect that found in reliable sources. Also your opinion seems contradictory to the definition of clean prominence. –droll [chat] 05:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Calculation is not original research, and is allowed per WP:CALC. Shall we broaden the discussion at WT:WikiProject Mountains, or perhaps WT:WikiProject Geographical coordinates? —hike395 (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Later --- if you would please read the discussion at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Altitude conversion error, it would be helpful. Sorry that it's so long. But, I went through the sources for many articles, figuring out the precision of summit elevations -- a large fraction of the |elevation_ft= ending in 0 are not precise to 1 meter, even worse for |elevation_m= ending in 0. —hike395 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your conclusion seems to be based on the research you discuss in your last comment. Be that as it may, I feel strongly that the data in the infobox should reflect that given by the cited source.

Also your argument about values that are multiples of 10 seems a bit odd. Can you show that Peakbagger, for example, calculates values differently for an elevation or prominence divisible by 10. I'll grant the some elevations are based on contour line interval but "clean prominence" accounts for that case. Elevations based on contour intervals should be shown as uncertain. For example: "100+ ft." if the highest contour line is at 100 feet. –droll [chat] 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We're mixing up multiple issues, let's try to straighten them out:

1. Elevations (or prominences) divisible by 10 --- a value in an infobox ending in one or more zeros can mean two things: either the value is accurate to 1 unit, and the true value ends in 0, or the value is accurate to 10 or 100 units, and the 0 indicate rounding. Without checking the source, we cannot know. Thus, automatically assuming accuracy of 1 unit can introduce overprecision errors in the metric conversion process, going against the guidelines at MOS:UNCERTAINTY and MOS:CONVERSIONS. This is why I asked you to not convert any more via AWB.
2. Elevations based on contour intervals -- certainly, we should represent elevations that are lower bounds via a plus sign, e.g., "1000+ ft". It could be that some of the bare values ending in 0 in infobox were truly contour interval values. This means we should add plus signs to their elevation, not assume that they are accurate to 1 unit. Again, we can't automatically do this: the source has to be checked.
3. Following sources --- I believe this is a formatting issue, not a factual matter. The elevation or prominence value entered in the infobox in the native unit of the map is a factual matter, and should reflect the source. However, the conversion to other systems of measurement (e.g., metric) is a matter of formatting. When it comes to formatting, the the WP Manual of Style takes precedence over source formatting --- WP uses its own consistent formatting, rather than following the source. MOS:CONVERSIONS directs us to be conservative about adding precision.
4. Clean prominence --- as in "following sources", I'm happy to use the factual number from a prominence source in the units of the original source, per WP:V. For U.S. summits, the clean prominence value from Peakbagger in feet should be used in the convert template, but we should follow WP formatting guidelines in the arguments to the convert template.

Hope this helps. I would like to go back and carefully check all of the elevations and prominences that you converted. But, if you wish, we can get broader consensus on this issue at WT:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. —hike395 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Peakbagger reports the prominence of Mount Pinos in California as "4800 ft/1463 m". If I understand your position you would espouse reporting in an infobox that the prominence is 4,800 ft (1,500 m). I think that is unsupportable. And I will have nothing to do with and organization that encourages falsification of data. I'll wait for your reply and if you do not abandon your irrational position, I'll have to say goodby to Wikipedia again and this time forever. –droll [chat] 19:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

1. I don't speak for the organization, I'm just an editor. If you'd like to get consensus on the edit, let's go to WT:WikiProject Geographical coordinates
2. You are misunderstanding my position. I want to check the precision of the elevations and prominences, for each infobox, for each source. For Mount Pinos, the summit elevation is known to 1 foot, and the key col elevation is known to 1 foot, so the prominence is known to 1 foot. WP's formatting guidelines say it is ok to present Mount Pinos' prominence as {{convert|4800|ft|m|0|abbr=on}}
3. You seem very angry about my edits and Wikipedia in general. I just want to remind you that we've both productively contributed to WP:WikiProject Mountains for many years, and I've enjoyed working with you in the past. It seems a pity for you to throw that away over a formatting dispute. Like you, I am here to improve the encyclopedia.
4. Before I read your comment, above, I did three source checks on Peakbagger for articles with contour lines, found one prominence mistake, and changed the formatting of the metric rounding. I can stop again, pending getting consensus with more editors.
5. I am happy to start the discussion at WT:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Given that we don't seem to be communicating very well, I'm hesitant to represent your position. How about this: I'll write up what I think your position is, and if it's wrong, it's ok with me for you to delete what I wrote about what you believe. —hike395 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Droll -- are you still around? I haven't done any more infobox editing. Would you like to discuss at WT:WikiProject Geographical coordinates? —hike395 (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gbmlink

Template:Gbmlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed

Droll, come back! —hike395 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Droll. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Locator map

Template:Locator map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox map

Template:Infobox map has been nominated for merging with Template:Location map. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 02:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox coord

Template:Infobox coord has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:TRS

Wikipedia:TRS, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:TRS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:TRS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox map

Template:Infobox map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Droll! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Love for all Nadeemabbasbhatti (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Least

Template:Least has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox protected area/convert

Template:Infobox protected area/convert has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Droll. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Droll. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Waterfall articles requiring maintenance has been nominated for discussion

Category:Waterfall articles requiring maintenance, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:XC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:XC. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:XC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)