Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Contents 1 Is the solution user javscript? 2 Good/featured article envy 3 New article Mount Tarumae, Hokkaido, Japan 4 4000 articles 5 Mount Thor 6 Image size in Infobox 7 TfD nomination of Template:Mountainindex 8 Ratings for Wikiproject mountains tags 9 References for geographical features 10 peak lists? 11 New image sizing parameter available in infobox mountain 12 New FA mountain article 13 Rating Mountains 14 Canadian Cascade volcanoes 15 WikiProject Mountains of the Alps 16 Mountain data 17 Naming debate at Sněžka-Śnieżka 18 One Mountain or Three? 19 Topozone 20 Dab-Class Mountain articles 21 Project Vermont - Category:Mountain ranges of Vermont 22 Naming conventions 23 Infobox Mountain template problem - parent peak 24 tierrawiki.org links 25 Reassessment of Hidaka Mountains

[edit] Is the solution user javscript?

As eminence can be computed simply from prominence and elevation, we can safely remove that column and people can calculate the eminence for themselves. If this is an inconvenience (as I'm sure it would be), with some very trivial changes to the pages, we could make it possible for logged-in users to generate this themselves using javascript in their monobook.js (or similar for other skins). As an example, I've knocked together a small hill list in my sandbox; the only unusual things about it are a few additional class attributes on the table headings.

By doing this, a user can create User:XXX/monobook.js with a few lines like:

importScript('User:Ras52/mountainlist.js'); 
mountainlist_display_eminence = true;

and suddenly an eminence column will appear. (See my monobook.js file for example.) You can also add the line

mountainlist_convert_metres_to_feet = true;

if you prefer working in feet to metres.

This works by loading a javascript library, User:Ras52/mountainlist.js from my user space which does all the work. Important note: whenever you add custom javascript in Wikipedia, you need to make sure you trust the source it came from, as it is easy to write javascript to do something malicious. Wikipedia protects you to some extent by only allowing me to edit mountainlist.js, but you still have to trust me not to do anything evil.

To make this work on some existing table, the following is needed:

1. add "mountainlist" to the table's class list (i.e. the bit on the {| line);
2. add "feet" or "metres" as applicable to the classes of any headings for columns containing values in feet or metres respectively; and
3. add "height" and "prominence" to the classes of the headings of the height and prominence columns, respectively.

Anyway, what do you think? A useful idea or an unnecessary gimmick? — ras52 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: this would get around the WP:NOR restriction, because a user would be manipulating the WP data by his/her choice, rather than it being part of the encyclopedia itself. So, "useful idea" says I. hike395 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting option, although only applicable to the very small percentage of readers who know how to do user javascript.

In any case I'd like to declare a consensus that the eminence info, as presented currently, is OR. However I would really like to hear from Buaidh on this; I don't want anyone feeling railroaded. -- Spireguy 03:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion above, all of us (Spireguy, ras52, Viewfinder, hike395) thought that eminence either is "probably" or "definitely" original research. I agree: we need to involve Buaidh. hike395 05:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave another note for Buaidh about this. I do want to start removing the eminence info, however, since it will eventually propagate outside WP. (I just saw a mention of it on the prominence yahoogroup, for example.) That's exactly what is not supposed to happen---a concept originating in Wikipedia. -- Spireguy 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! This is not good. Has Buaidh not responded to notes? Instead of waiting, should we just go ahead and yank eminence? hike395 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I just drop by once in a while and am not really a member of the project but here is my two cents anyway. We don't even have an article about eminence. It seems to me that the reason for this is that there just isn't much in the way of published sources for such an article. If eminence doesn't rate an article then why reference it in mountain articles. Its an interesting idea and all but maybe we could wait until the idea has more 'prominence' in the world outside Wikipedia. So my answer to hike395 is yes. DRoll 07:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the term "eminence" was coined by Buaidh. There are no published sources at all for the term or for the concept. That's why it's clearly OR. I agree with Hike395 that we should start editing it out. -- Spireguy 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed now most of the uses (all in peak list tables) that I could find. The summit eminence redirect page and a link from the eminence disambiguation page are the only two main-namespace references remaining of which I'm aware. — ras52 19:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good/featured article envy

So, I made a list of mountain articles that are good/features. I could only find those by looking at sister WikiProjects. Should we (collectively) spend some time bringing some mountain articles up to Good status? (I hope we can avoid a large evaluation effort by using other wikiprojects to find B-class mountain articles to improve). I was thinking that enlarging our set of Good articles would be more effective than trying to get a small handful to be FA. Thoughts? Does anyone else feel Good Article envy? :-) hike395 14:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help in bringing a mountain or 2 up to good/featured status. One to consider is Hesselberg, a featured article in de: which I've recently been helping out on proofreading the en: translation. The main problem would be getting the referencing right which would require a German speaker with the right set of books.

