Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 10

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 5

←

Archive 8

Enhancement of "Infobox hut" template to get data from Wikidata

I'd like to update the Template:Infobox hut to get some data from Wikidata in case no local value is provided. Is there anything I need to consider before doing this? Let me know in the talk section of the template. Thanks! --Tkarcher (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Some people might object on the grounds that errors on Wikidata are common & hard to fix. Emphasis on "might". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

AFD notification

I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill, which is a multi-article nomination that includes Kānuka Hills and Tawhai Hill.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong image in article?

Please see Talk:Mount Hope (Eternity Range)#Image is wrong for a claim that the article is showing the wrong image. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge

There is a proposal to merge Vertical metre into Metres above sea level. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Metres above sea level#Vertical metre merge. —hike395 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Prominence/Isolation parents

Would it be a good idea to include the prominence and/or isolation parents of mountains in lists where the prominence and/or isolation are given? Fridge Leprechaun (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't find prominence parent a particularly useful or important fact (because it has to be a more prominent mountain rather than simply the next higher mountain, it can be some way away) - I feel it appeals to a specialist audience only - arguably more useful is the key col itself but these are rarely listed. Prominence doesn't need the the prominence parent to be useful. Isolation parent is more understandable and useful but not essential. More useful to add the prominence and isolation to lists that don't have them.Marqaz (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There is already a parameter for 'parent peak', which I assume is the isolation parent, but am not sure. There isn't a parameter for the key col which, I agree, is worth listing. There are ways round this; for example, see Acherkogel where the parent peak and key col are indicated rather neatly by arrows which help to make the meaning clear. However, they have to be entered manually; on German Wikipedia, the template does this automatically if the data are available. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting Article Importance

I am considering reviewing the importance of the top and high importance articles in Project Mountains . The primary criteria that seems to have been used is country high points, and then quite a number of volcanoes. This throws up some strange anomalies. For example, Town hill, Bermuda (79m high) is currently seen as more important a mountain than Mount Robson, high point of the Canadian Rockies at 3954m. There are also some significant omissions from top or high ratings - the Dolomites are not even rated. I will try to apply reasonably objective criteria as follows:

Top importance

Major peaks - typically the highest of their range/sub range, or generally high or prominent in their continent.
Otherwise highly notable or renown peaks (internationally) for climbing, cultural or historic reasons (Eiger, mount Kailash)
Ranges - major ranges of the world - smaller ranges only included when particularly noteworthy and parent not included.

Without setting hard limits I am thinking around 10-20 peaks from the main continents, a few more from Asia. Would like to bring the number down, ideally under 200.

High importance (probably roughly twice as many)

Country high points not listed above that are proper mountains (roughly at least 1000m high,300m prominence)
High points of lesser ranges, additional major summits of major ranges.
Other peaks notable for climbing, cultural or historic reasons (e.g. Piz Badile) for a more specialised / regional audience.

This should help focus priorities and give a clearer state of where we are. Any coments welcomed before I embark on this. Marqaz (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In my purely personal opinion, this distinction isn't really important to anything. I generally agree with the school of thought that for Wikipedia it's actually the little known things that are important, since the major ones are likely better known from other sources. And even if that isn't the case, the "importance" rating has little relevance to any editor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Still keen to proceed with this as classifying articles correctly is a foundation for efficient project work. If articles are to be classified by importance that should be reasonably robust and sensible. Table below shows proposed revision of table on assessment pages (notably changing important of country summits).Marqaz (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Since we have importance ratings, it makes sense to have some criteria for ranking articles by importance, not least for consistency. Your criteria seem a good starter for ten and, unless you get any major objections (with alternative proposals), I'd be bold and add them to the project page. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that the importance ratings could be simply removed. I certainly don't use them for anything, and their original purpose (which was to select a set of articles for a CD edition of Wikipedia) is long obsolete as nowadays people are far more likely to use other means to access our material. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Status	Template	Meaning of Status
Top	{{Top-importance}}	This article is of the utmost importance to this project. Globally important mountains such as the highest peaks of major ranges, or generally high or prominent in their continent (so all of the Seven Summits or Seven Second Summits) or otherwise internationally notable or renown peaks for climbing, cultural or historic reasons. Major ranges of the world (sub ranges only included when particularly noteworthy and usually only if parent is not included).
High	{{High-importance}}	This article is fairly important to this project. Mountains which are the high points of lesser ranges; additional major summits of major ranges or geographic areas; country high points (not listed as Top importance but that are proper mountains (roughly at least 1000m high,300m prominence)); other peaks notable for climbing, cultural or historic reasons for a more specialized or regional audience. Significant mountain ranges, sub ranges of major world ranges.
Mid	{{Mid-importance}}	This article is relatively important to this project. Significant peaks in a mountain range generally fall into this class.
Low	{{Low-importance}}	The mountain/peak is typically not well known even to most mountaineers and has no significant elevation within its mountain range (if contained in such).
NA	{{NA-importance}}	This article has no importance (as it pertains to article improvement) and is typically used for categories and disambiguation pages.
None	None	This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

@Marqaz: I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus that very few (or no) editors look at these importance levels to decide what to work on. You can change them, if you wish, but I would suggest that maybe you should spend the same hours improving articles themselves. —hike395 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. Taking a synthesis I will be bold, but not spend too much time on revising ratings.Marqaz (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors might be interested to see a discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nix Olympica

FYI, there's a deletion process tag at wikt:Nix Olympica on Wiktionary. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

How to handle multiple peaks?

