Template talk:Volcanoes of Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Volcanoes (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Oregon (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Malcolm A. Moody & List of parks in Portland, Oregon.

Moving discussion from Katr67's talk page[edit]

Continued from: User talk:Katr67#Oregon Volcanoes

Hi again, I've been thinking about this some more. The "see also" sections are ugly, and don't serve a clear enough purpose as they stand now. I think a good solution for providing links to other nearby volcanoes is to add a navigation box at the bottom, titled "Volcanoes of Oregon" which would list all those included in WP. I think that about 50-60 of the Oregon volcanoes are signicant enough to be included in WP, either because of height or geology or just being well-known. The nav box would be organized into geographic sections (e.g. Cascades, Boring Lava Field, Eastern Oregon, etc.) with volcanoes listed in some reasonable order (maybe north-south) within each section. This would provide easy one-click navigation between any of those articles, and be nicely organized geographically which the Category:Volcanoes of Oregon is not.

I may build the nav box when I have some time, maybe this weekend.--Seattle Skier 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear back from you, I thought maybe you were upset with me. The navbox sounds like a great idea. 50-60 sounds like it would make a huge infobox though--it might dwarf some of the articles. Hopefully it won't be any bigger than the {{Oregon}} template. I've never tried to format a navbox though, so I don't have any practical suggestions. Happy editing! Katr67 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I was not upset, just ruminating what to do. I'll try to keep the navbox less than half the height of the (huge) {{Oregon}} template. And the volcano articles I started (and others) will have photos soon, I've taken good photos of most Oregon volcanoes (and any lookout towers present) over the years. So the navbox will be less visually dominating if the article has a couple of photos. --Seattle Skier 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well ours might be huge, but check out the gargantuan {{New Hampshire}}... Katr67 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On the off chance you guys missed it, there's already a template for the Cascades as a whole, and an article with a great collection of pics on the Cascade Volcanic Belt.

-Pete 21:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh. Shiny! Katr67 05:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

New Template[edit]

Yes, I did know of the major Cascade volcanoes template before contemplating a new navbox. But what is needed is something specific to the numerous Oregon volcanoes, such as this:

I guess I couldn't keep it less than half the height of the {{Oregon}} template, but it's about 60%. There are detailed instructions on the template page. Now I have to spend some time adding it to all those pages. And then make similar CA, WA, and BC templates, too, which thankfully will be smaller than OR. --Seattle Skier 20:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding it for you. See if you agree with the order I placed it in for cases where the {{Cascade volcanoes}} was present. Mount Hood was even more interesting with the {{U.S. State Highest Points}} present.
To make the template display a little shorter, what do you think of placing the West and East sections side-by-side? —EncMstr 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I originally had them side by side, but the lists in all sections will get longer (there are several more OR volcs notable enough to include in WP), so they should stay as is. By the way, I added "br clear=all" tags above the navbox in many of those pages (i.e. short pages with photos), since the infobox and navbox were overlapping very much in my browser.
I agree with placing it under the {{Cascade volcanoes}} tag in pages with both. Thanks. --Seattle Skier 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The template looks good - I hadn't heard of the "basin and range" province before! Couple sugestions: (1) "Eastern Cascades" and "Western Cascades" are not accurate titles - how about "east of Cascades" and "west of Cascades"? I realize that would be a bit problematic, as "basin and range" is east of also, but I think that inaccuracy is the "lesser of two evils" - and any reader who takes a moment will see what it means. (2) How about simply listing Boring Lava Field, which includes links to all its constituent volcanoes? Anyway, good job SS, thanks for all the hard work. -Pete 06:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Pete. "Western Cascades" is a well-known geological term, although it is usually applied primarily to the older eroded volcs on the west side of the present Crest. But the Boring field is in the same geographic region, so I put it in that section. I didn't want too many separate sections in the template, so I didn't give Boring its own section. I'm planning to write articles about a few of the most well-known older volcs in the Western Cascades, the ones I can think of off the top of my head are Coffin Mtn, Iron Mtn, Sexton Mtn (famous weather station), Pilot Rock near Siskiyou Summit, all of which are notable enough to include in WP. These will go in the Western Cascades section.