I should go to the library tomorrow and see if I can find any good books on specific mountains for some suggestions of ones to work on. JMiall₰ 15:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a book on Hekla so I will attempt to improve this article as much as I can, probably starting tomorrow. Anyone want to join in? JMiall₰ 15:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I'm doing a major re-write I'm keeping the working version here for now. JMiall₰ 14:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it. I've been neglecting my mountain articles lately. --Justin 15:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have created the Assessment infrastructure as used on other WikiProjects in assessing the quality and importance of articles. Refer to the Assessment subpage for details. I had begun adding the start parameter to the mountain template a while back but never got around to getting the infrastructure in place until now. We should probably do some coordinatation with Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes and perhaps defer assessments on volcanoes to that project rather than having what would no doubt be duplication of effort if we had our own separate assessment as well. The statistics are automatically updated by a bot every few days although it is possible to manually re-generate them (which I did for a starting point). RedWolf 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RedWolf: I had no idea how to do this. How were the Importances determined? Automatically? Or did you fill them in manually?

A suggestion of what to do next -- let's choose a handful of B-class articles and make them Good. Any suggestions? hike395 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't know exactly how to do it either but was able to find a good help page to get things going. There's also a tool you can run to create most of the categories automatically. As to the importance, they are not done automatically (except for the unknown when it has not been specified). I have been using a rather loose set of rules for determining importance at present but had planned to raise it formally. I'll write something up on this talk page when I have a bit more time. As to what to do next, I also was thinking that starting probably with some of the B articles and raising them to Good would probably a good next step. I was planning to assess a few more articles to get a bigger pool to choose from but of course, in the end we would want all B articles upgraded to Good (and beyond of course). Out of the current B articles, if I were to pick three they would be Himalayas, Mount Everest or K2; however others are also good candidates. I guess just that I would find these three a bit more of interest at present. RedWolf 04:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For various reasons, I'm on a wikibreak --- but I think the three articles you've picked are great places to start: Perhaps the next step is to make a to-do list at Himalayas ? hike395 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article Mount Tarumae, Hokkaido, Japan

I am new to Wikipedia but have created a stub on Mount Tarumae in Japan. It does not follow the project guidelines (yet) but I would like to link it into the project somehow - how do I go about doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunchan (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you already seem to have put templates on the talkpage of Mount Tarumae, how about putting Template:Infobox Mountain on the article as a next step? JMiall₰ 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have added an Infobox but the coordinates are really needed. Rated Mid-importance Stub. See the comments for improvement suggestions. RedWolf 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4000 articles

WikiProject Mountains/List of mountains has been updated. More than 4,000 articles are now using the Infobox Mountain. Congratulations!

This is slightly more than WikiProject Lakes (3,940 articles with infobox). - October 21, 2007 -- User:Docu

What about that {{Geobox Mountain}} horror? Circeus (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Thor

The page on Mount Thor has become, over time, an exact replica of the Answers.com article.[[User:Franky210|Turtopotamus]] 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• They are copying Wikipedia, not the other way around. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Answers.com. RedWolf 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image size in Infobox

I've just created a stub for the Balmhorn but the image is rather on the large size in the Infobox. Anyone care to tell me how to get it to the more reasonable size that it is on the German page [1]? Thanks. Ericoides 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• At present there is no option to specifically set the image size in the Infobox although the image syntax does support this feature. The German Infobox defaults the image size to 324x300. We should consider doing something similar. RedWolf (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that would be an excellent idea. Ericoides (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been having the same problem. The geobox mountain range feature offers a resizing option. I recommend that someone transplant that code into the mountain infobox template. It does nothing to diminish the template, and adds an important control, so I there is (argueably) no controversy in adding it in. ...I'd do it myself, but I'm not hip to how that works. Can someone tackle this?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • For those who didn't notice before, this is actually implemented now by User:Cireus. Alternatively I might propose this [[Image:{{{Img}}}|{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Landscape|}}}}}|yes|{{min|300|{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{{Img_size}}}}}|300|{{{Img_size}}}}}}}x200|{{min|220|{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{{Img_size}}}}}|300|{{{Img_size}}}}}}}}}px|{{{Img_capt|}}}]] piece of code, that will use different default-sizes for landscapes than for portraits images. It is taken from {{Infobox Musical artist}} --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I've resized the Balmhorn image as per User:Cireus but it now has, inevitably, more white space around it than is usual in infoboxes. Ericoides (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Mountainindex

