Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 9

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 7

Infobox ultra listings

I am interested in improving the way we link a mountain's ultra listing within the infoboxes. [1] and [2] are examples of different options. The discussion at User talk:Resident Mario#Ultra listing tweak ended with us agreeing to take the topic here before I make any more sweeping changes. Any suggestions? Is there already consensus on a standard? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Its my belief that the word Ultra when used alone and in this context is not familiar to most readers. In most cases I think a reference to an external site is more appropriate than a link to a Wikipedia list because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:WPNOTRS. I think the words "Ultra prominent peak" should be used followed by a citation to a published list. For example see USA Lower 48 Peaks with 5000 feet of Prominence. A wiki link to the Ultra prominent peak article might be appropriate. This is just my opinion and I would like to hear others. –droll [chat] 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Such a long, powerful discussion we have a here! It's at times like this that I start feeling like we are but a small number of wee editors scattered across a large, large project. ResMar 19:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry -- I just don't have that strong of an opinion. Over the last 9 years of this WikiProject, many of the stylistic decisions were made by just a handful (3? 4?) of editors. I'm sure you'll work out something that is acceptable. —hike395 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate all the input. Indeed it appears not very many people care about this sort of stuff. For me it's just one of those nagging things. It's notable as a listing, but not too many people are familiar with the concept; so we link to the page that explains the concept; but that page is not a "list" like what we would expect in a field named "listing"... It would just be nice if we did it the same way for all mountains. I can put the U.S. peaks back to how they were, since I changed those recently. The Canadian peaks however, have been different for a while. Do you think anyone would mind if I did the same for the Canadian peaks, i.e. link Ultra prominent peak (or actually Ultra) instead of List of Ultras of Canada? Then all the world's ultras would be linked the same way in this regard. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 05:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am ok with either way. —hike395 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Geography for featured portal consideration

Geography

I've nominated Portal:Geography for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Geography. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to split BC Mtn Range cat

Launched discussion of why and wherefore on Category_talk:Mountains_of_British_Columbia#Splitting_category and includes naming/renaming issues.Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

SOIUSA

I've just posted a neutrality tag on this article. It appears to be part of a sustained internet and wikipedia campaign to plug a new classification system for the Alps, but as far as I can tell it is not accepted anywhere outside of the Italian Alpine Club, despite the claims being made for it. Interestingly, the discussion at the German version of this article also suggests that exaggerated claims are being made for this system in terms of its international acceptance. Worryingly almost all the google hits for SOIUSA that I could check were wikipedia links or copycat pages. Most of the references on the article are Italian self-references or links to the Italian Alpine Club etc. Two are to web pages selling Marazzi's book. I'm afraid this suggests it may be WP:POV; at the very least it's neutrality is suspect. It may even count as WP:SOAPBOX. I would be grateful if those more familiar with this topic could shed light on the issue at the talk page. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've researched this in more detail, based on the available online links, cleaned up the article and removed the tag. My findings are that SOUISA is a proposal by one Italian, who has been at least given a forum by the Italian Alpine Club, but I cannot find evidence that it is endorsed by any official body. With that in mind, I wonder if the SOUISA classification should be given equal prominence on so many articles as the existing official classifications e.g. look at Southern Limestone Alps. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Google shows 265 hits for "SOIUSA" If there has been a an effort to legitimize the proposed system by using Wikipedia then there is some serious cleanup to do. –droll [chat] 04:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. My feeling is that the proposed SOIUSA classification of the Alps should be restricted to the SOIUSA article itself and not be included in other articles or used to create new articles unless and until it receives official international approval, particularly by the leading mountaineering body the UIAA. Meantime, articles should be based on the Alpine Club classification of the Eastern Alps in Germany, Austria and South Tyrol and the classifications used by their Alpine Clubs in France, Switzerland and Italy. That, at least, reflects the real world and national usage. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly shouldn't endorse the SOUISA classification, for the reasons Bermicourt gives. Ericoides (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so unless an unexpected consensus against emerges, I will now go ahead and delete all articles and references to SOIUSA, except a) the main SOIUSA article and b) an appropriate mention of SOIUSA in the other classification articles e.g. Alpine Club classification of the Eastern Alps. Because there are around 200 affected articles, I will concentrate on those outside of Italy first.

Of course, if SOIUSA gains appropriate international recognition, then it could always be re-instated. However, at present it's both a WP:SOAPBOX and causing unnecessary confusion. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Support removal, per Bermicourt. it's going to be quite a task, though --- it has been sprayed onto ~200 pages —hike395 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Sprayed is the word! And what's worse - a lot are standalone articles only named after a SOIUSA mountain group. So we'll have to propose them for deletion and let the process take its course... --Bermicourt (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment.I've just noticed the proposal of deletion of all the references to SOIUSA on en.wiki. I edited most of the concerned pages so I think I should give some reasons why I did it.

First of all I don't have any personal interest to diffuse or SOIUSA nor publicizing Marazzi's works. I usually contribute to it.wiki, where SOIUSA is widely accepted and used. I thought to propose this classification also on the en.wiki because I find that SOIUSA is quite convenient to navigate through the articles about the Alps. At present it is the only widely known classification wich covers the whole Alpine range and which provides names of the sub-ranges non just in one national language but in all the languages spoken in the Alpine countries and in English as well.
Coming to the external recognition of SOIUSA I could remark that the on-line version of Treccani (the Italian analogous of Encyclopedia Britannica) considers the SOIUSA the current Alps classification (see Alpi article on the enciclopedia, unfortunately just in Italian). I also could remark SOIUSA is used in pubblications or web pages produced by official Italian authorities, as for instance the Province of Sondrio (see |here, pag. 73) or the Regione Piemonte (see |Tra Piemonte e Mediterraneo, par. Liguri o Marittime?). SOIUSA is also used in some Italian university pubblications, as for instance in |this one], of the Università di Venezia.
But, of course, if most of en.wiki interested users are feeling SOIUSA confusing or not enough sourced I've no objections to the proposed cleanup work. Good evening,--F Ceragioli (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Slovenian Prealps for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slovenian Prealps is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovenian Prealps until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

This follows on from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#SOIUSA above. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Collaborate on Mountain?

