Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Include mountain ranges?

Lately, I've been editing the categories for various mountain ranges (see Category:Mountain ranges of the United States and Category:Mountain ranges of Canada). As I edit these, it occurs to me that they should be part of the WikiProject, too -- they're clearly related to mountains, and there is no standard infobox or material for them. Should we include mountain ranges in the project and design a infobox? -- hike395 14:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. (I guess the same is true of mountain passes, but we can do ranges first) -- hike395
  • I agree that adding mountain ranges would be a logical fit. An infobox would work I think. A couple of extra fields that might be applicable are its parent range and highest peak/mountain. If we were to still include coordinates, it would need to be a range (no pun intended) of values. RedWolf 03:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you create one or adapt the existing infobox, don't hesitate to use it on Beartooth Mountains.--MONGO 19:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
How about (for Nevado Mismi, source of the Amazon):
{{coor dm|15|26.97±10|S|71|52.857±15|W|region:PE_type:peak}}=>15°26.97±10′S, 71°52.857±15′W
It actually work straight out of the box (in as much as coor just ignores it), try.
Alternately you you can add another template with the extra details, that "calls" the original coor template, but drops the extra details until some bot figures out how to use the extra info.
NevilleDNZ 12:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I like the fact that it works out of the box. I'm not sure how to get it to display the right scale, though, without the editor(s) doing a fair amount of calculation to get the scale: parameter. -- hike395 16:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lowest points?

The mountain box was added to Badwater -- under the rationale, I suppose, that it's interesting for similarly "elevationy" reasons. However, the word "range" seems like a distinct mismatch for the article. After scanning through this WikiProject I'm still unclear on whether:

  1. Badwater has any business having a mountain info box, and
  2. whether "Range" is an optional field.

(Or should I leave you folks alone and start the discussion over there? I'm torn as to whether this is a WP:Mountain problem, a Badwater problem, or a bit of both.) Sanguinity 00:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • If you look at the page history for the article, the comment was to the effect "better than nothing". The mountain infobox really wasn't intended for non-mountain articles although some of the fields are applicable to some geography based articles. What might be best is to copy the HTML from the templates directly to the article. The range is not an optional parameter. We had some discussion on this parameter pertaining to mountains that are not in a range, but for now, range is not optional. RedWolf 03:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've often thought that there should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography, with a corresponding infobox that is generic for any geographic point, then our infobox could be a modification of that generic infobox. What do others think? -- hike395 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is the better way to go in the long range. The Geography WikiProject has always been a parent of this one but I suspect no one has really taken it on yet because it would cover such a broad spectrum of child projects. RedWolf 02:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the help -- I used the HTML from the templates as you suggested, modifying categories as seemed to make sense. Sanguinity 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Category for 7,000 metre peaks

What do others think of adding a category (i.e. Category:Seven-thousanders) for 7,000 metre peaks, similar to what has been done for the eight-thousanders? There's probably several hundred in the world with all of them being in Asia but I would find it useful for easily finding them. An alternative would be a list but I think a category is warranted. RedWolf 02:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you also simply add an Altitude Category AND template to the mountain. eg {{Altitude:[[Category:altitude|{{{1}}}]]}}, or {{[[Category:mountain heights|{{{1}}}]]}} (kinda) this will automatically create a altitude index (indexed by the "7") , and you don't have to do any constant maintenance.
NevilleDNZ 03:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/General, where we are trying to integrate the UK hill infoboxes into the WikiProject. Interestingly, the UK hill participants came up with a row called "Listing", which describes on official list the hill resides. Can we do something similar for generic mountains, describing which Wiki list they reside on? -- hike395 03:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Check out section "7" of Category:Mountains by Elevation (km), to find "seven-thousanders". I have added: Pavonis Mons, North Col, Gauri Sankar, Tilicho Peak, Pumori, Melungtse, Baruntse, Chomolhari, Noshaq, Gangkhar Puensum, Kula Kangri, Changtse, Tirich Mir, Nuptse and Gyachung Kang. If you favourite 7000+ meter mountain already has a wiki, then you may need to "edit/add elevation=#/save" the page for it to be listed.

Andes (and others) still do be done.

¢ NevilleDNZ 03:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC) ¢

Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)_and_its_subcategories

I have been building this Category up with the help of a couple of others as these was no comprehensive list of mountains by height (yet). Could someone add feedback to Categories_for_deletion. maybe we can do the same thing automatically with a list, but I dont know how.

