Talk:Mount Taranaki/Egmont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Volcanoes

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
WikiProject Mountains
 This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance to WikiProject Mountains on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
Flag Mount Taranaki/Egmont is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Old comments

I've given a little more prominence to the former name, since it will still be very common in atlases. Grutness 09:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The satellite photo (particularly in 3d) shows two bumpy structures NW of the main cone. I'd guess these were older cones that haven't erupted as recently as the main one (they look eroded)? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added some info on them. dramatic 04:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Are the sections "Rare Optical Phenomenon" and "Sacred" really necessary? The optical phenomenom looks like just an excuse to have a pretty picture, and the sacred just says that it's sacred without further explanation.

I agree that these sections seem to have little merit. I moved/removed them once, but their author quickly replaced them. I had no desire to get into an edit war then, so I haven't done anything more, but I would support their removal (with one exception - I think a link to the origin legend is worthwhile). Avenue 15:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is much easier to be cutting, than investigating and adding. Edit wars? it takes more than one to make a war. Art and Science can be partners, and if one leads to the other then what is wrong with that? Often discovery follows imagination, and I suspect that is a concept difficult for the less-creative humans to grasp, so bring out the surgeons knife and get cutting. Fortunately the wiki has it's place; the greater web really is democatice, the bits I use are mostly protected from this pseudo science approach, reductionist as it is. Not necessary? I think we all could do well to take stock of reality; The entire wiki is un-necessary in the technical sense, we just want it, and thats not a bad thing. Collaboration is a fabulous opportunity here opened up by technology and imaginative application of intellectual property. Gifting is good. Surgical activity is great too - when its tempered with discipline and caring, healing and growth is the result.

Bulls in a china shop dont create any new china, they just create a mess that has to be surgically removed. How about use the existing framework to create an improved and enriched experience for the subject visitor, as a policy a lttle bit different to the common practice of 'if in doubt rip it out'

And for contrast, we have editors re-writing and replacing enntire pages with their own work; is that a collaborative approach? Who is correct? remove what you dont like invoking a said policy of less is better ( it has to be 'necessary' to survive), or making a massive page using a stated policy of more and better content is best.

The fantastic thing about all tis is that its quite amusing to watch human behaviour, lets pretend that there is no pov... Imagine, John Lennon got it right.

So anyway I'm suggesting that if you take this too seriously you need a life, there is in fact lots of outside this thing we all love with a passion. I think that there is room in here for everyone and everything, and maybe a bit more effort by the surgeons could create a more appropriate outcome for the benefit of the most number of users.

Here's an idea, before you cut, how about move the subject to its own page/s... ie grow the wiki? a little respect for the actual people that GIVE their copyright to the human race wouldnt go astray. If you had spent many hours in bitterly cold conditions creating an image for the world, then you would probably be entitled to a pov when the surgeons came along and it ended up on the cutting room floor.

How about a pause and consideration for the actual real people that love the particular subject, and make extraordinary efforts to contribute to it. Or possibly you could just go on believing that its yet another of the zillions of valueless web images that are un-necessary and smash them to pieces.

And for the record have any of the surgeons of this subject ever been on this mountain? this particular mountain has a lot more going for it than exists on wiki, but if you cut the contributions to shreds as they come in, the information is less likely to continue arriving.

One last plea for constructive application of your editing skills and time? please? ~~ moza


When I asked if they were necessary, I was talking about for this article. If Wikipedia is to be useful, then the content of the article must relate to the subject of the article. I'm not a surgeon, just a gardener doing some weeding.
I'm not a weed, I'm a plant fruiting edible food.moza 05:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images Validity

It might be of interest that the lead pic falls into the cat of not showing its source or ownership, and may be subject to the same kind of wiki surgery historic here, but not by me. I say this in passing, as i hav just had three such images stamped, and they are mine, from 30 years ago. I didnt put enough info on them when i uploaded them. So there is a cognitive dissonance in this behaviour here, how can you remove pics that you simply dont like, when you dont remove pics that havent got verification. I have posted a pic that was published by a 1 million visit a week enzed weather site, as one of the pic of the month, a year ago. Before you choose to cut it this time, you could delineate your reasoning here. That is my understanding of how this community could behave in the best interests of wikipedia as a whole.moza 05:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantham's Peak: Māori name?

Can anyone supply the Māori name of Fantham's Peak, please? Copey 2 14:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Panitahi according to A.B. Scanlan's book Egmont National Park. Moriori 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

In researching a response for wikipedia's place name conventions, I note that the official name is actually "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont"[1]. Given the preference for not using slashes in names, it would seem to make sense to move it. Any objections?--Limegreen 02:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously given the ugliness of that nomenclature, and the linguistic redundance in Mount Taranaki, it would probably be better if it followed the precedent of Aoraki/Mount Cook[2], and became Taranaki/Mount Egmont....--Limegreen 02:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that. Because no original research is allowed, it would be very difficult to dispel the "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" name. Yes, Linz itself perpetuates that botchup. I'd bet my left one that the minutes of the meeting where the name/s were chosen is the culprit. It was minuted as "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" but should have been "Mount Taranaki" or "Mount Egmont", as alternative usages. Your "Taranaki/Mount Egmont" suggestion makes sense. Moriori 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So wait, having given two opinions... you agree that the name should be the "or" version (because it's official), but that it would be better if it were Taranaki/Mount Egmont officially, because the "or" version is silly?--Limegreen 03:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You said it would "probably be better......Taranaki/Mount Egmont" and I replied that "I'll second that". I concluded by saying your "Taranaki/Mount Egmont suggestion makes sense". Are they the two opinions you mean? Moriori 09:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The reference to the mountain's name change says only that it took place in "the 1980s". Given the level of feeling over the issue, is it possible to add more detail on exactly when this took place, and at whose instigation? Grimhim 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, how does this get rid of the slashes? Anyway, the current title follows the official naming, and I don't see what benefits changing it would bring.--Efil's god 12:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you follow the link, you will discover that the current article title does not reflect the official name Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont (and would remove the slash).--Limegreen 00:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The official name has Mount applying to both Taranaki and Egmont. The slash means the two terms are interchangeable there. That's what I was getting at.--Efil's god 00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active or Dormant?

According to Volcano#Volcanic_activity, an active volcano has erupted in the last 10,000 years. That would make Mt Taranaki active rather than dormant. Am I justified in changing the article to active volcano? 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite so simple. It's an active volcano in a state of quiescence, says GNS Science, a New Zealand government-owned research organisation. [3] On the other hand, it's not currently active, but in a state of quiesence, says the NZ Journal of Geology and Geophysics [4] Maybe "Possibly active, but quiescent." Grimhim (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've updated the main page. I couldn't find the quote in your second link (the PDF) - what page is that on? Thanks peterl (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Strange. Maybe I picked up the wrong link. Here it is. [5] Grimhim (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks peterl (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)