Template:Mountainindex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Circeus (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings for Wikiproject mountains tags

Just wanted to throw out there something that came up for me recently. . .there seems to be a lot of subjectivity in how the quality and importance tags are applied to the Wikimountain project template (the one posted at the top of article discussion pages). I guess that's to be expected to a certain degree, as we all have opinions about quality & notability, yada yada. I guess I just wanted to say that it's probably a useful practice to do the following before applying tags:

• Don't just skim the article and carelessly drop a tag into it--read the article. Then, before you act, think about it.
• Read the criterion for tag ratings carefully before assuming how to best apply them.
• Be aware that opinions about what qualifies as a notable mountain vary--indeed, there isn't even a conscensus on what exactly is a mountain and what isn't a mountain. Even the USGS shies away from making that distinction. To a mountaineer familiar with the Himalaya, anything under 10,000 feet is probably a hill. However, someone living in a relatively flat area might call a rugged landform as high as a few hundred feet a mountain. One person's mountain is another person's hill. So, we should not impose our definitions onto others. As Wiki editors, it's our job to keep the NPOV with regard to having no bias (or as little as possible) when it comes to applying tags.
• Again, with regard to notability, consider other factors beside elevation and placement within a range. For instance, a low mountain with a significant religious importance would probably rate just as high (or higher) as a very high peak in Antarctica that's considered the pinnacle of mountain climbing achievement in the narrow realm of the mountaineering subculture. Remember: mountains mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Basically, they're landforms to which we attach a variety of significance to: recreational, religious, commercial, environmental, political, ecologic, geologic, cultural. . .etc. This project is WikiProject:Mountains, not WikiProject:Hiking or WikiProject:Mountaineering. Ours is a broad category that takes into consideration numerous factors of notability.
• If you have little familiarity with the region in question, and can't glean the importance of the peak by reading the article, don't slap an importance tag on it. Let someone familiar with the region evaluate it.

--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References for geographical features

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References for geographical features on the use of references for geographical information, for example with elevation data. Comments would be appreciated. --Para (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] peak lists?

Are peak lists considered valuable in mountain range articles? If so, what is the value -- IOW what goal should be in mind in compiling them?

I ask because I ran across the peak list for the Santa Monica Mountains. It contains one little-known peak not in the USGS list of place names, and another much better known peak also not in the USGS list. It omits several names (of type=summit) listed by the USGS. I know of at least a couple of non-USGS names which are very commonly used. The source is not cited and the contributor who added the list does not recall where it came from.

I found peak lists for the Great Smoky Mountains and the Blue Ridge Mountains. Neither has a citation.

I am willing to update the Santa Monica Mountains list but I think I should do this based on a goal or purpose, not just because I can throw together some data. (The old Data vs Information.) I'm thinking along the lines of adding a column to indicate when data are USGS-derived and citing sources, but that still begs the question of why the list is there at all.

Also, I could easily add coordinates for the USGS items -- but the ones which really need coordinates are the non-USGS names.

--Paleolith (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Many readers of wikipedia do consider peak lists (and all sorts of other lists) important, incomplete as they may be. A while back, I put one up for deletion. . .an act which was soundly (and reasonably, since I didn't know better) squashed. That said, the lists aren't necessarily all inclusive; its up to editors to make them as complete as possible. Probably the best course of action would be to make sure that readers know that it is a list of some or many of the peaks in such-and such range/place (see List of mountains in New Hampshire), that way the article doesn't give the impression that the list faithfully shows every peak.