¢ NevilleDNZ 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢

  • Modifying one of the project templates without announcing your intent on one of the project's talk pages is not the best approach. Discussion should have taken place first before a new parameter was added. BTW, I think it was a bad choice to add a new parameter identical to an existing parameter except for first letter cap. This could be broken by a future version of the software which could treat them as the same parameter. RedWolf 15:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know what you are saying. On reflection I see what the British Hills info box did by setting two height paremeters height_m=1|height_ft=3. Adding the m/ft would have avoided the case sensitivity.
  • I guess my only defence is that I only changed to enough template to show the result as a kind of "proof of concept".
  • Depending on the outcome of the discussions I can (and will) revert the changes.
  • BTW: as a wonderful spin off from the discussion I have found an interesting mountain in NZ that I am certainly going to climb next time I am in NZ. I didn't even know it existed. Mount Tapuaenuku (no photo)
¢ NevilleDNZ 18:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC) ¢

Alaskan mountain page layout

I found this WikiProject from the random page function, where I landed on Mount Gilbert. I can't help but think that the layout is suboptimal. I was about to add a {{-}} template to break it up but then I noticed that the other Alaskan mountains are done similarly. Am I being pedantic? --Ciaran H 02:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • That mountain is using the old layout. The infoboxes for all mountains are being converted to using templates but this is a manual, gradual process. Feel free to assist in the conversion. You can study some examples (e.g. Mount Temple, Mount Baker, Lhotse) to get an idea of how the new templates work. RedWolf 00:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation. Sure, I'll help out. :D --Ciaran H 20:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Templates

What on earth is going on there? I've rolled back a whole bunch of changes, because we are trying to standardise infoboxes with an infobox class and convert them to Wikitax! I'm also finding it tough to see where this is being discussed (there is a comment in the edit summaries that it is being discussed, but nothing on any of the template talk pages) - I thought I'd ask what's going on here. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Linking to external sites

Several other sites, such as SummitPost.org or Peakware, have additional information on some of the mountains we have. Do we have a standard way of linking to such sites? Obviously we put it in the External Links portion of the page, but is there a standard for the text used for the link? If not, I would propose that we create one, and then update relevant pages. --Hkw2 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Informally, yes, there is a standard:
*[http://www.peakware.com/encyclopedia/peaks/montblanc.htm Mont Blanc on Peakware]
*[http://www.summitpost.org/show/mountain_link.pl/mountain_id/63 Mont Blanc on Summitpost]
*[http://www.peakfinder.com/peakfinder.asp?PeakName=Mount+Athabasca Mount Athabasca on Peakfinder]
hope this helps. -- hike395 06:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Template border trimming

The previous mountain infobox template had some trimming for the borders (external and internal) and it looked good. The current template unfortunately has lost it. I know there has been a lot of work involved in getting the standard template up and running and we all appreciate it, but how about adding the border back in. I was testing a few styles and have come up with this style. What do people think about this? There is also another style with a thicker border for the outside (check it out here) that I have played with and personally, I am not sure which is better. If it is agreed that a border should be added, then all the templates will have to be tweaked of course. How bout a vote? Nomadtales 23:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I liked the old trimming, and I like your new border. -- hike395 05:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I quite like the one on the right, not so hot on the other one though. Grinner
  • The darker lined border on the outside looks better, I agree. I'm not totally convinced yet of using it on the interior borders (perhaps it will grow on me). I say nay on the other one. RedWolf 05:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have moved the trial infobox, due to table html syntax not correctly showing on this page. The more popular slim border is here and the less popular thicker border is still here. Seeing as there no real objections, perhaps we should go and fix up the templates with the slim border? Nomadtales 03:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well there were no objections, so as you have probably noticed already I have tweaked the template(s). I like it, I hope everyone else does. Nomadtales 00:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I still don't really like all the inner borders. It also makes it inconsistent with the music album and taxo infoboxes. RedWolf 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm liking the changes: I think the new current version is good. Grinner 10:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, can someone please update Template:Infobox_british_hills_double, it should hae the same look as the generic table. Grinner 12:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Irish boxes should also have been changed however since only 8 hills used them in total I simply swapped them over to the generic format. They are now listed on templates for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion Grinner 09:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Peakware website re-design

Peakware have re-designed their website. The older links that exist on Wikipedia still seem to be supported but you are taken to a site change page first. If anyone comes across a Peakware link, update the link if it needs it. RedWolf 05:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Shared hill names