The mountain article should be the flagship for this WikiProject, yet it isn't in terribly good shape. I spent about an hour cleaning it up. Shall we collaborate to make it better? All help is welcome! —hike395 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can help out for sure, it needs some work. I nominate you to come up with a game plan. The Interior (Talk) 07:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha, the volcano article is pretty good by comparison! If you can get a large enough group together, I might contribute. ResMar 22:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering. I think the outline of the article (I.e., geology, ecology, climate, human society) is roughly correct. Each section needs to be fleshed out by a subject expert. I wonder if we can split up the article, each taking a section? I can try to improve ecology. —hike395 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also the Wikipedia:The Core Contest coming up in March. Not that we need incentives, but this article would be considered "core", and Casliber's getting some prizes together. Last time it was an amazon card I think. The Interior (Talk) 19:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'll say it's "core". It's a Level 2 Vital Article, which means it's been assessed as one of the top 100 most important articles in all of WP! We can wait for the contest, if you wish, but I think it's pretty important to improve this article, hopefully to GA standard. —hike395 (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've let this go idle, but very busy with midterms. March looks much better. I've left a note at the Core Contest page to see if it's still on. Not to be greedy, but a prize might be a good motivator for me anyway. If the contest isn't on, I'm still in. The Interior (Talk) 07:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hills of Dorset

I have created a list of hills of Dorset with numerous references to relevant sources. That said, further improvements are most welcome, especially brief remarks about any notable features of a hill e.g. whether it is the site of a Roman fort, etc. Hopefully this will be the first of many county lists in the UK. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Mount McKinley

I'm currently working on expanding Mount McKinley to GA and perhaps FA status. If anyone would like to help improve this vital article, just dive right in. (I was hoping it could be TFA on June 7, the 100th anniversary of its first ascent.) Hue Sat Lum 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

mountain range boundaries

This re the Geobox/infobox mountain range issues.....I'm not sure they're useful or that I have all of them, but some I still do......datasets of the boundaries of the ranges, for BC anyway, in sequences of lat longs.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hills of Hampshire

I have now created a similar list for the hills of Hampshire, similar to the Dorset one mentioned above, plus stubs for all of the hills in the table. Bermicourt (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood Hills and SM Mountains

Anybody know if the Hollywood Hills are part of the Santa Monica Mountains? GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

List of mountains named to honour leaders/national heroes

Hello mountain loving wikipedians. I got into a lively discussion with people today from 3 different contintents and assorted ages about mountains named after people. We looked on wikipedia to find information about these mountains and were able to find articles about some specific example mountains (eg Mount Terry Fox, mount mckinley) and one about the Premier Range that lists all the mountains in the range that are named after people. These articles indicate to me that they are considered notable enough mountains for at least the general public even if they are not necessarily important to mountain enthusiasts. What we could not find was a list (or category) that pointed to these articles. I did not wish to create one myself mostly because I have no idea if such a thing makes sense within the scope of your project or not. But also because I do not know enough about the subject to even start it appropriately. But I did think I should ask the experts (you people) what you thought of such an idea. I have looked through the project archives and there is nothing specific on this though there is a mention fairly recently that there are possibly too many list articles. Jemmaca (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There's hundreds of peaks name for people....thousands. In some cases there maybe be, I think, a list for peaks named for armed forces people, generally "local heroes" in the area they're from; not sure what it's called and I doubt there'd be grounds for a category; others here may disagree. In the Lower Mainland-SW Mainland region of BC, alone, there must be four dozen such peaks....i.e. named for people. Mount Judge Howay, Mount Robie Reid, Mount Seymour, Foley Peak, Mount Garibaldi.....Skookum1 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There are thousands of mountains named after people. Generally speaking, the convention is to use "Mount" when named after a person and thus I would consider it over-categorization to create a category for these mountains. Somewhat analogous to creating a category for all articles with red in its title. If someone wants to create lists for mountains named for people for a given region or for a specific distinction, I have no objection although personally I would have little use for such lists. RedWolf (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Low-importance?

On which basis it is decided that crucial geographic articles about the main mountain systems in the Iberian Peninsula such as Montes de Toledo are "low importance"? What are the parameters for "high importance" in WikiProject Mountains? I would have settled even for mid-importance, but "Low" is definitely far-fetched.Xufanc (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Many times articles are rated when they are simple stubs and thus there is minimal information to figure out importance. Over time, as more information is added, the importance can be better assessed. There is nothing preventing anyone from changing the importance of an article. Generally speaking, "higher" importance articles are for well known mountains (among mountaineers and the general public), highest mountains of a country or mountain range, significance of the mountains to the local people or to the geology/geography of a country/region. When I change the article class, I usually also check if the importance also needs an update. A well referenced article is likely to receive a higher importance rating than one with few or no references. RedWolf (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Conversion of Geobox mountain and range

After about 1 year and 2000 edits:
Done --- I've converted all article space instances of {{Geobox}} for range and mountain categories to {{Infobox mountain range}} and {{Infobox mountain}}. Hurray! —hike395 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Splendid! Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done! --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's followthrough. Sorry we have so many ranges in BC, must've eaten up some of your time. The Interior (Talk) 22:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Likiwise, per The Interior.Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia cites should now be titled Bivouac Mountain Directory

I posted about this before somewhere, maybe not here. I just [[Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion#how_to_propose.2Fmandate_a_Rename_of_a_template.3F|posted at the TfD talkpage about {{cite bivouac}} needing a name change, and {{bcgnis}} and {{cite bcgnis}} needing redesign because they now yield 404s. I no longer use either, i.e. of the "cite" ones, as they're time consuming and it's easier to copy-paste the URL in the old bracket-URL-title-bracket style of link. The point of the bcgnis and bivouac and cgndb templates in the first place was to speed things up for editors writing articles using them, not to slow themn down by demanding users fill out fields on overly-elaborate code-templates for "standardization" as conceived by code-designers. All were imposed without adequate discussion; I was their primary user and was the one who requested their creation; I don't use them anymore but there are thousands of instances over seveal hundred articles that it's too time-consuming to change by hand.Skookum1 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also noting that the bivouac template shows up in google, 2nd place no less. Should it at all? i.e. show up in google?Skookum1 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of elevation data

As MONGO has pointed out at Talk:Eagle Peak (Wyoming), different sources give different elevations for Eagle Peak. Which is most likely to be reliable?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems they are all reliable, just based on a changing database. We need to use the more recent data and specifically note the source. Vsmith (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is a hierarchy of reliability for the US:

The National Geodetic Survey has a database of the latest surveys of benchmarks, searchable here. These elevations are provided in the latest vertical datum. Not every summit is available in the database
USGS Topographic maps have older survey data: probably not as accurate as NGS, but still done by professionals.
The USGS GNIS database gives elevations from the digital National Elevation Dataset. This can match the topo maps, but can be inaccurate (due to both horizontal and vertical errors, especially on very steep terrain).
Careful external peakbagging sites (such as peakbagger) often has good data by reading off topo maps.
I'm suspicious of other non-geographic websites, such as the National Park Service, where non-experts tend to grab random numbers.