• As for the United States Board on Geographic Names and its feature lookup, it's not 100% trustworthy. It bases much of its information on USGS maps as interpreted by data entry staff. The trouble here is that some peaks which have local notability don't end up listed on USGS maps while other peaks have more than one name (the USGS and USBGN may only list one). The USBGN does update their data base via public input and evidence, however, that doesn't happen overnight. Another related issue is that a named summit may be shown on the map as something other than the actual high point on a peak (because the lower summit is more visually prominant and associated with the name). In that case, if you want to know the actual elevation of the highest point on a particular mountain, be sure (!) to double check the USBGN with an actual USGS topographic map, as you may found (as have I), a number of inconsistancies. (See here for a good example; compare the USGS designation of the entire ridge as "Peak Mountain" with the USBGN which lists the prominant but lower southern ledge as the summit).

• As for citations, it's good to have them, but, as you know, there is a whole xxxload of articles on Wikipedia that don't cite sources. In good time (hopefully) the articles will be improved--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I know that not everything is cited, but if I'm going to add or fix something I may as well rpovide citations for what I add. So I can extend the table, cite what I add, but leave what's apparently correct locally without citation. Thanks again. --Paleolith (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you could find references for the uncited material and improve what is already there and add your own cited material. That would be the best practice, but of course it's your time & you're not getting paid for it :)--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'll add what I find. In fact, I have a book reference for the USGS-unknown peak that's currently in the list. What I meant to say was that I won't let the lack of citations in the existing material stop me from adding new material and retaining the old. --Paleolith (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New image sizing parameter available in infobox mountain

Step right up & be the first on your block to use the new image resizing option available for Template:Infobox Mountain. This new option is expressed by the line "| Photo size = x " where x= the width of the photo in pixels. The line has been included in the template description for easy cut and paste. If the line is excluded from the template, photo width defaults to 300px. Note, however, if the line is included with no parameter, the photo will not display.

This option is especially useful in working with vertical compositions, which tend to display too large at 300px, or lower quality images that may appear too grainy at 300px.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New FA mountain article

Metacomet Ridge has just joined the small list (6 total, I believe) of featured mountain articles.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rating Mountains

I surveyed your list of 'top' and 'high' class mountains. I suggest that Mt. Washington (New Hampshire), Mt. Mitchell (North Carolina), Clingsman Dome (Tennessee) and Baldy Mountain (Manitoba) all be moved from top to high catagories (and Baldy Mt., even lower). I don't think they meet the criteria to be top rated. They may be prominent locally, but not nationally or internationally. They certainly don't measure up to more well-known US Mountains currently in the 'high' catagory such as Pikes Peak, Mt. Rainer, Mt Shasta, Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea (which, I presume, will be rated as 'high').

I also suggest that you raise Mt. Vesuvius, the Eiger and Großglockner to the top catagory. Swlenz (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the criterion for rating mountains and you will see this: Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to several audiences —but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Also, Mount Mitchell is the highest point in the Appalachians, which according to the criterion, means that it should be "top" rated. But again, this isn't an international popularity contest, and I think that it's safe to say that it is hard to know just what is well known to someone on the other side of the globe.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, which I always find interesting, is the idea that prominent peaks on the western U.S. are often regarded as more notable than prominent peaks in the eastern U.S. (usually by people who live in the western U.S.) If you were survey folks in the northeast U.S. or adjacent Canada about which was more well known to them, Mount Washington or any of those mentioned: Pikes Peak, Mt. Rainer (yep, even this one), Mt Shasta, Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, etc. I think you'd get an interesting and eye-opening response. And keep in mind the the northeast U.S. and "mainstreet Canada" are no small population centers.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read your criteria which is why I made the comments I did. The one think you folks should be careful of is not including too many mountains in the top catagory otherwise you will get full of so many 'top' mountains that the truly top mountains aren't as prominent as they should be. (The play on words is intended, but also a useful analogy). I don't think it would be useful to have the highest mountain in each of the 50 states in the 'top' catagory. Yes, I grew up in the Western United States, but I went to school in the East. Always knew about Mt. Washington, mainly because of their weather station. Mt. Mitchell is forgetable. Neither of them is physically particularly prominent.

I'll admit I did a google search and "Mount Washington" was right up there with Mount Rainer and Mount Shasta, (in the 2,000,000 hit range) and all were behind Pike's Peak (3,500,000 hits). Mt. Mitchell was pretty low (100,000 hits), about the same as Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. But Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea are often in the news because of the active volcano and the observatory. They are also the biggest thing around for a long long way, and from their base, they are the tallest and biggest mountains in the world. But "Clingman's Dome", top-rated? 5000 hits. The Wikipedia write up are fairly reflective of the above.