I'm working on Meru Peak. It seems that mostly it is conceived of as one mountain, with three peaks. Inconveniently, the third-highest peak ("Meru Central") is of most interest to mountaineers, as it's the highest.

How should I handle this? It seems a bit much to have a separate article for each peak. Yet if there is just one article for the whole mountain, then many of the fields of the infobox don't quite fit ("first ascent" etc) because they would all be about the highest peak (I presume).

Suggestions for models to follow? (Please consider pinging my on my talk page so I see the reply.) Stevage 06:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: List of mountains in the British Isles by prominence

Well, currently this article is at List of P600 mountains in the British Isles, moved from List of mountains in the British Isles by relative height. I suggested it would be better titled with the "prominence" term, but user:Britishfinance has replaced it (apparently) with a copy of a list by Alan Dawson, including some cryptic terminology (such as "P600", various height classes, and alphanumeric "region codes"). Of course, the actual list of mountains should be the same, but I think the previous version was more readable; and I do not think WP should be made up from copies of other people's work. Please join the discussion on the talk page. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

List of mountain peaks of Utah

After changes by An Errant Knight this page is broken due to the template include size being exceeded (scroll to the bottom and see the lack of references or navboxes). Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem existed prior to any changes by this editor (and has since the edit by Buaidh on 14 June 2016). The issue was observed, but without a clear idea of how to and/or the best way to correct the matter, not attempt was made to "fix" it. An Errant Knight (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. it looks like List of mountain peaks of Colorado has the same problem. perhaps the only solution is to split the page into subpages? Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what change has caused the Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded problem to arise. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 15:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems the recent changes to Template:Coord are causing the problem. I don't understand why unused parameters are a problem for the template and why the changes were made. Buaidh talk contribs 16:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Buaidh, removed but both articles are still broken :( Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

if you look at the page source for List of mountain peaks of Utah most of the processing time is spent in Template:Cmt. rewriting {{cmt}} and {{epi}} in LUA could fix the problem. I will take a look tomorrow. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You may already be aware, but each article has a limited number of templates that can run. (This includes all templates and each instance of any template counts.) Once the limit is exceeded, the page stops working the way it should. The only two solutions are to not use some of the templates in the article (i.e., removed the least beneficial ones) or divide the article. Ran into this issue before and had to remove many of the "cool", but not really essential templates to keep the article functioning. An Errant Knight (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As an experiment I set |nor=1 for all 150 {{cmt}} templates which reduced post-expand include size to 1,810,420/2,097,152 bytes. But, because {{cmt}} uses {{#tag:ref}} parser functions, the WikiMedia bug described at phabricator T205803 is revealed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I frequently use a date=14 October 2018 timestamp to mark the vintage of technical data which may later be replaced by more accurate data. It seems silly to generate a error whenever an unused parameter is used. I suppose we could add a date parameter to Template:Coord. Buaidh talk contribs 02:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I have located the Template:Cmt problem. If the Template:Cmt invocation for a peak is altered in one table of a page, it must be indentically altered in the other tables on the page or an inconsistant reference error is generated. This can mushroom into other problems. Buaidh talk contribs 03:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Buaidh, An Errant Knight, and Trappist the monk: the duplicate reference bug is T205803 (as noted by Trappist the monk) and there is nothing tracking unknown parameters for {{cmt}} or {{epi}}. however, after rewriting these templates using Lua, there are no longer any expansion size or duplicate reference errors in List of mountain peaks of Colorado or List of mountain peaks of Utah. I have saved the old version of these templates in the respective sandboxes for comparison in the testcases. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of an Argentine speleology source at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of an Argentine speleology publication from Carlos Benedetto of the Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones Espeleológicas (IN.A.E.) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Argentine speleology source. — Newslinger talk 09:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on informational value of Big Slide Mountain

I've started a discussion at Talk:Big Slide Mountain#Does this article provide enough informational value?. It's a short mountain index article. Feel free to participate! —hike395 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Notification of RFC of stub articles about Norwegian mountain

I would like to inform you that an an RFC has been opened to discuss what should be done with the stubs of Norwegian mountains. If any interested editors would like to chime in, please make your way to the RFC now. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The RFC has been archived @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography/Archive_7#RFC_for_stub_mountain_articles RedWolf (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Payún Matrú for Featured Article-hood

Greetings, I have nominated Payún Matrú for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Peakfinder site changes in 2019

As noted on Peakfinder's main page, the site is undergoing an extensive update. The existing template {{cite peakfinder}} no longer works correctly and displays a PHP "NotFoundHttpException" error. It appears they have decided to go with an ID based system and the site is divided into peaks, passes, ranges and people areas denoted by the subject being part of the URL. So for example:

"The Three Sisters" in Kananaskis has a peak ID of 1393 and the URL http://www.peakfinder.com/peaks/1393.
The Ball Range has a range ID of 1 and the URL http://www.peakfinder.com/ranges/1
Abbot Pass has a pass ID of 53 and the URL http://www.peakfinder.com/passes/53
Samuel Allen has a people ID Of 2 and the URL http://www.peakfinder.com/people/2

There's a number of ways we could code the template parameters to fit the new design. A couple off the top:

Specify separate parameters for the subject and ID. For example, "subject=peaks" and "id=1393" or "subject=passes" and "id=53".
Specify one parameter for the subject and ID. For example, "peak-id=1393" or "pass-id=53" or "range-id=1" or "people-id=2".