In the case of Eagle Peak, NGS does not have any data. Peakbagger clearly read the peak elevation off the topo map. Eagle Peak is a glacial horn, so I mistrust the GNIS elevation. So, I think MONGO did the right thing. I used peakbagger's NAVD88 vertical datum elevation (which is a mechanical computation from NGVD29), because there is a long-term trend to use NAVD88 in mountain infobox elevations.

Hope this helps! —hike395 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

GNIS is generally highly reliable for coordinates, not always, but one of the better sources. However, GNIS and those from the National Park Service are oftentimes the most out of date for elevation data. Though Peakbagger is a self monitoring non-peer reviewed source, I tend to trust their data as accurate since it is based on USGS topos and NAVD88 data. Another source akin to peakbagger is summitpost, but in the case of both those websites, I never use the climbers/hikers reports as far as using those for sourcing. As part of this discussion for standardization...the National Park Service website still shows Grand Teton as being 13770 ft. [3] which matches the USGS topo map [4]...however here at Wikipedia we say 13775, which matches NAVD88.--MONGO 17:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I should probably just start a new thread for this, but I was wondering if anyone could suggest the software that might be best to create physical relief maps for the infoboxes such as we have for Washington state.[5] I hate going over to WikiProject maps and pestering them for map work. Or is there anyone watching this page that has the tools and interest to do maps for those places we can worldwide?--MONGO 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: elevation. When other sources are lacking and GNIS is obviously wrong, is it not okay to use something like Google Earth? On a mountain peak it's usually not hard to find the highest point, and Google Earth uses the National Elevation Dataset for elevation, so...? Is this "original research" or more like reading facts off a map? Pfly (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Are talking about the little green hatch marks designating a summit? I hadn't checked to see if they jive with NAVD or not. I would tend to think that this might be close to map reading but as for me I've taken some liberties in that as well when I simply see what the map shows and parrot that and reference the map used. I don't see a big difference between reading what a map says and repeating it to reading what text is in a book and rewriting that for our articles. In my opinion, if Google Earth is using NAVD for their elevations then that should be considered reliable in most cases. Anyone trying to take such a reference to Good or Featured article might get a few complaints about it though.--MONGO 20:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking—Google Earth display the elevation for wherever the cursor is, so just mousing around a little near an obvious summit and/or the green summit mark (if there is an obvious summit anyway). But yea, probably not the best idea for Good or Featured articles. I admit I've used this method to get the elevation of river sources (for example, on the Elwha River page), even adjusting a little when the GNIS coordinates are obviously slightly off (which isn't uncommon for river sources). I realize this may be borderline acceptable, but in a pinch... Pfly (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We may not be able to find the best or most up to date source for elevation information, but at least we ought to be able to state which datum we are using in {{Infobox mountain}}. In their mountain infobox, German Wikipedia has a field for the datum name (e.g. DE-NN is "Normalnull" i.e. with reference to the Amsterdam gauge). This are then displayed with the elevation and source reference. See de:Hochwanner for example, which shows the heights in metres above the Amsterdam gauge (m ü. NN) as well as metres above the Trieste gauge (m ü. AA). Can we not do something similar? Bermicourt (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

feedback on possible RMs re MOSTCOMMON

Bringing this to this WikiProject rather than WPCANADA......two mountains near Chilliwack are invariably known by unofficial/convention names i.e. Cheam Peak and Slesse Mountain are their official names, they're invariably known as Mount Cheam and Mount Slesse. Is there any specific guideline that demands official names for mountains? There are probably other instances, these two stand out for me because I have personal associations with both.....others may come to mind, in BC or elsewhere. Wanted to consult before launching a joint RM on the two, partly to see if there are any others. The reason for the peak names being officially what they are is a guideline at BC Names and Canadian Geographic Names is that "Mount FOO" is for mountains name for people, "FOO Peak" or "FOO Mountain" for all others. I'm sure there are other cases where the popular/common name varies from this....I usually side with official names on many subjects/titles but there are always exceptions....Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A question of Australia

Hey all - a recent edit has put the Australian mainland as its own group on Template:Seven Summits and Template:Seven Second Summits. I think that this group is unnecessary. Mount Kosciuszko is neither the nighest mountain in Oceania nor the Australian continent, so it is not the highest point on the continent. Also, including this means having eight categories for seven summits.... User:Racerx11 disagrees based on the historical precedent of the Bass List including Kosciuszko. (see Seven Summits for info on this.) Comments? Thanks, "Pepper" @ 14:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)‎

The only thhing that I would add at this point is that the templates as they were prior to our edits were not really wrong. They had the Australian mainland summits listed on the same line together with the Australian continent summits. I though my revision was an improvement, but either way the Australian mainland summits certainly need to be included somewhere in the template, just as they are in every other list and article and discussion on the seven summits. The Bass list is the original list. The best way to present the facts are not always perfectly neat and trim. Wish there were exactly 7, Seven Summits. We can't help that there happens to be 8. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that Mountain pass, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Carpathian mountain ranges naming

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Carpathian_mountain_ranges_naming. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam Mountains

Can an expert from this project please check the use of "Mount" vs "Mountain" in Category:Mountains of Vietnam, many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Help with infobox for Big Hole Pass

Would an expert here please help with the infobox for Big Hole Pass? Djembayz (talk)

Done --- cleaned it up a bit —hike395 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

shape files for maps of BC mountain ranges and other landforms available

In looking to link the cite to Holland's Landforms of British Columbia on Stikine Ranges, and also adding image/plate links for that book's PDF files to Stave Lake and Laidlaw, British Columbia (including all of its amazing aerial images from the 1940s and 50s - now PD, I believe) I noted that shape files and a "manifold map" are also available on the government website, including the PDF and the very extensive map of the province's landforms, which the reqmap crowd will find useful. I don't have time to do more image-linking tonight; if these images are construed to be expired crown copyright and PD, they can be added to the articles direclty instead of linked; many can be used to illustrate more than one mountain/range/place.Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Highest mountain

The page Wikipedia:Highest mountain might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Santa Ana Mountains

I have placed a new photo of a range in California that clearly shows the entire range and it surrounding area. A user has resorted to using profanity in regard to his edit war on this page demanding that a photo taken in a rare snowstorm in 2008 is a representation of what the range looks like. I have seen snow on this range 3 time in 30 years. WP:LEADIMAGE has clear requirements and a rare event, (snow) would disqualify the photo from being a lead image.

Additional opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Santa Ana Mountains#Lead photo. BMK (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Berg1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was kept at TfD discussion for use as a shimming template. So help is needed to convert this over to become a substitution wrapper to {{Infobox mountain}} -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

done. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Kush/Mountain articles

I left a version of the following comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography between 22 February and 3 March 2014. Now I see that the project is deemed 'inactive'.