As for the Eiger, that is one of the most famous mountains in the world (3,800,000 hits) and Vesuvius (2,000,000 hits) isn't far behind. Remember Pompei. The Großglockner (1,000,000) is the highest peak in Austria. And Austria is famous for its mountains. All three, buy any measure should be "top" mountains.

I think you need to re-examine your criteria carefully. If any mountains from the Appalachian range make it as top, it should be limited to Mt. Washington and Mt. Mitchell, and if you do that, you should also include Pike's Peak, Mt. Rainer, Mt. Shasta, Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea into the top criteria too. That is to go with Mt. Elbert (37,000 hits, highest peak in US Rockies), Mt Whitney (200,000 hits) Mt. McKinnley and the Grand Teton (1,700,000 hits). Can't think of any other US Mountains that should make the 'top' grade.Swlenz (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The Google stats are interesting, but Google hits are not considered criteria for notability/importance on Wikipedia (I believe you'll find and explanation in WP:Notability, but don't quote me on that). I don't think most editors want Google or any other internet search engine becoming the defining factor of notability for an encyclopedia. If you think about it, it makes sense; I could go deeper into it if you'd like, but a number of obvious reasons (some potentially alarming) will probably jump out at you if you give it some thought. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If none do jump out at you, let me know & I'll go there.

As for how many mountains make it to the "top" category, I don't see that as a big issue, unless Wikipedia is running short on hard drive space. Is there a reason why the top category should not have several thousand mountains in it? I can see an expansion of the ratings system to include a wider range; that would make sense.

Finally, you should not miss the point that importance is not rated on a global scale. Many people assume it is, but if you check out the criterion carefully (see my quote above), you'll see this is not so. This makes sense for a number of reasons. Take, for instance, the Western Ghats in India. Here you have a mountain range that, although not well known in Europe and the U.S., is located in one of the most populous places on earth. The city of Bombay is located at the foot of the Ghats. The range has a great deal of religious and cultural significance to an enormous number of people. It is among the most biodiverse areas on earth. But how many people know about it in the U.S.? The point is, as people who are living in North America, and within specific regions in North America, it becomes too easy for us to start rating importance from our biased regional perspectives--POV which has no place in an encyclopedic work. It's easy for me to think that just because I am educated (I have two degrees), that I have some idea of what might be important on the other side of the globe or continent, but it's a bad practice to get into, a pitfall of ignorance. By extension, this idea of regional bias can be carried to any number of other milieus, for instance, a particular DNA sequence might be of absolute critical importance to the study of cancer among physicians or the evolution of life to natural historians, but fall outside the radar of the general population. And yet, it is highly notable within those subject areas. A Wikiproject associated with DNA might rate those things quite highly, even though other DNA topics might have broader notability among the general public (and more Google hits). Again, this is not a popularity contest (or an internet popularity contest); this is an encyclopedia.

As far as Mount Mitchell, it is the highest point in the Appalachians. High points in major ranges are generally rated "top" or higher importance. Why is Mount Everest so important to human beings? Because it is the highest point on earth, and we human beings tend to attach an unusual significance to such measurements. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from discussion on my talk page) The more I think about this issue, the less it seems to really matter. I'm not sure that the importance tags are doing anything beneficial for the project--in fact, they may actually be hurting it. People are going to edit articles about mountains that mean something to them. ..most of us aren't going to read the importance tags (even if we go to the discussion page of the article at all) and make our editing choices based on them. And someone who creates an article about a mountain only to find someone has later labeled it as of "low" importance may be discouraged from contributing again. I'm settled. . .I'm settled. . .I !vote delete the entire "importance" rating system. The project is better off without it; many other successful Wiki projects don't have one and are no worse for wear. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Barbeau Peak? Should this be rated as top importance because it's the highest peak in eastern North America (if one defines North America as Canada and the United States) and of the Arctic Cordillera? Black Tusk 03:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to shun the practice of importance tagging, Black Tusk (see above for my reasons). If the tagging interests you, you may wish to check out the rating system & tag as seems reasonable to you based on what you read there. Best, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Cascade volcanoes