I'd probably vote #2 as it probably would be less prone to user error but feel free to suggest other alternatives. RedWolf (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think #2 is ok, although I note that the vast majority of uses of {{cite peakbagger}} are for peaks. Should we just use id=XXXX and assume subject=peaks unless it's overridden? —hike395 (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I would also like to make access-date interchangeable with accessdate for consistency with {{cite web}}. RedWolf (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made a first cut at the revised template {{Cite peakfinder/sandbox}} with updated test cases at {{Cite peakfinder/testcases}}.

The one tricky part has to do with the unnamed parameters and a desire to make the template more consistent with {{cite bivouac}} and {{cite peakbagger}} which already have "id" parameters although peakbagger doesn't support unnamed parameters. Inserting the "id" as the first unnamed parameter will mean that existing uses will put the access-date instead of the name as the subject of the generated URL. A check on the template transclusion count for {{cite peakfinder}} shows just 202 uses but that doesn't break it down into using named vs unnamed parameters. Nevertheless, since we will have to visit all the uses in order to add the id either as unnamed or named, making "id" consistent is some minor one-time conversion pain.
I'm not too fond of passing the subject parameter which directly builds the URL. I would rather make it more fixed values that could be verified and then massaged to the correct current values. So for example, instead of setting "subject=passes" instead the caller would use "subject=pass" and the template could verify the value and then map it to "passes" when it builds the URL. In that way, if peakfinder decides to change this part of the URL, we simply need to change the template and not all the uses of it. However, I am not a fan of the existing template syntax (non-LUA) for doing logic decisions, so if we want to do this, someone else will have to dive in on adding that.
Finally, I added an "access-date" synonym for "accessdate" as I noted in my first post. RedWolf (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I will copy the sandbox changes to the live template sometime later this week unless there are issues identified with the sandbox changes I have made. Thanks. RedWolf (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox copied to live template. RedWolf (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

CGNDB name searches broken

As of a week ago whenever I try to search by name, it never finds anything. I've tried in FF and Safari with the same results. Existing links in articles still work though. Anyone else have this problem or just me? RedWolf (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait, the article links are broken as well now. I think they were still working last week. The modification dates on the search pages are still from 2016 and I don't see any news items about changes. RedWolf (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@RedWolf: Indeed, gc.ca seems to have substantially changed. One possible fix for {{cite cgndb}} is to link to geogratis.gc.ca --- for example, Back River (Nunavut) should maybe link to [1]. But it looks really ugly and is not as functional as it used to be. Should we wait for things to get better, or should we fix the broken links now? —hike395 (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hike395: Both the name and key id searches are not working so one possibility is there is an internal error happening which simply gets mapped to a not found result. There is also a "Province/Territory" list box on the name search which is empty for me which also seems to point to an internal website issue (database errors?). The website also describes an API which might be what NRC would prefer external sites to be using. However, I tried the API a few times and while it seems to work, the output is pretty dismal and I did not hit upon how to get the topo map graphic you get when you use the name/key searches. I'll email them and see if they are aware of the issue. For now, I would just leave the broken links be until I get a response from them. RedWolf (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hike395: Ok, looks like it's fixed now. I sent an email several days ago but didn't get a response but maybe it prompted someone to take a look at it. RedWolf (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I got an email reply on Sept 11 and they confirmed that the "CGNDB search tool was indeed off-line for a number of days. It is now operating normally." RedWolf (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for input on a featured article nomination

Greetings, I have nominated Coropuna for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Category renaming discussion: Sierra Pelona Mountains -> Sierra Pelona Ridge

FYI: there is a category renaming discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_1#Category:Sierra_Pelona_Mountains for renaming of Category:Sierra Pelona Mountains to Category:Sierra Pelona Ridge to match the name which is actually supported by its USGS GNIS source. The category's main article was already renamed for the same correction to align with the name supported by its source. Ikluft (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As obvious as it sounds that it should use the name supported by its source, the renaming will only happen if at least a few shows of support are added to the CfD discussion. This is not expected to be controversial but still needs to meet the minimum bar of having had a discussion. Ikluft (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Done Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Mountains

Proposal to delete all portals

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162#Proposal to delete Portal space. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Mount Lyell - Feedback requested on the text-over-image photo