As for the "Eastern Cascades", there is no official term for the secondary back-arc of the Cascades. This arc of volcanoes extends from just north of Susanville, CA, through Medicine Lake Volcano, then along the east side of the Klamath Lake basin (all volcs, Yamsay and Bald Mtn are the most prominent), to Newberry Volcano, then several cones near Madras, OR, like Round Butte, then ending at the Simcoe Volcanic Field just SE of Mt Adams. I've read many volcanological papers which allude to the eastern arc, but none have ever offered up a formal, capitalized proper name for it. Even the volcanologists are confused as to its origins and association, as one of the papers is titled "Origins of Newberry Volcano, Central Oregon: A Cascade Backarc, High Lava Plains, Basin and Range Shield Volcano?" That paper, like most, concludes that these volcanoes are due to Cascades back-arc volcanism, and not part of the other geological provinces.

I think "Eastern Cascades" is as good a term as any, although I do realize that WP is not the place to invent neologisms. But you gotta call it something, since it definitely exists and is somewhat separate from the main Cascade arc. "Cascade Back-Arc" is the most technically correct term, but would be strange jargon to most people except geologists. I welcome further comments or suggestions, since I think accuracy in names and terms is very important. Thanks. --Seattle Skier 07:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add: Regarding the Basin and Range section, that is only one of three volcanic provinces in eastern OR. The High Lava Plains sit just north of the Basin and Range, while strictly speaking the Columbia River Basalt is a separate province of its own which marks the edge of the true Basin and Range. So maybe the last section should be called simply "Eastern Oregon", although that might increase confusion with the "Eastern Cascades". --Seattle Skier 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps the various section title links (High Cascades, Western Cascades, ...) should link to an article which explains the terminology. Even High Cascades could use some explanation: Cascade Range#The_High_Cascades doesn't explain what the list describes. —EncMstr 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think EncMstr is on the right track. (Sorry, Seattle Skier, for my erroneous claim of inaccuracy before!) If Western and Eastern Cascades are specific to Oregon (?), how about a short article Oregon Cascades that describes Western vs. High vs. Eastern, and links to the Cascades article? -Pete 08:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been planning to do a major (complete) rewrite of the geography and geology info in Cascade Range, along with its associated article Cascade Volcanic Belt. It's a daunting task, very unpleasant but also very badly needed, because the geography and geology is complicated and there are many popular misconceptions which an encyclopedia article should work to dispell. This is a long-term project which will eat dozens (100s) of hours, so I'd rather do other things first. My first step in the process has been trying to get the Cascade Volcanic Belt article renamed, either back to Cascade volcanoes as it was, or to Cascade Volcanic Arc which is the geologists' preferred term. This article is the proper place to discuss the separate chains of the Cascade volcanic arc (Western, High, and back-arc), along with segmentation of the subducting plate which divides the arc into distinct segments as one moves from south to north. I'll work on both of those articles eventually, since I do have knowledge and more importantly I have the right published references (sitting here as PDFs, photocopies, and geologic maps) to write a good encyclopedia article.
But I'm not eagerly looking forward to the task, or the near-inevitable conflict certain to accompany it (see Talk:Cascade Range#This entire page is horrible for an example). Just because some guy rants that the Casacades are 95% non-volcanic, that don't make it so. The Cascade Range is 100% volcanic in CA, OR, and all the way to White Pass, WA, then maybe 50% volcanic north of that to Glacier Peak, and only a few % north of that to its terminus at the Fraser River. Overall, it's at least 70% volcanic, but the facts will probably never convince that angry guy or others like him.
We probably don't want an Oregon Cascades article, since the political boundaries are arbitrary, and the major structures of the "Oregon Cascades" extend north into southern WA and south into northern CA. There was already a controversy on Talk:Cascade Range about too much Oregon-centric perspective, but that needs to be in that article to some extent. Unfortunately for some of those angry editors, they're just going to have to accept that half of the entire Cascade Range is in Oregon, and a huge majority of the Cascade volcanoes, well over 70% are in Oregon. So those articles (and their talk pages) are the proper place for the explanations, rather than a separate article. --Seattle Skier 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that DOES sound daunting. Sounds like a worthy goal, and I commend your approach of starting small and surveying various users.