I've searched Wikipedia but there doesn't seem to be a general consensus (a fact I'm surprised about) on hills that shared names. Particularly in the UK there are several hills with brackets, High Street (Lake District) and Fairfield (Lake District) but some with a comma, High Raise, Langdale and High Seat, Yorkshire Dales. Can someone please tell me which one's right, because a lot of hill pages in the UK are going to need moving and that's going to take a lot of work. --Mark J 15:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think I can answer your question directly since I haven't worked on the UK hills articles but I can comment on the conventions I use for mountains. If the mountain is not part of an inhabited location (as is mostly the case) but there are multiple mountains by that name, I disambiguate by putting the political subdivision in parentheses. However, if the mountain is part of an inhabited location, then the comma format is used instead as this is the convention for such. RedWolf 04:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Himalaya

Category:Himalaya seems a little odd. It includes the country level categories for Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Tibet as subcats and its only parent is Category:Geography of Asia. Most of the articles are mountains in the Himalaya range. Mount Everest isn't even included (it's in Category:Mountains of Nepal and Category:Mountains of Tibet), nor is Himalayas. It seems like perhaps the Himalaya category belongs under the national mountain categories it cuts across. Anyways, I thought I'd point out the weirdness. Mike Dillon 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that odd, look at Category:Rocky Mountains, which is a trans-national mountain range. It is strange that Mount Everest is not in the category, though. -- hike395 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What about the national categories as subcategories. Should it be the other way around? It would be like having Category:United States and Category:Canada under Category:Rocky Mountains and Category:Canadian Rockies. Mike Dillon 04:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that does seem wrong. I'll attempt a fix. -- hike395 06:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Andes

Andes is a candidate on Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week. I have expanded it a bit, but it needs a lot more (Britannica/Encarta have a lot of pages for the Andes). Please vote or contribute to the article in any way you can. Thanks. Gflores Talk 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cascade volcanoes box

I've made a couple of prototype boxes for inclusion on pages for volcanoes of the Cascade Range, thus avoiding a long list of "See also" links and allowing readers to browse from one page to another. I've ordered the volcanoes from north to south. I've not included any of the volcanoes considered extinct, and I've not included any very minor volcanoes (e.g. small cinder cones associated with major volcanoes). I'd appreciate comments; they are at User:Gwimpey/Cascade_volcanoes. Please leave comments here or on my talk page. The image is a shrunk image from Mount Rainier. It's GFDL'd by the original photographer. Gwimpey 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Norwegian peaks over 2000 meters

I've created List of Norwegian peaks over 2000 meters, which makes a cutoff for topographical prominence of 50 meters, bringing the total to 186 out of 300 that have topographical prominence more than 10 meters. Please let me know what you think - also note that I included the coordinates for the peaks, so that people can take a look in satellite images. I also included "secondary factor," which is a measure of the horizontal distance between peaks. --Leifern 22:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Hey all. I've gone through the templates used now to create the mountain boxes and created a single template that combines all of the optional fields together in one template. This new template should be easier to use (for experienced and new editors alike), and also easier to maintain (fewer places vandalism can occur, easier to update style or layout all in one place, etc). I've created it in my userspace, but would like to propose copying it over the code currently at Template:Infobox Mountain (which is currently unused). You can see my proposed code at User:Locke Cole/Template:Infobox Mountain. You can see a sample of the template in action at User talk:Locke Cole/Template:Infobox Mountain. If there's no objection I'll copy the code over in a little bit, and see about moving some of the articles over to this new format. Also, if there's anything I've missed, now would be a good time to bring it up. =) Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Locke! I was hoping that an HTML expert would eventually unify the templates.
One row you missed is Template:Mtnbox topo. Another thing I don't know how to handle: some mountains use Template:coor dm, others may use Template:coor d.. should there be 3 separate arguments, only one being used?
Thanks again! -- hike395 08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. =) Just want to help make things easier on editors, heh. =) About Template:Mtnbox topo, I'm pretty sure I got it in there. Just to be absolutely clear, the code at Template:Infobox Mountain is not updated yet. I've left my template in userspace for now until I was sure nobody had any problems copying it over the code at Template:Infobox Mountain. If you want to see the template I've created, check out User:Locke Cole/Template:Infobox Mountain, and I've put two samples (including one that uses the topographic field) on the talk page (at User talk:Locke Cole/Template:Infobox Mountain).
Regarding the various coord templates, I opted to make it a single parameter in my new template. This way you just use Template:coor dm or Template:coor d depending on which is appropriate. (There were three seperate mtnbox templates before I think, and it didn't make sense to duplicate the work already done in Template:coor dm and Template:coor d). Let me know if maybe I'm misunderstanding something though (I'm not a mountain expert in the least, heh), or if you don't understand something, and I'll try to help. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood what the K2 example was showing, yes, you did get the topographic row.
One more question: It looks like the new infobox uses many meta-template calls. What about WP:AUM? Is that going to be a problem? -- hike395 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
No, WP:AUM is currently being rejected by the community (see the straw poll on the talk page, towards the bottom) and Brion VIBBER, the lead developer of MediaWiki (the software Wikipedia runs on) said the claims WP:AUM made were not backed up by any evidence he's seen. There are other methods of hiding data that don't use meta-templates (such as Wikipedia:HiddenStructure), however those introduce accessibility concerns (I've made a page explaining this with some images to compare; check out User:Locke Cole/Don't use hiddenStructure). You can see Brion VIBBER's comment at this diff– [1] —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm in favor of using the qif-based template. Shall we document it at the main WikiProject page? -- hike395 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, if you like I'll try and update the docs (or if you plan to, I'll worry about updating other things). =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hills