Last month, over at the Teahouse, there was an interesting discussion about Mount Lyell (Canada) and the use of mountain images containing text, and which then expanded into other aspects of mountain articles. I am pasting the discussion in here, as I feel it might be of interest to Project members, who might wish to add their own thoughts. Feel free to add any observations below.
(Attribution of text is to to various editors at the Teahouse.) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm adding the new, updated version of the text-over-image photo at right (lower), as I tried to correct some of the deficiencies raised by Nick and others, as well as better identifying the individual subpeaks by the 'L-number' which was the sole identifier from 1858-1972 and is still used in most references (in addition to their 1972 name). The initial problem I was trying to solve with this image was that Walter Peak (L4) was defined on WP as a mountain when pretty well all references to it (plus the UIAA definition) referred to it as a 'subpeak', in fact the 4th highest of 5 subpeaks on Mount Lyell (Canada). They're sometimes referred to as 'summits' and 'peaks' as well, but to my knowledge never as 'mountains', except here on WP and then only for L4 (Walter Peak). And Google Earth has L4 as a major mountain with a major mountain photo which is NOT L4 (they now have 2 photos up), while parent Mt. Lyell isn't even on Google Earth (except as a Search term which points incorrectly to L4). The peaks were named North-to-South but it's difficult to tell which way North is in a photo and L1 to L3 run much more closely to East/West. BrettA343 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Can someone with more experience provide Feedback on the text-over-image photo at top left of Mount Lyell (Canada) and its use in 3 other pages, like at the bottom of Walter Peak (Canada). There's confusion over Walter Peak especially - Google Earth has it as a major peak (it's on their site even if you go up 200 Kms) while the much larger and somewhat higher Mount Lyell isn't even noted (a search actually points to Walter Peak). I'm asking because it's my first attempt at something that isn't straight photo or straight text (I'd be willing to try again if it's deemed substandard... I'm used to Photoshop and could do a better job of it - this is done with the GIMP which is the only thing I have now). TIA. BrettA343 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343. I think your placement of the image in Mount Lyell (Canada) is not really a good idea per MOS:SANDWICH; so, perhaps it would be better to move it somewhere else. However, that's not the only thing I noticed. The file also seems to be basically the same the main infobox image; so, I'm not sure how relevant it is encyclopedically to the reader. One thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it's read by all kinds of people from all over the world, including those whose might be using devices other than computers or might even be visually impaired in some way. This is one reason why there are things like MOS:ACCIM and WP:TEXTASIMAGES. There seems to be information about the different peaks in the article which is supported by citations to sources; so, I'm not sure why another image is need for that. Moreover, your image could be considered to be a sort of image original research since there's nothing to verify your addition of the text to the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, Marchjuly... Let me take this one at a time, because your response surprised me (I was only expecting problems with the quality of the image). The [[:MOS:SANDWICH}} issue says "most images" and sure enough, most are to the right. I suggest that an exception here is warranted because there's related text right next to it but someone new to this mountain will benefit from a visual clue (a pic is worth a thousand words and all that). And as I said, there's gross confusion about these peaks, partly because WP has been calling Walter Peak a 'mountain' and anyone who reads the references knows it's thought of as a mere subpeak (Mt. Lyell is the mountain, here.) And without clicking on the Info box image, it's difficult to tell whether the peaks are 1 through 5, r-l of l-r as they are numbered N to S in actuality. Also, lots of articles have left-placed photos.

Re the MOS:ACCIM and WP:TEXTASIMAGES, I guess I see this image as an additional visual clue, to save sighted users time and ambiguity about these peaks (again, a pic is worth a thousand words). As far as original research and verifying, if you read the references closely enough, you can likely come to the same conclusion but I see this as a timesaver. Also, many books use this technique where there are multiple peaks in an image and it's difficult to describe which is which. Anyway, I just wanted to get my ideas out, but if you read this and still disagree, I'll move it or delete it - your choice (I would like to keep it for a couple of weeks until I can get Google Earth to fix their end, but I won't push). BrettA343 (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the file with the additional text cannot replace the one in the main infobox? It seems to provide the same information as the one currently being used there and the captions for both files seem to be quite similar and using one image would resolve the sandwiching problem.

As for "original research", it's not really our role as Wikipedia editors to interpret reliable sources for others as explained in WP:SYN; so, if the peaks are laid out and clearly described in the cited source(s) using that particular image as you've done, then that's OK to reflect in the article and perhaps in the image; otherwise, at least in my opinion, you need to be careful here and not try to assume how other are going understand or interpret sources.

Finally, as for there being "gross confusion" about these peaks possibly due to what's written about them on Wikipedia, that's unfortunate and the Wikipedia articles should only be reflecting what reliable sources are saying about them per WP:RSCONTEXT; if reliable sources are calling them "subpeaks" then that's what the articles should reflect. At the same time, if reliable sources aren't in agreement as to whether they're "mountains" or "subpeaks", then perhaps that properly cited content about that disagreement should be added to the articles;t Wikipedia, however, shouldn't be taking sides and used (even unintentionally) in an attempt to try and resolve such problems as explained in WP:RGW. Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source for any purpose as explained in WP:WPNOTRS and shouldn't be written to be treated as one even though I do understand that many people out in the world often see it as one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing you might try doing (if you already haven't) is asking about this type of thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains since that's where you're liking going to find other editors who share you interest in this subject matter and have experience working with articles related to mountains, etc. It's possible that what you've done or what you're describing in your posts are things which have been tried by others or which have been discussed before. Asking for help at a relevant WikiProject can often get you more specific feedback than you'll get at the Teahouse since Teahouse hosts might not be very familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Marchjuly, there's a number of reasons why I wouldn't use the file with text in the infobox: 1. It doesn't take in much more than the subpeaks and a bit of the glacier while the Mt. Lyell massif is so much more. 2. I disagree that the captions are similar for the main reason that the existing infobox photo also has 5 Columbia Icefield area mountains (and I recall one moderator - or whatever you're called - saying that identification of other features was a good thing for WP). 3. As a photographer, while the zoomed in text-image serves its purpose of identifying the subpeaks, it doesn't do as well to represent 'Mt. Lyell', and it's not (subjectively to me) as pleasing a composition as the current infobox image. 4. I don't think text markup has a place in an infobox image that will pop up in all sorts of external links; i.e. for people who know the mountain, it's rather redundant to see on every mouse-over. 5. I asked a mountaineering friend whom whom I did the Lyells if he thought that image was useful to people who don't know the mountain, redundant with the text or something else, and he thought it was useful (and he's already run into the Google Earth problem re Mt. Lyell and Walter Peak). No, I'll remove the text image, but I won't use it in the infobox (but now that I've given away rights, I guess you could ;-).