Obviously needs lots of work (e.x. Mount Garibaldi, Mount Cayley, Mount Meager, Mount Silverthrone). I have worked on geology and a lot of referening of these articles for quite a while but still need more info and detail other than geology (e.x. history, climbing, discovery, etc). Canadian Cascade volcanoes have produced major explosive eruptions and large landslides in the recent geological past, including The Barrier landslide in 1855-56, the major eruption of Mount Meager 2350 years ago, sending ash as far as Alberta. These observations are indications that Canada's major Cascade volcanoes are potentially active, and that their associated hazards may be significant. For this reason the Geological Survey of Canada are planning for developing hazard maps and emergency plains for Mount Cayley and Mount Meager volcanic complexes. They are closely related to the other Cascade volcanoes in the United States (i.e. Mount St. Helens, Mount Rainier, Mount Baker, etc).

In addition, volcanic disasters have occurred in Canada. During the 18th century, the Tseax River Cone eruption killed 2000 people. I'm asking for help from anyone willing to expend these articles into a GA and eventually an FA. Thanks. Black Tusk 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing good work, Blacktusk. As you are probably already realizing, things move a bit slowly in this project. You may also wish to leave messages at the Wikiproject for volcanoes, as well as the regional and provincial Wiki projects for those areas of Canada. Also, look to see if the articles are fully categorized (but don't over-cat). Catting increases the visibility of the articles. Another user recently did a good job of catting a series of mountain articles I was working on; see Metacomet Ridge and the category by the same name, and see how each mountain is distributed into town categories and other relevent categories as well. best of luck, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pgagnon999. I know things move a bit slowly in this project, but I thought the Canadian Cascade volcanoes are more less known than the American Cascade volcanoes. This is probably why the Canadian Cascade volcanoes arn't getting much attention like the other Cascade volcanoes. I left a message at the British Columbia project page as well. Black Tusk 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Best of luck with the Canadian Cascades.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Mountains of the Alps

I've created a descendant project to the WikiProject:Mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. Please feel free to join, and update and enlarge any article on Alpine mountains. Many of these are very sketchy and could do with some work. Ericoides (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone could edit the template so that the talk page is listed on the category page it would be appreciated. Ericoides (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain data

I've been working with the articles about mountains in Oregon and I've come across an issue I thought should be discussed here. I've been using coordinates from GNIS. I think that is Ok and is not in question. Other sources have become an issue however.

1. I've been using Peakbagger.com as a source from information concerning which range a mountain is in. People have claimed that it fails to conform to WP:RS and that the site is bogus. (see the discussion here)
2. We have no consistent authoritative source for elevations of mountains in the United States.

I have received advice that SummitPost.org, Peakbagger.com and NGS are frequently used. I personally have no problem with SummitPost or Peakbagger except that it is hard to defend them as authoritative. NGS is accepted as being very accurate although I have noticed that the data given is for bench marks that are seldom at the highest point on the mountain. This is clear from reading their data sheets. They are in the business of maintaining control points and not in the business of deternining the elevation of summits. I beleive this is why their data is often a few feet lower than other data such as that at GeoData Clearinghouse, Department of Geology, Portland State University that I have used for some data concerning Oregon Mountains. Another source is GNIS but their elevation data seems to be seldom used and elevations given are usually lower than that found at other sources. The good thing about GNIS is that data is given for almost every summit in the US, it is consistent and authoritative. It appears that sites like Peakbagger get there data from somewhere but I don't know where. It would be interesting to find out.

I have no strong feelings about what the consensus should be. I just feel that there really needs to be a consensus. If a wikipedian not familiar with the project questions why one elevation is given and not another there should be somewhere to point them. If I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill let me know. --DRoll (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't say peakbagger was bogus, I said the fact cited in peakbagger was bogus. Katr67 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See what I posted at Talk:Southern Oregon Coast Range#Change in elevation references. More specific responses here:

• I agree that Summitpost and Peakbagger are not authoritative. I tend to use Summitpost more as an external link (a very valuable one, often) and less as a reference. I use Peakbagger to find out info, and I have cited it, but I would prefer other sources over it. (As to where Greg Slayden gets the data, he says on his contact page that he added it by hand (presumably from maps) and also from GNIS, BGN databases.) I'll also mention www.peaklist.org, which mainly only has high-prominence peaks, but is very carefully researched. (Disclaimer:I have a connection to that site, but its current elevation research is not due to me.)
• NGS is quite authoritative for what it is, but as noted above, it's benchmark info, not summit info. Sometimes it's clear from the data sheet that the BM is the summit, and it can be used. This has been done for a number of the Colorado fourteeners.
• I'm not sure why the USGS topo maps, available on Topozone, are not mentioned above. That's where I most often cite summit elevation info for the US. Some summits do not have spot elevations, but when they do, it's a pretty reliable source, although not infallible. (But it's better than GNIS.)

