Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 12
 | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Adding Mount Langley to "List of mountain peaks of the United States"
I propose adding Mount Langley in California to the "List of mountain peaks of the United States", table "Highest Major Summits". Mount Langley has an elevation of 14,032 feet and would be ranked 44th in the table (of 100). Granted, its prominence is quite low at 1,165 ft or 1,230 ft (depending on the definition), but there are lower prominence on lower elevation mountains in this list, for example Sunshine peak with a prominence of 501 ft.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Langley, https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=2845 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacadeW (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Filtering
Can someone make it so that you can filter the results by number? (ascending/decending order, etc) Anonüümne34 (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Anonüümne34 Could you be a bit more specific? Which results and on what page do you mean, please? The contents of many tables can be made sortable - and many already are - so a link to an article would be really helpful. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
References for prominence etc.
Hi all, I'm looking for good online references for values such as prominence, isolation, parent peak, and the like for mountain peaks within the United States. I usually use Peakbagger and ListsOfJohn for these values in my daily life; they're both amazing sites. However, Peakbagger clearly isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia as it contains substantial user-generated content. LoJ is the very impressive work of a few individuals but has no oversight, so I see its reliability (in the Wikipedia sense) as debatable. My question is: do people think or is there a consensus that LoJ is reliable enough for use on Wikipedia, and if not, are there any other sources that you're aware of that could be used for these values? ST11 (t • c) 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- For the reliability of Peakbagger, see the unresolved discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?. I don't know of a WP:RS substitute for Peakbagger. — hike395 (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking that discussion. Seems like there's no consensus on the topic. Peakbagger also has two separate types of peaks: provisional and verified. The provisional data are clearly unreliable. Fortunately, almost any peak that deserves an article in Wikipedia would be a verified peak. Without any good alternative, seems like there's no way to avoid using it for that sort of info. If nothing else, perhaps it would be a WP:IAR situation: even if Peakbagger isn't seen as reliable, a rule of not using the source would prevent people from improving Wikipedia. ST11 (t • c) 18:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Mount Hebron#Requested move 8 March 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mount Hebron#Requested move 8 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Mount Price at FAC
I just want to let WP Mountains know that Mount Price (British Columbia) is a featured article candidate. Any comments are welcomed. Volcanoguy 09:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- 20 days in and few comments... Volcanoguy 18:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerro Tuzgle/archive1 also has few comments, it's not just you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)#Requested move 22 March 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)#Requested move 22 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The article Raudebergnuten has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Wholly unsourced for 11.76 years.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Mount Garibaldi at FAC
Mount Garibaldi has been nominated for FA. Comments are welcomed. Volcanoguy 01:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation of "Mount Ida"
Could you help to disambiguate the links to Mount Ida shown in this list, including Template:Canada prominent, Template:Rocky Mountains prominent, Template:Canada highest and Template:Canada prominent? I am unsure of the correct criteria in each case and confused about the right peaks.— Rod talk 14:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Requested move: Kamenáč to Aschberg
Editors here may be interested to know that a move request has been opened to restore the article title of Kamenáč to Aschberg. Bermicourt (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Kamenáč#Requested move 28 August 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kamenáč#Requested move 28 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
advice on List of mountains in Utah
Hi WikiProj Mountaineers, I could use some advice on List of mountains in Utah article, which is meant to be a state-wide "big list" and is not well-developed: what should be eligible? what should the columns be? What should each row have, where/how could public domain data be found to fill this out for many missing counties (out of 29 in Utah). Contrast to well-defined and completed List of mountain peaks of Utah which covers top 50 by elevation, by prominence, and by topographic isolation.
I do see discussion above, back in February 2022, with User:ST11 and User:Hike395 about reliability of peakbagger and ListofJohn sources, but those are what I used in developing a section on Emery County recently. I arrived by way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory Butte (Emery County, Utah), which is still an ongoing AFD; I thought it obvious that this mountain (any mountain?) should at least have a row in a list-article, if not a separate article. And i saw that List of mountains in Utah was in very poor shape IMHO, and I improved it somewhat. But what now? Could it easily be developed out to cover the top 50 or 100 in each county, say? (and how?) Please ping me in replies. --Doncram (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Doncram:, thanks for the ping. As someone who runs, skis, hikes, etc. in the Wasatch Mountains multiple times per week, I'd love to help out with a such a project :) Although my free time is quite limited these days.
- Hmm, inclusion criteria in sucha list is a quite tricky question actually. Because in its truest form, a list of mountains in Utah would include every single high point that qualifies as a peak — which means having 300 feet of prominence. This would also include a good number of unnamed high points that certainly don't meet GNG but would be appropriate as a list entry. Including every peak would make the list super long, but I think this would be manageable if we break the article up into sections by mountain range (one section for the Uintas, one for the Wasatch, one for the Tushars, etc.). I think it might actually be best to have individual articles for each mountain range, rather than separate articles by county.