I'm not sure I get what you're saying with the 'original research' issue. Most sources clearly identify all 5 and mention that they were named from N to S, but when looking at them in a photo, it's difficult to tell which is N and which is S (I just want to clear that up).

I agree it's unfortunate, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google Earth (GE) used WP as a verification (and the problem is compounded with a GE photo of some humongous mountain mountain captioned 'Walter Peak'. I've seen them called 'summits', 'peaks' and most often 'subpeaks' (always 'of Mount Lyell'), but WP is the only place I've seen or heard them called 'mountains' (and then, only Walter Peak'. So I'm not taking sides, I'm using what the sources say or imply - it's whomever updated Walter Peak who 'took sides', IMO.

OK, I'll try the mountain project, but I don't want to beat this thing to death... If I can't get it resolved soon, I'll just delete the text-photo (I might wait a week to see if GE can be brought on board to correct their images (of mine, BTW) to go with the right mountain, if that's all right (I'll write GE today). BrettA343 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If it makes you feel more comfortable, Marchjuly, I asked my two regular mountaineering partners the same question as noted above about the text-over-image photo being 'useful', 'redundant' or 'something else', and they were both positive about it, as well. And re joining the Mountains Project, do I just edit the members list and add my name? I did a Find on 'join' in that page and none of the 4 hits were links to join (or is Nick Moyes a better person to ask? Also, I have got a related post into Google Maps, so I hope that clears their end up (I could elaborate if you want, although I've done a bit of that above). BrettA343 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You asked for feedback on the image and that's all I gave as part of my being WP:HERE. You don't need to make me feel comfortable or get my OK on this; you only need to edit in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're satisfied that you are and (more importantly) that the consensus of other members of the Wikipedia community is that you are, then that's all that matters. If anyone (myself included) disagrees with either assessment, then they can challenge it per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. One thing I would suggest, though, is that you should be careful with trying to solicit advice from those who don't participate in Wikipedia (or those who are not really familiar with editing) when it comes to things Wikipedia. Many persons may be considered WP:EXPERTs with respect to a particular subject matter, but their opinions aren't automatically given any special weight on Wikipedia; so, trying to discuss things on Wikipedia by saying "so-and-so from outside Wikipedia said it's OK" is not typically going to carry much weight with other Wikipedians when it comes to discussing Wikipedia content; you're better off showing how something meets (or doesn't meet) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than "outside standards".

You can freely "join" or "not join" any WikiProject you like; there is no official requirement that you have to be a member of a WikiProject to edit certain articles and there is no official form which needs to be completed if you want to join one. Some projects have a "sign up" list on their page where you can add your name if you want, but this is just a way of letting others know your interested like adding you're name to a "mailing list". Some projects have a userbox that you can add to your user page if you want, and this will add you're name to a category page where other members are listed. You don't, however, need to formally declare yourself to be a member to participate in the project or ask questions on its talk page. Some projects may have more members and may seem more organized, but all projects are basically the same: they're places where editors who share an interest in some subject matter and an interest in Wikipedia editing can discuss and exchange information as part of being WP:HERE. If you and your friends are interested in editing Wikipedia and improving its coverage about mountains, etc. then WP:MOUNTAINS is probably where you're going to find others who share both those interests.

I think this post is growing beyond the scope of what's typically discussed at the Teahouse which is why I suggested you ask for the feedback of other Wikipedians at WT:MOUNTAINS; you don't have to do that, but I'm not sure what other suggestions I can give you here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrettA34: Sorry I'm late to the party. I think Marchjuly has given you some really excellent and detailed advice (as they always do here), and there's little for me to disagree with. My take (on a quick read through of the above thread) is as follows:

Images with annotated details can' be very helpful, as I commented earlier. Your numbering is helpful, but not in the way you've done it, I'm afraid. See Goûter Route for a subtly-labelled imaged used on that page, or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pano_from_Aiguille_du_Midi_03.jpg for an alternative approach. Thje former is subtly labelled - your current version is not, I'm afraid.
Your annotated image on Mount Lyell (Canada) virtually duplicates the wider image used in the infobox. I suggest you subtly label that one and remove the close-up, labelled view on the left side of the page. It's current layout position doesn't seem to conform to how I would expect a left-justified image would normally be placed
The text labelling of that image is not good - especially the massive text running over the glacier which doesn't label the glacier, but labels the image. That text should go, and appear within the caption, in my view.
There's no need to include 'click for details' in captions. All thumbs need to be clicked for their content to be clearly seen. That can go.
Ensure that image filenames and descriptions are clear and easily understandable by those with no knowledge of them.
I would reorder the text in the article to describe the Lyell subsidiary peaks from 1 to 5, not 5 to 1.
There is no indication of the heights of any of the five subsidiary peaks within the Mount Lyell complex. Can you at least indicate which is the highest, please, based on reliable sources? The mountain seems rather akin to an old friend of mine, the Monte Rosa group - the second highest summit in the western Alps in Europe, where it is variously referred to as a mountain, a massif, a group of distinct mountains, or a range.
I have restructured the Mt Lyell article contents - could I ask you to check that I haven't introduced any accidental errors, please?
I see no need for three maps in the infobox - they just serve to confuse. Two should do. There is, however, a way to offer a radio button to the user to select which level of map they want to see. Offhand, I'm afraid I've forgotten how to advise you how to achieve that function. I can investigate if you need me to.
Walter Peak is labelled as peak 4 on the Mount Lyell (Canada) page, and on your Wikimedia Commons file, but as peak 1 in text relating to the same image used on the Walter Peak (Canada) page. But on the latter page you've compounded problems by incorrectly put the image in the 'External links' section, and the text description is really confusing to me, as, indeed, is the description you placed on Commons. Clarification of image content should always go in the caption on Wikipedia, not in the article, as well as further detail being within the Commons file description.
If there is genuine confusion about which peak is which, my view is not to attempt to include it. Personally, I care little about what Google maps or sister projects say about places. I use real maps and believe what the cartographers and official mapping institutions say. (you could include a footnote to highlight current confusion or published mapping errors by Google, providing you cite reliable sources to begin with)
The geology section of Mount Lyell states the rocks are sedimentary, without saying anything more, such as whether they're sandstones, oolite, chalk, limestone or a host of other alternatives. I'm assuming they're sandstones, but 'Precambrian to Jurassic' is a vast time period - so which period does the 'Lyell formation' belong to? (According to this, we're talking about late Cambrian carbonate rocks. Can more information be provided on this?

I hope at least some of this is of help, even if it all comes over a bit critical. These issues can all be fixed though, and should improve the articles you've been working on. My apologies for any typos in this reply - blame it on the lateness of the hour here. (I'm in UTC). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging BrettA343 as I mistyped your username in my reply. (Had you created a userpage for yourself, I'd probably have noticed the erroneous redlink, sorry) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Nick Moyes. There's a lot there. I'll be back at'cha ASAP, tomorrow for sure. I've been so busy mod'ing articles and adding photos and it didn't seem to be causing a problem for me. I did once Google 'Wikipedia.org create user page' but didn't get any hits I thought looked relevant (lots of hits, though). Sorry, I'll try again. BrettA343 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Much of your critique (and your use of “you”) applies to whomever set Mt. Lyell up before as I didn’t change things like the sentence structure dealing with peaks L5 through L1 (I did put in the numbers and put them in sequence – the peaks were randomly ordered in groups of 3 and 2 before and not in the same order as the people they were named after), but assumed that whomever did it initially had a valid point in dealing with the supbpeaks on the border before the 2 only in Alberta (I’ll change it based on your complaint). I also didn’t put in the 3 map choices but disagree with you, here. Whatever map you cut out (Alberta or B.C.) will irate readers in that province I think and for the one extra line, I don’t think it’s worth it (so I won’t change that, but you can).

Re the annotated image not being subtle, that was a conscious decision so people wouldn’t have to open it to see the peak numbering. That, and the fact that unlike a route, not much information is needed for its purpose. I’ll take your advice and remove that pic but I won’t mess up my infobox pic with labelling (if I was doing a route, labelling seems appropriate). Meanwhile, I put the image sown next to the text related to it. Can I at least wait to delete this image until my Google Earth input is no longer ‘Pending’, please?

I’ve noticed that most photos (or a lot of them) from other people that I’ve seen on WP don’t have detailed descriptions, hence my ‘click for details’ (there was space for it in the caption, anyway), but I’ll avoid that in the future, on your recommendation.

Your request to at least put in the highest peak is interesting and topical because it depends on which reliable sources one cites for the highest. My 1985 copy of the Bible in this – the American Alpine Club / Alpine Club of Canada ‘Climber’s Guide to The Rocky Mountains of Canada North’ – and currently used topo maps – e.g. here: https://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Lyell-Canada/photos - and the WP-used Peakfinder.com site all have:

• Edward Peak AKA L2 (3514 m), as the tallest (3 m above central Ernest Peak AKA L3 (3511 m)). WP has no article for L2 (I’m working on writing one as my first article).

But…

• WP has L3 at 3498 m (just checked in August but now it’s 3511 m, too) and Mt. Lyell at 3504 (they’re the same geographic point by different names according to most reliable sources!). None of my sources has Lyell at 3504 (except WP).

• Bivouac.com has L2 at 3595 m, but all my sources say 3514 (again, no L2 Article on WP yet).

• Bivouac.com (and WP) have L4 at 3448 m, but all my sources say 3400 or 3401.