I don't know how to distill all the different sources and levels of reliability into a consensus, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use GNIS for elevations. The USGS says

The elevation figures in the GNIS are not official and do not represent precisely measured or surveyed values. The data are extracted from digital elevation models of the National Elevation Dataset for the given coordinates and might differ from elevations cited in other sources, including those published on USGS topographic maps. Published map data represent precisely surveyed points that often are marked by a benchmark or triangle on the map and a benchmark seal physically anchored into the ground at the site.

The best data for elevations are indeed NGS --- the USGS topographic map data is often in the 1927 vertical datum, taken with old surveying technology. I believe that summitpost and peakbagger often (?) take their data from USGS maps.

Given that the USGS map data is out-of-date, for US peaks, I would recommend using the NGS data --- even if the benchmark is not at the very top, it is usually within a couple of feet, and the error induced by that is less than the USGS <-> NGS error. And the benchmark location is verifiable, at least.

I noticed that DRoll had reverted some of my Oregon NGS elevations --- can we revert them back?

What should we do about non-US peaks? Is there an up-to-date geodesic survey of Canada, for example?

hike395 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming debate at Sněžka-Śnieżka

Since it falls within the purview of this WikiProject, I thought I should advise of a new debate to move the article about Sněžka-Śnieżka. As participants in the associated project with the least interest in the specific political and cultural ramifications of this Czech/Polish mountain debate, but the greatest experience with worldwide naming conventions for mountains, your views would be especially welcome. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Mountain or Three?

Mount Yoko is a small mountain in the Hidaka Mountains of Hokkaido, Japan. It actually consists of three separate peaks:

• North Mount Yoko (Kitayokoyama)
• Mount Yok Middle Peak (Yokoyamanakadake)
• South Mount Yoko (Minamiyokoyama)

I am tryin to decide if I should make this a single article entry under Mount Yoko or should I make three articles, one for each peak?

The guide book I am using as a source though lists it as just Mount Yoko. This argues for a single article. The mountain(s) probably is not all that important either. The peaks are all around 700 m when the highest point in the range is just over 2000 m. Nor do I have much more information about the peaks other than coordinates, elevation, mountain type, and such.

However, I noticed that Mount Shasta and Shastina have separate articles, too. Granted these mountains are more significant, but it is a single massif in a way. In any case, the Geographical Survey Institute (the mapping agency for the government of Japan has named all three peaks. The do not name all peaks on their maps, so this indicates some significance. This is an argument for three separate articles.

I am interested to hear your opinions and suggestions.imars (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Google's contour map, I'd call it one mountain with 3 peaks along a summit ridge. Also, the names ("North", "Middle Peak", "South") aren't exactly claiming individual identities. Although the southeast one is somewhat separate, with about 60m of prominence. It might be worth a section of its own, if the article weren't so short.

—WWoods (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would create just one article for the highest peak and have redirects for the other peaks. Mount Everest has a south summit but it is not worthy of a separate article (unless perhaps some noteworthy event happens at that particular location on the mountain in the future). Many mountains around the world have subsidiary peaks and for the most part, do not warrant their own article. A redirect and some information on these peaks in the main article suffices in most instances, including this one. RedWolf (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topozone

Topozone.com was incorporated into Trails.com and now requires a subscription to access most of its content. Links still seem to work though. --DRoll (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Trails.com is less functional than Topozone was, unless you are paying for the service, but ACME mapper, also listed on Geohack, offers free functionality equal to Topozone. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S., you have to use the these Wikipedia templates for the lat/long format ACME is using. Be sure to retain the "-" symbol for the longitude: {{coord|00.0000|-00.0000|display=inline}} or {{coord|00.0000|-00.0000}}--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dab-Class Mountain articles