User:Tabnak has created a large number of pages about mountains. They are in need of clean-up, and some may not be worth keeping, but the topics may well be notable. I'm asking members of this WikiProject to help, since I lack the expertise to determine their value.

Tabnak created "List of mountains with Kush in the name", which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mountains with Kush in the name, and "Hindu Kush (Kunar)" was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Kush (Kunar). Tabnak created a number of articles that another user merged into "Kush (word)"; that page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kush (word).

Tabnak also created all of the following.

I would appreciate it if members of this project could evaluate these articles. Thanks for your attention. Cnilep (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:GEOLAND, if information beyond elevation and location is available in a WP:RS for a named mountain, it is deemed notable. This is a pretty low bar. —hike395 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Kuh-e Hajji Koshteh, for example, doesn't appear to surmount even that low bar. The information given is location, elevation, and the name of the mountain (unless the range where it's located counts). There are no sources cited, and the external link is a Persian language dictionary that appears to be Wiki-based. Therefore, someone who may know of relevant sources (I don't) should evaluate the articles. Cnilep (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

CfD on subcategories

Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges
Category:Rivers of the Canadian Rockies
Category:Rivers of the Omineca Mountains
Category:Rivers of the Pacific Ranges
Category:Rivers of the Kitimat Ranges
and various others by-region

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Category:Rivers_of_the_Boundary_Ranges on the Categories for discussion page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

New articles

I've translated 3 new articles from German Wikipedia that are connected with mountains and climbing: Exposure, Head for heights and Sure-footedness. As they are somewhat technical, from both climbing and medical viewpoints, I would appreciate expert eyes just checking them to ensure they make sense in English. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Really?

I just created stub Raíces, Mexico State since the es.wp article claims it is the second-highest populated settlement (570 inhabitants) in Mexico, the first highest being a redlink (population 2 men and a goat?). Cannot find any source on the redlink settlement. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a pdf in spanish used as a ref on es: here with a table of highest places in the introduction. I'll look what else I can find. JMiall ₰ 16:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The best sources I've found so far are this for info & this for pictures. JMiall ₰ 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, if Acatipa really is (a) populated which it is "The over all population of Acatipa is 674 persons", and (b) higher than Raíces, which it is "The locations medium height over sea level is 4600 meters" then it deserves mention in the Xochiatipan article. [done using source above, thanks]. Both these Mexican settlements are higher than Alma, Colorado, but are there populated places in Canada or Alaska higher still? Given latitude seems unlikely, which makes Acatipa highest-altitude populated settlement in North America? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sugarloaf Mountain

WP Mountains in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Mountains for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The questions are available here in the page history. An un-mentioned 4 day response window is just too short for some of us (or at least me) in the project. RedWolf (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Black Hills of California

should the articles for Black Hills (San Bernardino County) and Black Hills (Kern County) be merged? Are they one range of hills that spans 2 counties or actually 2 separate ranges with the same name? JMiall ₰ 21:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

redirecting minor peaks to ranges, or to ski areas when called for?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Canada#peaks_in_ski_areas.Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Britannia Range: Primary Topic

See Talk:Britannia Range on whether one of the two ranges listed on the Britannia Range disambiguation page should become the primary topic. RedWolf (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Template:Infobox ski area

Template:Infobox ski area, has been proposed for a merge with another template. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares 22:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion been archived to Template_talk:Infobox_mountain/Archive_3#Merger_proposal. RedWolf (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Zugspitze

Could someone assess this article please. It's still listed as a "start" and must be at least C. I'd like to get it to B status or even GA, but not sure how we do that. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

173.250.179.79 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Matterhorn 150th anniversary

As 2015 is the year of the Matterhorn, I invite all interested Wikipedians to join the celebrations by enhancing the quality of all pertinent articles and by making Wikipedia a great source for information pertaining to that subject. In addition to the main article, there are many other pages that deserve to be upgraded and the range of topics is broad: history, mountain huts, nearby settlements and places, biographies, films (btw The Challenge and The Mountain Calls are available online) etc... You can check the Category:Matterhorn but it is far from being an exhaustive list and some articles are also still missing (Peter Taugwalder, Jean-Joseph Maquignaz [fr], Scrambles Amongst the Alps...).

Happy editing, and remember to enjoy it! ZachG (Talk) 17:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox mountain range

Template:Infobox mountain range has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox mountain. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —hike395 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was merge. RedWolf brought up some points about the design of the new infobox, but I was busy IRL, so did not have a chance to respond to him. In order to do the merge, there needs to be some prep work done (i.e, add |region_code= to {{Infobox mountain}}, then run AWB to convert all uses of |region= to |region_code=). I'll start on the prep work (the AWB job could take a long time), but we can discuss RedWolf's design points in parallel. —hike395 (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Design points raised by RedWolf

I agree with consolidating to one infobox but the proposed new template generates some awkward results (IMHO):

Adding the "Highest point" heading for a majority of the mountains that really only have the one high point adds clutter. If we want to go that route, we should consider adding some parameters for significant lower points (e.g. On Mt. Everest, we have the Hillary Step, South Summit, South Col). The highest point header should then only be added if there is at least one secondary high point specified. On the downside though this could be considered going down the "parameters for everything" infobox type that I really don't like much for the most part. For me, the point of infoboxes is to provide a terse summary of the common attributes of general interest to most. When I see some of the huge infoboxes (e.g. for cities/states/provinces), I eventually have the tendency to ignore them as there's just too much detail in there that I don't care about that I have to jump over. It's "too much work" to find something. This though is also the drawback of going to a combo template which describes multiple mountain landforms and thus the need for more and more parameters to denote the differentiating features of each subtype (e.g. the extra parameters for volcanoes – not picking on them, just using as example).
One thing I did like about Geobox is the support for breaking up the location into country, state/province, county, etc. Same as what hike395 mentioned in point #4 of the proposal I think. The mountain infobox on the German Wiki site supports this and probably some of the other language sites as well.
I definitely like changing the "Location" header to "Geography". I recall this is something that was discussed in a previous conversion discussion but we really couldn't decide on a better name at the time.
In the Sunwapta Peak comparison example, why is "Easiest route" split between two lines for the Combo template?
Saying "Parent range" instead of simply "Range" for proper singular mountains within a range just seems to make it sound awkward and a bit confusing (idk, maybe it's just me). It makes sense for mountain ranges but not specific mountains. Parent range is ambiguous for a mountain because do you mean its immediate enclosing range or the parent of that range or the top parent? For example, are we supposed to use Front Ranges, Canadian Rockies or Rocky Mountains? Adding "Parent" just adds confusion (which reminds me of the varying definitions of parent peak where we have people using different definitions when they add it to the infobox but that can be a separate discussion).