So, the WP-used ‘reliable site’ – Bivouac.com – seems to be one source of the confusion: it has Mt. Lyell (and thus L3) at 3498 and L2 at 3595 (still a 3 m difference, but in the other direction… It looks to me like whomever updated WP last updated WP heights used the odd-man-out – Bivouac. I’ve been waiting to get the L2 article in and clear it all up (and probably asking questions), but you Nick Moyes have forced my hand to get the data earlier in response to your post. But what it also looks like is the central L3 is marked as Mt. Lyell by most sources, NOT the higher L2. The AAC/ACC book avoids putting a height for Mt. Lyell, FWIW, and instead the following page lists all 5 subpeaks and their heights. So, do I use the highest peak for your request (L2), or the central peak (L3), or use both and differentiate them in the text (my preference, but only for Mt. Lyell / L3 and L2). And I’d avoid using Bivouac.com heights for other peaks unless a call to the ACC in Banff could clear things up by say, confirming that Bivouac.com is correct.

The ‘Geography’ heading is interesting because I don’t remember one on any of the pages I’ve worked on and consistency of presentation for WP seems like a reasonable thing (and I’m not prepared to rip apart all Canadian mountain articles just to add ‘Geography’). Not only that, but IMO – and I could well be wrong, here – the geography didn’t change in 1972 when the peaks were named after early guides instead of just L1 – L5, so I think that para should be back where it was, in the intro. The same thing with the 2nd sentence pointing out use of ‘the Lyells’ as a collective name. That’d leave 2 sentences for a heading (‘Geography’) that seems not to be used much for Canadian mountains (doesn’t seem worth it from my POV). Whether that’s an ‘accidental error’ or not is up for you to decide, but I think it should be changed back (however, I’ll leave it as is now that I’ve looked up ‘Geography’ on WP ;-)).

I can’t find my use of Walter Peak as L1 (I see 'Lyell 4' and 'L4') – could you be more specific or just change it, please (it’s clearly an error). As far as the use of an image in ‘External Links’ I recognised it was incorrect, but have seen many examples of an image below the text and it doesn’t seem worth putting in a ‘Gallery’ title for one pic – what do you recommend, please?

Personally, I do care about incorrect data, and I especially care about incorrect use of my photos, no matter where either are, so in that, we just differ.

I’m doing things at WP that I can do quickly with the resources: photos and books I have, and I’m not prepared to add info right now to ‘Geology’ when someone else – perhaps a geologist – has already done it (unless it’s quick and I have the resource, like for the ‘Lyell Formation’). I’m sure I could take time to expand all manner of text, but I’m doing things other than WP as well and haven’t the time or usually the resources to expand every section on every mountain (and again, I think consistency in presentation is a good thing). Plus, I, for instance, wouldn’t have recognised the importance you place on rock composition when most of the whole mountain by the normal approach is glaciated, anyway, and I didn’t have to touch rock to summit it. If, after I get done with photos and text or layout that I find obviously problematic or wrong, I’ll consider other sections.

On another topic, thanks again, Nick, for setting up my userpage :-). I read how to do it and the do’s and don’t’s, but still wasn’t sure where it went. BrettA343 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrettA343: When I next get a chance to sit down at a proper pc and keyboard (rather than this miniscule phone) I'm going to paste our discussion thread over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains and respond to you there. Not only might it be of interest to those Project members, but I fear the thread here at the Teahouse will get archived before I get a chance to consider my reply. I will 'ping' you from that page as soon as I can in a few days. Am rather tied up with real world affairs right now - sorry. But just to say one thing: I wasn't trying to tell you what to do; rather, was just giving my perspective on what I think is good for visitors to see in any article. To keep Wikipedia enjoyable, it's important to contribute only as much as one wants to (providing it conforms to our guidelines and style), rather than feel obligated to solve every issue that past editors should themselves have addressed. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes are not References

I'm concerned with {{Mountain table cell}}. This template accepts three different parameters that it converts into references. Problem is, the parameters used most often are not proper references. Instead, they're really notes. What's the best way to fix this issue? We can remove the parameters in each place the template is invoked; that removes the bogus reference, and also removes text from the article that's often superfluous. Or, should the template be modified to create notes instead of references? This would work well, but it means that any article which uses the template needs to be sure to have a {{notelist}} in it somewhere so the notes are displayed.

How did the project envision this template to be used? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've coded my proposed change at Module:Sandbox/mikeblas/Mountain table cell. I think I can just plug this in, then go chase errors caused by not having a {{notelist}} template in the consuming articles. If there are no comments or objections, I'll start doing that over the next few days. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the Mountain table cell sandbox with my intended changes. The test cases look good (onnce I added a {{notelist}}). -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Mountain table cell}} was originally designed by Buaidh in 2010 to create elevation tables as in List of Colorado fourteeners. You can see the articles where the template is used here. Frietjes ported it to Lua in 2018. I think {{notelist}} to these articles would be a good thing to do, so I support your edits. — hike395 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I've made the changes live. There are about three dozen pages to clean up, and I'll grind through them but help is welcome :) You can find the list of pages in the Category:Pages with missing references list. Fortunately, there are few other pages in this category, so it's really mostly fallout from my change. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, it is finished. Please LMK if any problems are found. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mountainous Barnstar

Introducing Template:The Mountainous Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Maintaining duplicate lists per country and subdivisions

I have started a discussion on removing the duplicate list of Alberta mountains.

