Talk:Mount Rainier

Infobox photo choice

• 
  From northeast, by User:Wsiegmund
• 
  Aerial from west, by User:Stan Shebs

User:Rising*From*Ashes changed the infobox photo from the one on the left (from the northeast) to the one on the right (aerial from the west). While the aerial photo does show the whole mountain, I think that the clouds distract from the photograph. I prefer the older one.

What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, hike395! I see we are both interested in Mount Rainier. Awesome! It is a very special place.

Regarding the change from the original image to the new one, here were some of my thoughts:

1) The original image only shows has some significant issues with haziness, clarity, and noise. It was a great photo when it was taken, but as technology has improved, we now have quite a few sharper, clearer images in the commons that would better represent the mountain. The new photo appears to be technically superior in regards to clarity and lack of noise, which is especially clear upon zooming in, and it appears to have sharper focus as well.

2) Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains, I see that the ideal lead image is described as one "preferably providing a view that shows the bulk of the mountain." The original image does not show a significant portion of the mountains bulk. When looking for a replacement, that was something I took into consideration, and I think the new photo does a better job of this.

3) The three summits seem pretty difficult to distinguish in the original image. The three summits give Mount Rainier its unique appearance, and appear in depictions like on the main state license plate. Honestly, I find the mountain in the first image difficult to identify from this image; it looks like it could be one of any number of mountains. The second image seems much more recognizable as Mount Rainier in its appearance, in my opinion. That being said, there certainly are files in the commons that show the three summits even better than either of these, like this one.

4) I think the clouds in the second photo actually improve it. They are predominantly behind the mountain, so they do not obstruct it, and they provide valuable perspective regarding the mountain's size, as it majestically towers over them. In a way, they act like a fiducial marker.

5) Since the lead image is going to be the one that represents the article the most, I think it needs to be highly aesthetically pleasing as well as informational. While the original image has done its job well over the years, I think the new one exceeds it in beauty and impact. That being said, there are many other images I was considering in the commons that are also quite captivating. We have so many great options, I think it would be worth expanding our search beyond these two. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are some other images that I think could be worth considering for the lead, though in the end, I keep coming back to the one by Shebs. But these all have various strengths. I am letter labeling them for easier reference in conversation:

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F
• 
  G
• 
  H
• 
  I

Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Rename request

Following other mountains from WikiProject Mountains, it is common to name the category on geography as 'Geography.' Here, it is named 'Geographical setting.' Might one rename it for consistency? Aonus (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Name of Mt. Rainier

I realize I was wrong to unilaterally change the opening sentence to exclude “also known as Tacoma or Tahoma.” I am not going to do that anymore. I am genuinely trying to reach a consensus. I live in Eatonville Washington near Mt. Rainier and nobody calls it Tahoma/Tacoma. The official name is Mt. Rainier. I was wondering if the native name could be in the info box but in the lead sentence it could just say “Mt. Rainier.” I will abide by whatever is reached through consensus. I’m just offering a suggestion. NapoleonX (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2007 WA Proof.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Parent peak of mt. rainier in Mexico ???

This is insane 2600:6C4E:B7F:F850:F84E:C532:603A:9555 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The source explains: The prominence parent for a peak is the nearest ridgewalk-connected higher peak with greater prominence than the given peak. It will always be both higher and more prominent than the peak itself. Schazjmd (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WZ2372 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WZ2372 (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Native Names of Rainier

Per MOS:LEADLANG, only one non-English name for a place can be in the lead sentence if that name is a common variant. Otherwise, other names must be elsewhere in the article. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"Tahoma" certainly qualifies, as it has fairly wide use in geographic names (Little Tahoma, Tahoma National Cemetery, Tahoma State Forest, Tahoma School District, etc.) and has been used as a substitute or second mention for Rainier by non-local outlets, such as the LA Times and the Washington Post. SounderBruce 06:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Tahoma is an English name, təqʷubəʔ is a non-English name. Like @SounderBruce said, Tahoma is a common secondary English usage word for the mountain, so, in my opinion, both should remain. PersusjCP (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, since its a common name in English, "Tahoma" certainly qualifies under MOS:LEADLANG as an alternate, but not the Lushootseed original. The Lushootseed original can be in the "Name" section and is certainly appropriate there. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Can I trust this article? For school research? Because no one at my school believes Wikipedia is a reliable source. Foofy Plop (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Foofy Plop, the reliable sources are listed in the References section at the bottom of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Tahoma

Mount Rainier isn't called Tahoma. It's near Tahoma though. Right? Foofy Plop (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Tahoma is another name for the mountain. There is no "place" named Tahoma. Schazjmd (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Last eruption

The infobox listed the last eruption as 1450, but the text of the article lists recorded 19th century activity. This is a contradiction in the article, and the way we normally handle it is by noting both sources since both are reliable. I've moved the 1450 date and citation to the body of the paragraph and out of the infobox so not as to overweight it. Happy to discuss, but came across this as a reader and it was fairly confusing, so I went ahead and made the change. If people think there's a better way to address it, I'm all ears. Just don't think the status quo is the right presentation. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)