--- RedWolf (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Responding to RedWolf's ideas:

I liked the "Highest point" header for individual mountains, because I thought it added clarity about what the "coordinates" meant. But, I see your point about clutter. I don't really want to add a bunch of parameters for subsidiary peaks (agreeing with your point, above, about infobox complexity). What I can do (if other editors agree) is suppress the "Highest point" header unless |range_lat_d= is defined (which is the only way the infobox knows it's about a range/massif).
Yes, the new merged infobox will have a much more flexible country/state/province/county/region location specifier, like in Geobox.
Thanks!
{{Infobox mountain}} currently enforces "nowrap". {{Infobox mountain range}} does not. {{Infobox mountain}} is 22em wide, while {{Infobox mountain range}} is 25em wide. Some of the labels in {{Infobox mountain range}} are somewhat long. I went with 22em and wrapping, in order to accommodate the longer labels. As a compromise, I could go with "nowrap" and 23.5em (halfway between the two). I can try this out.
I think the problem you describe (that no one knows exactly which range to use) will be present whether we call it "parent range" or just "range". The problem with just calling it "range" is that it makes no sense if the article itself is about a range. I'd rather go with an ambiguous name than something that makes no sense.

I will try out the "Highest point" suppression, 23.5em, and "nowrap" and see how it looks. —hike395 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Later --- Not all ranges have |range_lat_d= defined (e.g., Himalayas, Alps). So, that's not a reliable way of suppressing the "highest point" header. I'll revert. As I said above, I like the new header -- I don't think it's clutter. Any other suggestions of how to reliably suppress the header only for ranges are welcome. —hike395 (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is awfully quiet..... Volcanoguy 21:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming people are OK with the 23.5em width, nowrap, "parent range" label, and "Highest point" header. I haven't had a chance to run the big AWB job to use |region_code=. —hike395 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

My latest question on Template talk:Infobox mountain range remains unanswered. How is |range= or |parent_range= appropriate for mountain ranges or individual mountains that are not part of a larger mountain system? Volcanoguy 13:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Will the existing infoboxes be deleted or used as wrappers? I am concerned that we will break the excellent process by which the German wiki infoboxes (which are still separate) are a) initially wrapped and b) automatically replaced by either of the current infoboxes. The current process, which ought to be an exemplar for all the others, enables me as a translator to bring across dozens of articles quickly and concentrate mainly on the article text without spending hours tediously replacing infoboxes which, as we have seen, can be awesomely automated. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Restarting discussion

Sorry that I have neglected this: got very busy IRL, and don't have a lot of time for ambitious changes to WP.

@Volcanoguy: If a mountain (or mountain range) is not obvious part of a larger mountain system, then I would not use the |parent range= parameter.

@Bermicourt: The new infobox should be plug-compatible with both current infoboxes: the idea is to replace the current contetnts of {{Infobox mountain}} and have {{Infobox mountain range}} redirect to {{Infobox mountain}}.

—hike395 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup of "list of mountains"

The list of mountains page (rated as top importance for this project) is, frankly, a mess. I'm looking at how it can be improved. There hasn't been any reply to the message I posted on its talk page, and I would welcome some input. --David Edgar (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it here. I was not aware of the cleanup discussion on that list page as it's not on my watchlist. I agree the page needs cleanup and have replied with initial suggestions. RedWolf (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Mountain on Ceres

See Talk:Great Pyramid of Ceres for a debate on the naming of this article -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Kilimanjaro

Greetings, I recently did some expansion on the Mount Kilimanjaro article and wanted to know if people in this project (in which "jurisdiction" Kilimanjaro lies) have opinions on it now. Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: Mount Rainier article lead photo

Hi Mountains people, we are discussing whether we should replace the current lead image of Mount Rainier. See discussion on the talk page. Some comments would be appreciated. dllu (t,c) 17:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Mount Sharp"

The usage and primary topic of Mount Sharp is under discussion, see Talk:Aeolis Mons -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for "List of peaks named Signal Mountain"

The article List of peaks named Signal Mountain has been nominated for deletion. This is the canonical example of a mountain set index article highlighted in WP:SIA. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of peaks named Signal Mountain. —hike395 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Mountain naming conventions

There exist Astronomical naming conventions and various other "naming conventions" articles. Perhaps the naming of mountains is covered in a passage somewhere, to which Mountain naming conventions (currently a redlink) could redirect? Or is a new article needed? It comes up because it would be helpful to point to such a passage or article, from this article: Mount Kennedy. I think the point there is that the peak was unclimbed, so its naming right was not yet claimed, and so a climbing expedition could be launched in order to be able to name it. I have the impression that she who climbs it names it, and there must be some registry overseeing this, but IANAMP. Help? --do ncr am 23:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what happened with Mount Kennedy but I don't think there is a general scheme for naming mountains. Plenty of mountains were named before anyone ever climbed them, generally by people who lived near enough to them to need a name for the mountain, and plenty are unnamed as nobody has needed a name enough. There is a convention for new climbing routes to be named by the first ascender though and these tend to get recorded in the databases of climbing guides to particular regions. JMiall ₰ 00:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox for Plateaus

Which infobox should be used in an article about a plateau? Infobox Mountain, or the generic Geobox? I see numerous good examples of plateaus in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/List of mountains but I wanted to double check. Thanks in advance Prburley (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me turn the question around: are there any important pieces of information about a plateau that are not captured by {{Infobox mountain}}? If not, then please go ahead and use that infobox. If there are a small number of missing parameters, please bring it up here, so we can perhaps add them. Otherwise, I would go ahead and either use Geobox or (my own preference) make a new infobox. —hike395 (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Belated thanks for your answer! Prburley (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Shilla (6132m) and Shilla Col

Are these the same mountain? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the map on Shilla Col, the latter is a col on the former. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we normally give mountains and cols separate articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments are hereby solicited for the article title discussion that is taking place at Talk:Shilla (6132m). —BarrelProof (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Question that is of interest to this WikiProject on the sources noticeboard

Here, about the reliability of a book used as an Andes-related source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template help and conversion of WikiProject Mountains of the Alps to a task force