After checking the United States list which has a similar duplication for some states, I want to go further on this and perhaps establish a convention where if there is a separate list article for mountains of a province or state that the country list page link to this province/state page and any mountains listed on the country list page be removed. One might consider listing the top 3 mountains on the country page for that subdivision in addition to the link to the subdivision page. RedWolf (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Griffith Peak in Southern Nevada

This peak does not appear on this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_peaks_of_Nevada At 11,060 feet, I think it should. I just don't edit pages hardly at all, and it redirected here to discuss first. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.36.61 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The "List of" pages are manually maintained so if a page exists for any mountain in Nevada, having it added to the List page is warranted, someone just needs to do it. RedWolf (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Digging deeper into this I can see that the Nevada list page currently redirects to the US list. There is a List of mountain peaks of Nevada but this page is only listing mountain peaks that satisfy specific criteria (e.g. topo prominence > 500 m or most isolated) that Griffith Peak does not meet. The solution here is to remove the Nevada list page redirect and make it the page that simply lists all of the mountains in Nevada (either by county or just alphabetical). RedWolf (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Listing Mount King George

"List of the highest major summits of Canada" should include Mount King George (British Columbia) as it should fit in right below Mount Joffre. Edit page requests that changes be discussed here. Ron Clausen (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The list has the specific criterion that the summit must have at least 500 m of topographical prominence. Mount King George (British Columbia) has 1329 m of prominence so it fits the criterion. I concur that it should be added to the list. RedWolf (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Mountains since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Please add this project's infobox requests to your bot. Thanks. RedWolf (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Done should run weekly on Sundays. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Related WikiProject on Simple English Wikipedia

Hello all. You are doing great work here! I have long found the articles on mountains and other related natural features to be very helpful. Personally I edit over at the Simple English Wikipedia most of the time. I've been making mountain articles there part of my focus, since many are lacking. I recently was able to start and improve Gangkhar Puensum to be featured as DYK on the main page. Anyway I wanted to invite all of you to visit Simple and help out from time to time, if you have any spare minutes. (Of course there is plenty to do here as well, so I understand if you can't). I've created WikiProject Mountains over on simple, and wanted to leave the link to it here. Desertborn (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Opinions wanted - Revamp of Infobox mountain template

Hello. Please have a look at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Infobox cleanup (and related sections, if interested). Your feedback, and any further improvement suggestions, is essential for the next steps in upgrading this infobox. Thanks! Reh man 03:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is still open. Topics include simplifying parameters and removing duplicate parameters, and adding Wikidata support. This is also a good opportunity to add or improve other features. Please consider joining this important discussion. Reh man 06:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of number parameter lists from Infobox Mountain

Fellow mountain editors: There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox mountain to remove numbered parameters from the infobox, such as |state1=, |city1=, |region1=, |geology1=, and asking that editors use unbulletted lists, instead. If you are interested in this topic, please feel free to voice your opinion there. — hike395 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove automatic metric/imperial conversion from Infobox Mountain

There is a proposal to remove parameters from the infobox that allow automatic conversion between metric and imperial. The proposal would remove parameters such as |elevation_m=, |prominence_ft=, and |isolation_mi=. If you'd like to join the discussion, please join in at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Automatic conversion and zoom (cont.). — hike395 (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong identification of Gangotri Group

Hello all,
I want to bring your attention on the page Gangotri Group because peaks mentioned in this article are not at all Gangotri group of peaks, they are on the Gangotri glacier for sure. The peaks falls under Gangotri groups are in the Rudragaira valley. "It is indeed intriguing, that while the Gangotri group towers above the Rudra valley, the Gangotri glacier is almost 20 kms east of the Rudra valley. Undoubtedly, the glacier at one time had its snout to the west of the Rudra valley, which has today receded beyond imagination."^[1]

The peaks mentioned in the page have no connection with Gangotri group like Chaukhamba, Kedarnath, Thalaysagar, Meru, shivling, and Bhagirathi group of peaks. They only situated around Gangotri glacier.

Gangotri group of peaks (Gangotri I, II, III) lies 20 km down the valley in Rudragaira valley.--Goutam1962 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

^ ABBEY, A (2003). "FOOTPRINTS IN THE RUDRA VALLEY : Himalayan Journal vol.59/9". www.himalayanclub.org. 59. Retrieved 5 May 2020.

Merge / redirect List of mountain peaks of Washington (state) with List of mountain peaks of Washington

Hi, WikiProject Mountains,

I found that there are 2 duplicating articles: List of mountain peaks of Washington and List of mountain peaks of Washington (state). Can someone help to do a correct merge of these two articles? It is confusing that these two articles have different criteria of topographic prominence, and different lists.

It appears that the "Washington (state)" article has older history. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The List of mountain peaks of Washington has the more accurate updated elevation figures and is completely consistent with the following 19 lists:

I was unaware of the List of mountain peaks of Washington (state) when I created the List of mountain peaks of Washington. We could merge the List of mountain peaks of Washington into the List of mountain peaks of Washington (state). The List of mountain peaks of Washington and the 19 above lists use a prominence cutoff of 500 meters (1640.4 feet) rather than the 300 meters (984.3 feet) of the older list. We should probably use the greater cutoff. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good plan to me. @Buaidh: Can you work on the merge? I don't know much about prominence cutoffs, so if the 500m cutoff is more accurate, then we should use that. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. I've merged the List of mountain peaks of Washington into the List of mountain peaks of Washington (state). Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 05:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

[1] ABBEY, A (2003). "FOOTPRINTS IN THE RUDRA VALLEY : Himalayan Journal vol.59/9". www.himalayanclub.org. 59. Retrieved 5 May 2020.

[1]