- We also have into the issue that there are a good number of notable "peaks" without this required 300 feet of prominence, such as Mount Wire or Avenues Twin Peaks, that should probably be included in any list. I'd say that these high points should be included if they meet GNG or are named, but should have a note in their table row specifying that they do not represent true peaks.
- As to table columns, the obvious columns would be name, coordinates, elevation, prominence, and range. I'd say these are definitely the aspects that people reading a list would be looking for most often. We could include stuff like isolation and parent as well, but I'd think that these would be more appropriate for a database like Peakbagger or LoJ than for Wikipedia. Perhaps the list could have a link to the LoJ profile for the peak? LoJ is more comprehensive and methodolical than Peakbagger in its coverage — huge shoutout to John Kirk for the work he's done.
- @Doncram: fixing my ping because I forgot to sign my last message. ST11 (t • c) 18:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- User:ST11 thank you for your good thoughts here. The mountain ranges came first, not the silly county borders (and those kept changing, too), so I tend to agree about wanting to group by the more natural partition. However, some mountain ranges will spill over the state border, too, so there would still be some artificiality.
- Note, also, that List of mountain ranges of Utah, as an article, comes across as overwhelmingly about Utah's counties, and seemingly not about anything natural at all! It doesn't have a single photo, or any map of any range(s), or any prose about any range. Upon review, i do see that the section named "Alphabetical", with which it starts, does in fact just name the mountain ranges. But "Alphabetical" in the table of contents, at same level as a long alphabetical list of counties, looks just like a misplaced header that should be outdented by one level, and I as reader blitzed by that section to start puzzling why the list-article consists of just county sections, each with a stupid list of names of mountain ranges that partly lie within. Which is unusable to me as reader. It doesn't even convey relative locations of ranges or counties, they're in alphabetical order. So the list-article conveys zero usable information! (Think Edward Tufte.) It is awful as a review of the mountain ranges. I think there should have a block of text and facts and images about each mountain range; the mountain ranges should be the main sections (or they should be rows in one big table). Maybe each section could have a thumbnail image of Colorado with its range colored, like List of counties in Utah has on each county's row. And the mountain range sections should incorporate the subsidiary "landforms" covered in the unsourced, strangely disconnected last section, "Ranges and related landforms".) The bulk of the current article, the huge and unsourced list of counties with names of mountain ranges, should be entirely downplayed (e.g. put all into one section with no subheaders, perhaps as a "Reference table of counties' and mountain ranges' intersections", if kept at all. If you and I have energy, maybe we should work on fixing up that article?
- Then, about developing the intended-to-be-more-comprehensive List of mountains in Utah, having some cutoff like 300 feet of prominence sounds good. It would be great to know how many items that would be, to know whether they could fit into one list-article, with all their coordinates, so one linked OSM map of the state could serve as a lookup tool for readers/users.
- Now, supposing there is a good Wasatch section in the "List of mountain ranges of Utah" article, and then having a Wasatch section in the "List of mountains of Utah". I do wonder about subdividing that by the counties that it spans (or including "County" as a column, if the Wasatch section is presented as a table of mountains). Doing that for all mountain ranges would convey all the info that the bizarre "Reference table of counties' and mountain ranges' intersections" would carry, and that bizarre thing could then be dropped entirely, I tend to think. Then finally, I'm not sure whether all the mountains or peaks meeting the 300 foot prominence cutoff would have a "range" to be included into. So maybe there would be a sublist of "Other mountains", subdivided by the counties, as if it were just one more range? What do you think? Comments welcome. --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. I created and populated Category:Lists of mountain ranges and Category:Lists of mountain ranges of the United States to look at. Didn't look closely, but I think Mountain ranges of Colorado is interestingly different than all others. --Doncram (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion about deletion of mountain/climbing articles etc.
Editors here may be interested in viewing or joining the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climbing#Merging of some climbing articles to the Glossary which relates to mountain and/or climbing-related articles that have recently been deleted and replaced with redirects to a glossary or have had sections of text deleted. Bermicourt (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
peakbagger.com?