Hi. We're trying to display a table of articles by class and importance at the sub-project Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. I'm no expert, but I think this needs Template:WikiProject Mountains to be modified with the parameter "Alps=yes/no", which can then be picked up by the table template. Can anyone help? Bermicourt (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Check out the box on the right of the second row at Template:WikiProject_Mountains/testcases. Is that what you wanted? You need a non-empty |alps= field, and can supply |alps-importance= to provide an Alpine-specific importance (if you like that, or we can remove it). —hike395 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hike, the table will need both parameters to make it work and I think that's useful. The Alps project can then start populating the templates for Alpine peaks which, hopefully, will then reflect in the table. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely no objection from me. As I already said, I fully support the conversion of the project Mountains of the Alps into a task force of this project. Are we going to include all the articles in category:Alps or only category:Mountains of the Alps? I think this project includes de facto other things such as passes, ranges, geology etc...(not always consistently though, see for instance Talk:Geology of the Alps and Talk:Geology of the Himalaya). ZachG (Talk) 17:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. It probably makes sense to restrict it to mountain articles at least initially because a) it's not contentions and b) it makes the task simpler. Downstream, if there's consensus, we can expand it. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Done I modified the live {{WikiProject Mountains}} template to take |alps= and |alps-importance=. So, you should be good to go! —hike395 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, only mountains for now. So, is it ok now to officially convert Mountains of the Alps project into a task force by moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Alps? I'm also not sure about the talk page, but it seems to me that it would be counterproductive to split discussions in Alps/Non-Alps given the size of our community (about one thread per year since 2009). What do you (members of both projects) think? ZachG (Talk) 15:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it for now and get on with the work in hand first. Not least because this project might go in a different direction from its parent in due course e.g. it may become focussed on the Alps as a region, rather than just the mountains... who knows? Meanwhile we have plenty on our plate getting the mountains added to the category, and creating and improving new ones. Bermicourt (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a bot request to update the talk pages and since I'm not familiar with the procedure you may want have a look there (Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProject Mountains banner update). Hopefully within a few weeks the table will be fully populated (2848 articles in total). ZachG (Talk) 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds sensible - thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed primary topic for Southern Alps: New Zealand

I have proposed that the primary topic for the disambiguation page Southern Alps is Southern Alps (New Zealand): the latter should move to the former. Feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Southern Alps (New Zealand)#Requested move 29 November 2015. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed disambiguation of Southern Alps (New Zealand) and Southern Alps (Europe)

The above move request was closed within a day as a "technical closure". The result is that, currently, Southern Alps is an article about a mountain range in New Zealand and Southern Alps (Europe) is about the range in the south of the Alps. So there is a move request to move the former to Southern Alps (New Zealand) and make Southern Alps the disambiguation page. See Talk:Southern Alps#Requested move 30 November 2015. Bermicourt (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Article for deletion

The article on the Fritz Pflaum Hut, a mountain hut in the Austrian Alps run by the German Alpine Club, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Pflaum Hut. The outcome of this may decide the fate of all similar Alpine hut articles. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Level Mountain at GAN

Level Mountain is currently a good article nominee if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Volcanoguy 09:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ultras of Europe

Hello everibody. I opened this issue. Any opinion about it?--Pampuco (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

List of mountains of vs List of mountains in

Hello folks. I think it is high time we set a standard here. Personally, since mountains cannot move, I think we should set "List of mountains of" as the standard (as with rivers, etc). Therefore, I propose the said renames, and also to delete any the redirects so that it doesn't show up on search suggestions and also turns red on accidental linking of "mountains in" (which could lead to more people wrongly thinking "mountains in" is okay)... Comments? Reh man 12:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This is partly a style issue. AFAICS Americans tend to favo(u)r "Mountains of" etc. while others tend to be quite happy with "Mountains in". So if a standard is agreed, the other option should continue to be a redirect. Incidentally google books returns 905,000 hits for the former and 533,000 hits for the latter, so both are clearly in common use and if we choose one over the other it's probably a "convention" rather than a "standard". --Bermicourt (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No offence intended to anyone, but just as with "List of power stations" and "List of dams and reservoirs" (both of which were recently standardized across Wikipedia, without any hard feelings), I think we should choose one to ensure proper functionality. Our search function will automatically suggest the right link anyways, so there is no real impact. We could simply take a vote... Reh man 03:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists of lakes are following the in convenction, even for United States (see for instance List of lakes in Indiana).--Pampuco (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Name of Andean mountains

I have come across a series of mountains, most of them ancient (eroded and presumably extinct) volcanoes, located in Bolivia whose name have an indigenous spelling. These mountains have also a Spanish name. The question is should their name be in indigeous language or in Spanish? The pages are far too many to be addressed one by one. They are grouped in:

Note that Spanish name does not usually include the letters k, w or apostrophes. In these articles where there is little written in English I see that the usage of Indigenous vs Spanish names should be resolved at large here. Dentren | ^Talk 20:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging CaTi0604 seeing as they have been working on a number of such pages, including moving them to indigenous names.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Spanish is the official and predominant language of Bolivia, it surely makes sense to use the Spanish name as the article title. Otherwise, it looks like we're pushing some political agenda which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Obviously names in other recognised Bolivian languages can be included in the lede and as redirects. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak of articles I don't write (-->those without several detailed sources I can readily identify as reliable) but I always use the name(s) used most frequently in science journals (<--Most articles I write are about volcanoes and are sourced to that stuff) which tend to be Spanish.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

People who read these posts might get a wrong impression and come to the wrong conclusions. The posts suggest that there are many mountains in the three categories mentioned above with indigenous names and spellings although they also have a Spanish name and are better known by that name, and that this is inconsistent with the fact that Spanish is "the" official and predominant language in Bolivia. And that besides pages about mountains with Spanish names have been moved in favor of the indigenous names.

Presently none of the names mentioned in the three categories has a Spanish name (like "Cerro Blanco" for instance), but hopefully there are a lot of them to come. All the names are either Aymara or Quechua, both are official languages in Bolivia like all the indigenous languages. The following compilation shows the number of people belonging to the recognized group of speakers (Aymara (ay), Quechua (qu), Spanish (es)) in the departments you mentioned (source :enWP as of today):

La Paz Department: 1,181,593 (ay) - 158,260 (qu) - 1,973,708 (es)
Oruro Department: 127,086 (ay) - 134,289 (qu) - 342,332 (es)
Potosí Department: 57,738 (ay) - 514,421 (qu) - 438,204 (es)

You see that the indigenous languages may also be predominant. The reason that you can communicate with the residents in Spanish is that they are often bilingual and can speak Spanish, a foreign language for them, too.

The spellings of the toponyms used in the three categories are almost without exception based on publications which are supported by the Ministry of Education (dictionaries etc., see refs in the articles). The toponyms with Aymara and Quechua background taken from Spanish websites are mostly wrong. The Bolivian government also uses correct spellings of Aymara toponyms in recent laws.