I know nothing of geology, so I'll try to stop offering specific solutions. But let me illustrate the potential confusion for a layman like me, looking at your template: if I see unfamiliar terms like "Eastern Cascades" or "Western Cascades," I want to be able to learn what they refer to without too much hunting. Some mention/description of those terms, in a place I might logically look, seems in order. I don't think it should be delayed pending the huge rewrite you propose, since the terms are now featured on a whole lot of pages! Make sense? -Pete 09:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that some info is needed. Even the limited info on {{Volcanoes of Oregon}} would help, but obviously we can't link to that. Maybe I'll insert that info into the Cascade Range#Geography section, and link to that section directly. But that will entail a complete rewrite of that section, since it's so limited/wrong right now. It's a mess, there are several blatant errors, and also the "Southern OR Cascades" map which totally does not belong there. I need a few days to plan and write a new section.
What would be also be very useful is an article like Geography of California for Oregon. I'm not prepared to put in the time needed to start/write that right now, but I would certainly contribute if others collaborated. Also, I'm not very knowledgeable about the geology of non-volcanic parts of Oregon. Maybe WP:WPOR wants to find people to write Geography of Oregon and/or Geology of Oregon. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Our friend from the north (the "angry guy"), who I shall hereafter refer to as "He-who-shall-not-be-named", may have a point about things being Oregon-centric, though I think it results from ignorance, enthusiasm and systematic bias, and not from a vast Oregonian conspiracy. However, since he is really the only editor who seems particulary angry about it, I wouldn't let his opinions stop you from creating any articles or doing any rewriting of sections you deem necessary. Katr67 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I won't let him/them stop me, although they've certainly caused me to hesitate and carefully consider my steps. The truth (or at least reliable, verifiable info) must prevail, so needed changes will be made. All in good time. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Katr67 said, "replace stray paren--methinks there is a method to SeattleSkier's madness..." Madness, what madness??? It's all part of the master plan . . . I used the parens to surround the volcs in the Boring Lava Field and keep them together. Other entries farther south in the Western Cascades should go outside the parens, if / when they are added (I may add a couple of well-known old volcs in that region with lookouts). Anyway, thanks for replacing the parenthesis. --Seattle Skier 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not mad? Perhaps you don't understand the problem....  :-) Seriously though, maybe something different can be done: The right parenthesis looked to be hanging out in space as its left partner seemed to be a vertical bar. Pete had one good suggestion for dispatching two birds with one edit: replace the Boring series with a single link. That might also help reduce the overall size—when suitable inspiration how to do it arrives. Another suggestion would be to make the Boring series smaller or italic or something, so it's more obvious that they're different. —EncMstr 06:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Smaller? Brilliant! Done. --Seattle Skier 07:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's not rule out unlinked text - for instance, it could say:
Boring Lava Field (many small volcanoes in/near Portland)
-Pete 08:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer the current version, since my primary goal in originally making the navbox was to enable one-click navigation between any of the numerous OR volcano articles. If the template keeps getting bigger and becomes unwieldy, then eliminating the individual links in the BLF is a reasonable thing to do to save space (which also would mean no extra parenthetical text, which usually doesn't belong in a navbox anyway). The individual BLF volcanoes are mostly tiny and insignificant (except Larch Mtn), but they happen to be located throughout a metro area of 2 million people, which is what makes them notable. --Seattle Skier 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That all makes sense. I think this is the "perfect" example of not "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." Good work, even if not "perfect" ;-) Any navbox that makes such a confusing topic accessible is a great addition. -Pete 08:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template layout cosmetics[edit]