Is this site considered generally reliable for basic facts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- The answer to that question is still unresolved. — hike395 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
FAR
Nathu La has been nominated for a featured article review, please see here Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nathu La/archive1 Desertarun (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- The RFC, now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Fate of Stromboli link
There is a split proposal ongoing at Talk:Stromboli#Split proposal to split Mount Stromboli off from the article about the island which is currently at Stromboli. The split proposal doesn't clearly say what will remain at that location, whether it will be Stromboli (disambiguation), Stromboli (island), or possibly Stromboli (food). Input would be appreciated in that split proposal and especially the subsection Talk:Stromboli#Discussion on fate of Stromboli link. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Mount Kenya
Mount Kenya has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notability
We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Mount Coulthard, Crowsnest Pass, Alberta
Hi there, I'm Steve Monkhouse the grandson of Isabel Mary Elizabeth Coulthard, the daughter of R.W (Bob) Coulthard. My sons and I are the last living direct descendants of RW Coulthard. My grandmother did not know that a mountain was named after her father. I have his WW1 service medal. My middle son and are are travelling to Blairmore this summer and are going to summit Mount Coulthard (hike to the top that is). I've just completed a lot of research and wrote an article on R.W. and I'd like to collaborate with the author of this entry but have no idea how to do so. RW in fact recruited and was the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Canadian Tunnelling company that fought the underground war under Flander's fields in the Ypres Salient area. I have pictures, and war diary entries. One war diary entry from June 1916 that he signed personally lists roughly 85 casualties from two days of fighting during the Battle of Mount Sorrel and the Battle of Hill 62. RW came back from the war and instead of going back into business or back into mining he was a Director in The Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment and was the GM of a factory that made artificial limbs, eyes and faces for disabled veterans. SteveM61 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Mount Vesuvius
Mount Vesuvius has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps someone who knows the mountain infobox better than I could fill in more of the missing details in this new article I created. ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Peakfinder.com site contents moved to cdnrockiesdatabases.ca
The previously established contents at peakfinder.com has been moved to cdnrockiesdatabases.ca. I have updated {{cite peakfinder}} to use the new URL and no other changes are needed for existing uses of the template. We should probably rename the template to perhaps {{cite crdb}} to prevent confusion with the "new" site. I'm also working on the list of articles that are directly using peakfinder.com, many of which are using a very old URL form that includes "peakfinder.asp?PeakName=", which when followed, gave a site error. At this point, I haven't seen any information as to why the site contents were moved. peakfinder.com seems to have been taken over by someone in Europe, which has content unrelated to cdnrockiesdatabases.ca. RedWolf (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I have moved {{cite peakfinder}} to {{cite crdb}}. RedWolf (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Adding Quandary Peak to List of Mountain Peaks of North America
Looking at adding Quandary Peak to the List of mountain peaks of North America List.
There is a comment from 2009 on the talk page that this omission is inaccurate.
When I went to make an edit of the page (WP:BB) I noticed a comment, "Please discuss any proposed changes to this table at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains several days before changes may be made."
Is it fine to make this edit (given citations)?
Thcipriani (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Peer review
I've nominated the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article for a peer review; comments can be left here. Volcanoguy 04:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Help:Elevation
Help:Elevation is a guide to using wikitext to display elevation. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 23:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Problems with List of Wainwrights
This large list compiled from an external database by a now-inactive editor needs attention. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Lancashire and Cumbria#Problems with List of Wainwrights if you are interested. Thanks in advance for any help! PamD 21:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Annapurna Massif: mountain or mountain range?
The redirect Annapurna Massif was retargetted from Annapurna (mountain range) to Anapurna, by @Lizthegrey: with the edit summary "massif = the principal peak itself, not the range"; I reverted it, on the basis that the article on the range starts "Annapurna is a massif ..." while the article on the mountain starts "Annapurna is a mountain ...".
But looking at Massif, I see that Annapurna is listed, rather than Annapurna (mountain range).
So, which is the massif, and thus where should Annapurna Massif redirect to?
Some expert in mountain nomenclature might want to comment or sort it out. I'm out of my depth - I know more about Wainwright's outlying fells. PamD 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hah yeah that threw me because the Massif article lede says "In mountaineering literature, a massif is frequently used to denote the main mass of an individual mountain". I think I might actually have been wrong here, and Massif should list Annapurna (mountain range) and my redirect change should be undone. lizthegrey (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is the Annapurna mountain range which consists of 30 mountains/peaks above 6,000 m including Annapurna I (aka Annapurna), II, III, IV. Normally, massif is used to denote the entire mass of a single mountain which is comprised of multiple peaks. However, the entire Annapurna mountain range is currently described as a massif, which is not the normal usage of massif, at least when I have seen it used. I think describing the entire mountain range as one massif is incorrect or at a minimum leads to confusion but redirecting Annapurna Massif to Annapurna could also be considered incorrect since Annapurna II, III and IV are classified as separate peaks. RedWolf (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Showing page titles for Wikidata coordinates on OpenStreetMap
Recently, I have begun to add the coordinates column to the list of mountains given on mountain range pages along with using {{GeoGroup}} to display a map of all the listed mountains on OpenStreetMap. Rather than copy the coordinates from each article page, I have instead used {{Wikidata}} to extract the coordinates from Wikidata. However, I ran into an issue when viewing the OpenStreetMap page. On the page's left hand side, it displays a list of links that can be clicked to highlight that particular coordinate on the map. The problem is that it would display an ordinal number as the the coordinate's title rather than the actual mountain/peak name. Unfortunately, {{Wikidata}} currently has no way to pass the title. Also, this template is actually a wrapper for Module:Wd and changes would have to be made to this LUA module. I posted the issue on Module talk:Wd but no one appears to be willing (although perhaps more likely that anyone knowledgeable to make the changes has not noticed the request) to add title support to the module. I only have beginner knowledge of LUA so am reluctant to modify the module. So, I have created Module:Titled_coords and its wrapper template {{Titled_coords}} to add the title to coordinates from Wikidata. I have so far updated Misty Range and Bow Range to use the new template. RedWolf (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
B-checklist in project template
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)