The Bolivian government and institutions make great efforts to improve the situation of the indigenous population and their rights (see recent laws and publications). By the way, it is settled by law that the indigenous people may use the toponyms of their own language. It is counterproductive and rather rude to ignore the spellings of these languages. Quechua as a native language (8,000 000 million speakers) is spoken by about as many people as Swedish. Do we ignore the Swedish spelling? Is it "politically correct" to go on ignoring that Aymara and Quechua are languages which want to be spelled correctly? Are the Aymara and Quechua people and their feelings unimportant? It would be good to support the efforts of the governments.

It is reasonable to use the correct Aymara and Quechua spellings of the toponyms as page names to prevent a chaos here. An example: Wila Qullu means "red mountain" in Aymara (wila = red, qullu = mountain). The names you will find in the sources (maps) originate from times where Aymara and Quechua were not official languages and where relevant dictionaries were not available yet: Huila Kkollu, Huilacollo, Vila Kkollu, Vilacollo, Wila Collu, Wila Khollu, Wila Kkollu, Wila Kollu, Wila Qollu, Wilacollo, Wilacolo, Wilakhollu, Wilakkollu. The words have been massacred in various ways. If you say that this is the "Spanish" name, would you also agree if I say that rett mountan, redd montane, rad moundayne or rat munhdain is the appropriate and correct English term? Please, mind that "Wila Qullu" is not "the Aymara spelling of Huila Kkollu" where Huila Kkollu is the Spanish spelling (Of what? Of an Aymara word? Do we have French or Portuguese spellings of English?), but that "Wila Qullu" is correct Aymara, just like "red mountain" is correct English. - It is also very popular to keep the Spanish word cerro (mountain or hill) in the page names of mountains with indigenous names in South America. Cerro Huila Kkollu sound like "mountain red mountain" to me. Spanish, however, does not belong to the indigenous names.

If you assume that one of the wrong spellings like Wila Kkollu is the "correct official spelling" which you want to take for your page name, because you found it in a map of the INE, don't be surprised if you find another spelling like Wila Khollu in a map of the IGM 1:50,000 and again Wila Kkollu in a map of another scale for instance. That's "normal". Once or twice I saw three different spellings for one Aymara or Quechua toponym in one publication by the government. Two different spellings is more frequent. For one single mountain you may find even more spellings, example Qiwllarahu ("gull mountain") in Peru: Caullaraju (probably a broken word, not identifiable as Quechua), Jeulla Rajo, Jeulla Raju, Queulla Raju, Queullaraju. The worst term, Caullaraju, seems to be the most popular one. Often the names are obviously broken, but never ever corrected, letters are missing or confused (a-o-u, a-e, l-j, l-t etc). There is a mountain in Peru named Jiwaña, also named Coverane, Coverane Gihuana, Gihuana or Koverane. That was difficult until I saw that the river and the plain near the mountain were labelled Jihuaña which was identifiable as Jiwaña (correct Aymara).

The issue is too complex to be fully explained here. I just wanted to add that I hardly ever move articles which other people edited. What I do is putting "redirects" from all the wrong spellings to the article name. So far I kept many wrong names in the Category:Volcanoes of Bolivia (Cerro Chascon, Cerro Guacha, Guayaques, Juriques, Licancabur, Linzor, Cerro Lípez, Olca, Ollagüe, Sairecabur, Tocorpuri, Zapaleri, even "Nuevo Mundo volcano" which also seems to be a completely wrong name) and in other categories although I often know what the correct spelling would be.

Please, keep in mind that Bolivian and Peruvian Aymara and Quechua children also use the wikipedia. They find many wrong spellings of Aymara and Quechua terms in this wikipedia, and they know that they are wrong because they learn Aymara and Quechua at school.

Hope I could clarify the matter. Cheers. -- CaTi0604 (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that a number of names are "Hispanicized" versions of indigenous names (e.g Guallatiri). Is that correct? And sometimes there is more than one "Hispanicization" for a given name.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, rayt, vat if hui hispenisaiz Aymara or Inglis neymz, dazent it chast meyque zem rong? :) - Sometimes the result of this procedure is interesting like a "roadway" mountain (Calzada) and mountains with tuna fish (atún) high up in the Andes, or the spelling for the name of a village in Peru, a Quechua word which was interpreted as the Spanish name for an animal that lives in Africa (but not in Peru unless in zoos today). So those names can be misleading. -- CaTi0604 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We are not here to judge the effects of naming nor if naming in language X is logical. Spanish is the main language of Bolivia and the main written language there – even of indigenous Aymara and Quechua speaking populations. Indiscriminately applying indigenous spellings on geographical features of the Andes is a Pandora's box that will lead to much trouble. Dentren | ^Talk 18:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In Bolivia and Peru you will find many spellings in words for mountains with an Aymara or Quechua background containing letters or combinations which don't seem to occur in Spanish words like Cc, chch, k, Kh, kh, Kk, kk, Ph, Qa, w, final ñ, (Ccarhuarazo, Jachcha Chankha, Kollke Huarani, Wila Khollu, Wila Kkollu, Qarwarazo, Wichukkollu, Challa Phujru, Wila Chanca, Pekheñ Khara). It is a spelling of its own. The terms are neither Spanish nor are they spelled according to Spanish spelling norms. And none of these mountains has an alternate Spanish name. -- CaTi0604 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It still sounds like we're pushing an agenda and referring to the Spanish name as a "wrong spelling" reinforces that impression. Spanish is the leading language and these peaks appear to be more commonly published in sources under their Spanish name. For example, Ancohuma is 10 times more common on Google and 30 times more common on Google Books than the article name of Janq'u Uma, which clearly fails WP:COMMONNAME. Whether the government is promoting use of other languages or not, and whether a language is predominant in some local area or what some children use, are not relevant. Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I just found this Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains#Naming_conventions, where it says "Articles should be named according to the most common name for a mountain. If alternate names exist, mention them in the article and create redirects for them to prevent duplicate articles." To my knowledge the most common names of Bolivian mountains have Spanish spellings.Dentren | ^Talk 11:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how this discussion is going, or what exactly is going on to begin with, but my understanding of naming in general is that the common name (as proven by the references, preferably in English as this is the English WP) should be used for the titles of any and all articles. I do know that mountains in Peru are known by a mixture of names in Quechua and Spanish, but usually one name is more predominant than the other. It is also common for the hispanicized to be predominant, for example Machu Picchu and Huayna Picchu. Each case should be evaluated independently; tedious as a task that may be, it is the only way to be accurate on this subject.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is wrong to claim the hispanicized version of the names should be "corrected" to the indigenous names. If the common name of a mountain in English is Redddddddd Moooontain, then that is the name that should be used for the article.--17:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lol. The example I often use is Bayern Munich. Illogical though it may be to translate one half of the name of this football team and not the other, that's how it is universally known in English. Bermicourt (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

List of mountain peaks of North America

The List of mountain peaks of North America has been nominated for Featured List. We would very much appreciate your comments at Featured list candidates. We would like to raise many more mountain lists to Featured List status. Thanks, Buaidh 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Large expansion to the Mount Adams (Washington) article

Hi, I have worked up a large re-work/expansion of the Mount Adams (Washington) article on my user subpage. I reworked several sections, expanded other sections, and added a few new sections. In the process I also corrected some inaccurate or outdated information. I took ideas from the various pages of the other Cascade mountains and incorporated them into my re-work. All of the additional material I have incorporated has been taken from what I believe are reliable sources as I can personally vouch for a lot of the information they provide.