I would like to put foward here the nomination of the article Hill in the Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week and ask your support and help for the editing of Hill. --Francisco Valverde 17:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Miravalles

The article Miravalles has a WP Mountains infobox, but for some reason I can't fathom the Last erupted part doesn't redirect to Volcano as do the vast majority since that article was deleted last month. Anyone can work out why it is broken and fix it? I could probably manually change it, but it's probably better in the long run that whatever made it miss out being automatically changed or whatever was fixed correctly. Sfnhltb 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It didn't use the Mtnbox templates, now it does. -- hike395 21:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, will see if I can spread that to the other one or two broken in the area I found. -- Sfnhltb 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox II

With no objection in the discussion above, I've copied the code from User:Locke Cole/Template:Infobox Mountain into Template:Infobox Mountain (I've also copied the examples to Template talk:Infobox Mountain so you can see how it works). I'll be updating links to old templates to refer to the new (single) template. If you have any suggestions for documentation that should be updated, please let me know. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering if we can tweak the infobox so that all the coordinates appear in the space provided. For instance, in the article Granite Peak (Montana), the seconds don't appear for the longitude, nor does the direction from prime...any suggestions?--MONGO 02:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it...had it inserted wrong.--MONGO 02:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


WPCD

I have been struggling to work out which mountains to include on WPCD. If you could mark the most important ones with {{WPCD}} it would be appreciated --BozMo talk 10:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Landforms by country

Comments regarding a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) that would make "in country" the naming convention for Landform by country categories (such as mountains by country categories) would be very appreciated prior to a cfru. Kurieeto 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer review requested

I'm looking for constructive comments or helpful editors to help flesh out a new article I started, Mount Boucherie. I've done a bit of research at the library to get things started, but I'm not the best at coming up with the text. Thanks in advance to anyone with some time to spare! --Stephane Charette 07:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox for Mountain Passes?

Any interest? Nationalparks 05:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be cool. Do you want to make a first draft? Or should we just adapt the mountain infobox? hike395 23:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I could make a first draft, based on the current mountain box. Nationalparks 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Pass infobox

Usage is nearly identical to that of {{Infobox Mountain}}, though there are less fields (see the template page for more details).

Please add {{Mountain Pass}} to the talk page.

Samples: Trout Creek Pass, South Pass.

Help with infobox.

I've started writing a draft of an article on a hill. Right now, until I get done with research, it's on a user subpage.

I copied your infobox, and started filling in the information, and I'm having trouble getting it to work. Would someone please help me figure it out? Thanks. --ONUnicorn 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • What exactly are you having a problem with? I looked at the infobox and it looked okay to me. If you do not have a photo or do not know what to fill in for the other fields, just leave it blank. Blank fields will not be displayed. RedWolf 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone helped me already. I was having problems with the coordinates box, I had the coordiantes for it, but I didn't have the seconds, and {{{{7}}}}{{{{8}}}} kept appearing after the coordiantes and wouldn't go away. As for the photo, I'm planning on taking a hike sometime next weekend and taking a picture, so there will be one. Thanks! ONUnicorn 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Spacing in coordinates looks odd

I've been on Wikibreak for quite a while, and I just noticed that the spacing in the coor dms template looks quite strange. Does it bother anyone else? The coor dms template is protected, so I can't change it. hike395 23:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay to me (umm, at least in FF on windoze - there's a FF bug on the Mac which has always caused the coordinates to have extra spacing). Is it still happening? RedWolf 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)