There appears to be some overlap between Category:Dab-Class Mountain articles and Category:Disambiguation lists of mountains. Is Category:Disambiguation lists of mountains really needed in view of Category:Dab-Class Mountain articles? GregManninLB (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good question but I think we still need both. The first category is populated when using {{Mountain}} while the second when using {{Mountainindex}}. The second category includes articles that need further work in disambiguating them properly while those in the first category do not usually fall into this scenario. Having two categories helps us to maintain a distinction between these two types of dab pages. This is an established convention for other article types that also need have this type of disambiguation (e.g. Category:Ship disambiguation). I will note that naming of Category:Disambiguation lists of mountains was based on the similar category for ships but it was renamed in November 2007 to Category:Ship disambiguation so it might make sense to also rename this mountains category to Category:Mountains disambiguation for consistency. RedWolf (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Vermont - Category:Mountain ranges of Vermont

Shouldn't this category be one of Project Mountains' descendant projects? PetersentPetersent (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, other WikiProjects dealing with mountains and mountain ranges would be descendants but categories are not WikiProjects. A WikiProject typically organizes the articles of interest into one or more categories. RedWolf (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

It appears that we have never really discussed naming conventions at it pertains to the translation of non-English peak names when an article is created for them on the English Wikipedia. I recall it coming up in an indirect way in various discussions in the past but nothing concrete has been formalized. The policy is to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) where it states that the English translation should typically be used for the article name unless the non-English one has seen acceptance by English speakers (e.g. Mont Blanc). However, I am not proposing that we take the literal English translation of mountain/peak names but rather we should standardize on the use of "Mount", "Peak" and "Volcano" when used in the article name rather than using the non-English equivalent (unless again the non-English name is prevalent in English usage such as Mont Blanc). I see inconsistencies in article names where sometimes "Pico" or "Monte/Mont" is used rather than "Peak" or "Mount" as is what the policy is suggesting (or at least my interpretation). I see other language wikis translating "Mount" and "Peak" to their local equivalents in most cases, although there are inconsistencies.

So, I propose that we establish the convention of using "Mount", "Peak" or "Volcano" (any others?) when translating non-English peak names, with notable exceptions as alluded to above. If one is in doubt of whether the translation should take effect, they could post to a new sub-page dealing with naming decisions. The native name would of course still be mentioned in the opening paragraph. RedWolf (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, we just had a similar discussion over on WikiProject Japan. The discussion [2] also referenced this disucssion in our manual of style [3]. Basically, it agrees with your premise. To add to your convention, I have used "Summit" in article titles before when I felt it more appropriate. imars (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Mountain template problem - parent peak

Hallo, I've just added the infobox template to Fountains Fell, copying it from Template:Infobox_mountain, and found that although I'd added the "parent peak" it wasn't appearing on screen. After comparing to another page which used the template, I removed the "_" in the field name "Parent_peak", and it worked. So the version of the template which is displayed at Template:Infobox_mountain doesn't seem to correspond with what currently works. Has it been changed at some point? Are there articles out there whose parent peak has disappeared from the display? PamD (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The documentation was not in sync with the implementation. The actual parameter name is "Parent peak". I have fixed the documentation. RedWolf (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. PamD (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tierrawiki.org links

Reference: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Tierrawiki.org

We got a complaint about tierrawiki spam. I dug around and found 38 links, most of them added in 2006 and 2007 by 3 single purpose accounts. http://www.tierrawiki.org now redirects to http://www.trailguru.com.

Before I start removing a lot of these links, are they useful to this WikiProject and its editors?

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally have not found the links much use. I checked some of the links and the site only has the most basic info such as coordinates, location and elevation so does not add any value in that regard. There are a number of trip reports which some might find useful though, so I consider that a plus. However, if one did a google search, I'm sure one could easily find the trip reports that way. I guess, in the end, I would not have much of a problem if they remained or were removed. The site is of marginal use at this point but I don't think I would consider the links spam at this point although the change from a .org to a .com domain might be considered a change for the worse in some circles. RedWolf (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment of Hidaka Mountains

Can I request a peer review of Hidaka Mountains? I have put some effort into expanding the article, which is currently rated as a stub. I have added articles for 60 mountains or so in the range. I am currently trying to expand the related towns, rivers, and passes.imars (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have upgraded it to Start class. Please see the comments link on the talk page for my assessment comments. RedWolf (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)