I right aligned the first column and centered the second. It was bugging me how the High Cascades bunched up to the left. I don't know if I like the centered version better, but it is growing on me. (Reverting won't bother me the slightest.) —EncMstr 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If the right column is centered, then "Columbia Plateau: Columbia River Basalt Group" should be moved onto a new row of its own. In order to keep the template as compact as is reasonable, I'd prefer the non-centered format which lets two sections coexist in a single row.
Also, I don't really like the way the header/title style looks on {{Cascade volcanoes}}, I'd prefer the v-d-e links to be at the right side so that the title stands on its own. Since you don't mind reversion, I'll take you up on the offer and start working from a prior version. I've now made several other cosmetic changes, hopefully they'll be considered improvements. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How about at least thinning out the header line by moving the v-d-e onto the same line as the Volcanoes of Oregon? Also, does the background color have any significance? It contrasts with the other navigation boxes at the bottom of Mount Hood. —EncMstr 05:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand; the v-d-e is already on the same line as the Volcanoes of Oregon, at least in my browser. Looking at the code, I don't see how it could be rendered differently in other browsers, the "style=float:right" should put it on the right end of the same line as the title. Is the v-d-e really on a separate line in your browser? What does it look like? Please post a chunk of screen capture so I can see this.
As for colors, I decided to use a neutral light gray so it would never clash with any color on any page. Some navboxes use colors that look hideous to me, and do clash with other objects on pages they appear on. The light blue color #ccccff as in the other navboxes on Mt Hood looks OK to me in general, though. By the way, the Portland, Oregon page has 2 different color navboxes, while Seattle has 3 colors, so contrasting navbox colors appear to be quite common. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You can see what I see here as viewed by SeaMonkey 1.1.1. The "centering" version fixed the header thickness. Also, it looks about the same (or maybe even a bit thicker) in FireFox and —EncMstr 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that is strange. It renders fine on a single line in Safari (which is my normal WP editing browser), but I get the same problem as you in Firefox (all on Mac OSX). The problem first appeared in the version from 10:15, 14 March 2007, so I'll try editing in Firefox to see if I can fix the problem. Thanks for bringing that up and posting the screenshot. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried numerous tweaks inside the Tnavbar style and div code hoping it would solve the problem, to no avail (probably because it was already OK as written, but only some browsers render it properly). Maybe someone who is a template-voodoo expert will see this and provide the real solution. Anyway, I've implemented a workaround instead, by using the first row from the old 10:15, 14 March 2007, version which had the Tnavbar in a separate column. So now it renders on one line in Firefox for me, at the expense of a white gap between cells. I really hate dealing with cross-browser compatibility issues (I've had a large website for 10 yrs, so I've dealt with such things a lot especially back in the bad old days when most browsers were highly non-standards-compliant). Thanks again for pointing this out, otherwise I might have never known how it looked to many others. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I think I've fixed the rendering problems without resorting to any kludges. The key is to use the {{Tnavbar-header}}, and I'm not sure why I didn't so so all along. I may have tried it and decided not to use it for some reason. I've also added "clear:both" in the table style, which ensures that there will be no overlap with long infoboxes on short pages. Please check this on other browsers / platforms, it looks OK for me on Safari and Firefox on Mac OS X. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Very nice! It looks great on Windows XP and 2000 in SeaMonkey 1.1.1 and FireFox and on Linux (Fedora core 5) FireFox 1.5. I tried it at screen widths from 1400 down to 600 pixels. It looked great the whole way! —EncMstr 21:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I guess it's time to write a few more Oregon volcano articles (and add photos to some of the current ones, too). --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Basin and Range[edit]

The heading "Basin and Range" is a redirect to the general article Basin and range topography. Should this link in fact be piped to Basin and Range Province? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It definitely should, I'm going to go ahead and change that.--Amateria1121 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)