I would like your input on what you think I should do in terms of incorporating my re-work into the Mount Adams (Washington) article. You can view my re-work on my user subpage, located here. I would like to get as much input as possible before I do anything. Thanks, Nedst3r (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the diff between Nedst3r's version and the current version: [6] —hike395 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nedst3r: Overall, it looks like you've done a great job in expansion! I would just copy it over to Mount Adams (Washington) and let other editors work on it. Just a few comments:

I don't think you need a separate Geography and Geographic Setting sections.
The extensive material on hiking trails probably goes against the guideline that says that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It should probably be trimmed.
The material on climbing also is probably too detailed, also, see WP:NOTGUIDE in general.
It feels like the article is getting too long. It may be that after trimming some details, it will be ok. Otherwise, you may wish to consult WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and think about sub-articles to spin out, leaving summarization at Mount Adams (Washington). As an example of such a sub-article, see Legends of Mount Shasta.

But, again, congratulations on doing such a fantastic job in expansion! Thanks for your work! —hike395 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the suggestions. I'll see what I can do. Regarding the hiking section, I was mainly following the lead of the original material, but yeah, it probably got too detailed. Regarding the climbing section, I was going to trim the max angle and shortest approach columns out of the routes table. Or, would it be better to trim routes out of the table or eliminate the table altogether? Nedst3r (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still looking for input. Does anyone else have any comments or suggestions? Again, I would like to get as much feedback as possible before I do anything.Nedst3r (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have copied my re-work into the Mount Adams article. Have at it. Nedst3r (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Auto linking of mountain ranges in infobox template

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Unlink range/parent in template footer about stopping the infobox template automatically linking to mountain ranges and other articles. It is causing problems when, for example, an editor correctly types Helicon but this is then linked to a disambiguation page Helicon. Please comment over there, not here. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mount Fox in Canada

Hi. Can someone please backstop me. I approved an article on a mountain named Mount Fox in Canada today: Mount Fox (British Columbia); there was already an article named Mount Fox (Canada), but the coordinates were different for the second mountain. Could someone please verify that this is indeed an existent mountain? I'm having difficulty pulling up the online citations (the internet filter where I work is preventing me). Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

They are different mountains. The first one is in the Selkirk Mountains of B.C. while the second one is on the Alberta/BC border in the Kananaskis region. RedWolf (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of metric rounding of elevation and prominence

I've started a discussion on the rounding of imperial elevation and prominence values from peakbagger at WT:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Rounding of elevation and prominences in mountain infoboxes. Feel free to join in. —hike395 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

List of mountain peaks of Mexico

The article List of mountain peaks of Mexico is largely incomplete. Two mountains were missing in the top 10, and I included two more, with at least four to go within the top 30. See the talk page for more info. --Bodofzt (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Help on mountain article

I've never made a mountain article before, please help if you can on this: User:Horsegeek/Mount Yuntai Thank you! Horsegeek^(talk) 19:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Mountains/Archive 9 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Rainbow Mountain (Peru)

Hello, I would start writing a new article about this super beautiful Rainbow Mountain (wow!!!) in Peru. From googlemaps I get this GPS coordinates: -13.869534, -71.30296. Then I found that this place is just on the north side of Hatun Rit'iyuq mountain, and I guess that probably the "Rainbow Mountain" (in spanish: "Montana Arcoiris" or "Cerro Colorado") is just a touristic name for it. So maybe it's better to improve the Hatun Rit'iyuq than create a new Vinicunca Rainbow Mountain (it could be a redirect). What do you think? (Please ping me) --Holapaco77 (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Peakware

Hello guys! You might want to help me match Wikidata items and Peakware IDs on Mix'n'match. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

deletion nomination for Oxford University Mountaineering Club

For your information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Mountaineering Club

Regards, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pikes Peak prominence

The article about North American mountains listed by prominence does not include pikes peak, 14,115ft prominence, it should be #4 or so on the list and is located in Colorado, near Colorado Springs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.195.44 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Prominence is not the same as elevation. Elevation is how far the top of the mountain is above sea level. Prominence is how far the top of the mountain is above the highest valley that separates the mountain from the next higher mountains. Pikes Peak prominence is 5530 feet (because that is how much higher Pikes Peak is than Lake George, which is between Pikes Peak and Mount Elbert. That puts it at #11 in prominence in the U.S. Rockies. —hike395 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of List of the ultra-prominent summits of North America

List of the ultra-prominent summits of North America has been nominated for deletion. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested a 3-way move

Requested a 3-way name/redirect (could be other redirects too) 'Correction Swap' for the Blue Mountain / Kittatinny chain in New Jersey. It would seem to me, a sub-group here ought to look into continuity of articles across dividing features, especially those creating a political border. Geology, morphology, and like physical factors are common, and such articles as Blue Mountain and Kittatinny Mountains should be handled similarly, even when the border is international (e.g. Ore Mountains between the Czech Republic and Germany. // FrankB 20:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Identity of a mountain

Is File:Parinacota volcano in.jpg really a photo of Parinacota? The cliffs in the foreground and the generally uneven topography seems more like Sajama. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Height of Parinacota

A question about how high Parinacota (volcano) actually is has been asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes#Parinacota's height. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Mountains.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Mountains, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Rounding of summit elevations

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Rounding elevation: should we follow sources for rounding of elevation, or is rounding covered by the MoS? Feel free to join the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mountains of Montana

Template:Mountains of Montana has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates mountains

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal Jabsah, it seems there are multiple one-sentence articles about individual mountains in the UAE, or at least in its one mountainous emirate out of seven (?) emirates (see Category:Mountains of Fujairah). What is needed is one list-article of mountains, perhaps like other great list-articles of this WikiProject such as List of mountain peaks of Mexico. Mountains of the United Arab Emirates or List of mountain peaks of the United Arab Emirates or some similar article. All the one-sentence articles should redirect to the list-article. Coverage of each of them would be improved in a list-article, which provides context and allows comparisons and linked mapping. I hope someone here might step up. :) cheers, --do ncr am 18:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)