Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


Featured picture of tomorrow Saturday

According to Template:POTD/2009-05-23, it's of Mount Cleveland (Alaska). -- User:Docu

Oregon mountain ranges list completed from USGS GNIS data

FYI - I created 30 stub articles to fill out List of mountain ranges of Oregon based on USGS GNIS data. I had already done the same for California and Nevada (which took about 215 new articles each to complete) last year. Ikluft (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Memorial effort

As many of you might have seen in the Wikipedia Signpost, User:Fg2, who had been a significant contributor to much of our content related to Japan, has recently died. Some of us have decided to try to work to improve an article relative to his interests as a memorial to him, and the article chosen is Mount Fuji. This is also an article considered of "Top" importance by your project. I and I believe the rest of the people involved in the effort to improve this article in honor of Fg2 would more than welcome any input from members of this project. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Canadian Rockies}}

Please see Template talk:Canadian Rockies about sectioning the mountain range section by major grouping; I'm a klutz with messing with template design - please have a looksee.Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Boundary Peaks of the AK-BC and BC-AB borders

Please see Category_talk:Boundary_Ranges in re related categories and potential subcategories and their parents, and suggesting List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia border or List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska Boundary Settlement (or whatever title of t hat kind; the Hay-Herbert Treaty seems less descriptive for the context, which is geographic in nature); and related subcats Note the use of full caps on Boundary Peaks, these are official names/designations not simply peaks the border touches it; they are the border, quite literally, although there are some Boundary Monuments (also full caps) also at certain points, and designated latitude-longitude "corner turns", though the peaks are the dominant defining points of the boundary.Skookum1 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Took me a while but I made List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia border and I think I've got them all; if someone could compare the GNIS search for "Boundary Peak", limited to Alaska to exclude those in NV and NM etc, that'd be great. Most do not have CGNDB cite - ony the fully named ones do - and not all are in BCGNIS, though I can't do those cites until BCGNIS is workign again (it hasn't been these last couple of days). I'm tempted to lump all the BCGNIS, GNIS and CGNDB columns into one just called "cites"; the "other" column is for any bivouac or peakbagger citations etc.; "range/region currently shows the US counties delivered up by GNIS but it should be for the range/environs/park. There are duplicate entries as GNIS has different ID nos. for each name, sometimes different coordinates; this might screw up displays in GeoGroupTemplate and I'm wondering about doing it in three chunks - Stewart to Skagway, Skagway to the Alsek, and then the St. Elias bunch, so that GeoGroup will "hone" in one the areas. As you can see form the redlinks there are articles needed and "legacy" mentions for such as Mount Quincy Adams on the [John Quincy Adams]] page to be made etc. The List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border, with or without passes included, is gonna be harder to do as they're not named Boundary peaks, which is the case here; it'll be done from exploring maps, I guess.....comments column currently only is AK-BC/YT but could include bits of info on the namesakes of the named peaks.....some of the number-only peaks are very high, e.g. BP 187, near St. Elias, is over 13000'.....oh, yeah, I don't know how to use the {{conv}} template so if someone could take the time to add it to all the elevation fields and amend the column heading appropriately; the feet-elevation is all that GNIS gives on its table, though there are metric measures on the individual pages.....also note because of the YT having Boundary Peaks of this kind, a better title is needed - List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border maybe or List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska Boundary Settlement or something of that kind.... suggestions?Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Excellent new resource for backcountry skiers. Not sure why an external link that I added to Front Range was reverted. This link meets all wikipedia guidelines and would be an excellent resource for mountaineers. The specific route info for backcountry skiers is something that is not documented in an organized fashion anywhere else online. Please discuss this link and provide real feedback for or against including it in the external links section of the Front Range article. The community conclusions could impact similar links on other articles. (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)]]

New list of BC-AB border peaks

I started List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border of today, but only a very small start, it will eventually be huge; see Talk:List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border for to-dos and instructions on how to expand it....too big a job for one person.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, a look at it shows there are numerous peaks and passes on the divide/BC-AB border that could use articles; all the passes certainly, and I'd think most of the peaks; a List of mountain passes on the British Columbia-Alberta border also comes to mind; maybe that would better be List of mountain passes on the Great Divide of North America or the like might be a better solution, given the evident overlap.Skookum1 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
And note this entry in BCGNIS}, for "The Trench" (trench) in BCGNIS, which I gather is a pass, or cleft; it's in the Kootenay Icefield area.Skookum1 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why jurisdictional maps don't work for geographic items

In the course of finishing up the List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border, I followed a lot of the resulting bluelinks, some of them I added a "(Canada)" dab too, others existed but many were written Alberta-only; I amended their text, but those that have maps have Alberta-only maps; this is inappropriate for peaks also in BC. What's needed is a pushpin-friendly terrain map of the Rockies, either Googlemap-satellite or one of the other landform series like that used on e.g. Bendor Range (which isn't pushpin-friendly, but the Googlemaps I think are...). Geographic maps should be used for geographic features; it really doesn't matter which BC regional district or Alberta improvement district they're does matter where in the landscape they are....see Talk:Trapper Peak (Canada).Skookum1 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hooker and Brown

I came across this while checking out Mount Hooker, which is one of the BC-Alberta border peaks; it's not about the real Mount Hooker so I separated their dabs on that page, but I'm also not sure how to categorize this or further "treat" it....anyone wanna take it on?Skookum1 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:26, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

  • I plan on enabling this for our project within a week unless there are any objections. RedWolf (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
YesY Done I did this back in March. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Article alerts. —hike395 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mount Ulysses

I just made this as a result of adding Grand Pacific Pass so as to add it to the lede of List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border (it's on the boundary though not SFAIK treaty-specified in the same way the peaks are, and the summits of the Chilkat, Chilkoot and White Passes). There's peaks in that area like Mount Root which are bare stubs or which are redlinks (as you'll find on that list), but the significance of Grand Pacific Pass in topographical terms is it's the prominence col for Mount Ulysses, which is the highest thing north of Lake Williston - within BC; not sure if Keele et al are higher. Anyway Ulysses is a very significant peak; pictures of it are few, especially public domain though there may be some aerials out there; the core part of those ranges is pretty unusual, I've "done the topos" in detail, be nice for someone to come up with some pics. Real remote country, not many people go in there, not easy to photography like Garibaldi or Manning or BAnff Parks, by comparison....anyway seemed like a significant enough peak to warrant gussy-ing up WP:Mountains-style, if someone would care to bother....(pls, though, use a terrain map or sat map for the location map rather than those icky regional district location maps....and lots of peaks on the Boundary Peaks page and its BC-Alberta sibling (in its see also); and I gather the continental divide also applies as boundary between YT and NWT....not sure many of those peaks are named, don't think so....Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I have added the infobox and location map. For such a significant peak, a photo would certainly be nice — I have never been in that area so can't help with that. RedWolf (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

New template: YDS

I wrote a very simple template because I got tired of typing Yosemite Decimal System. See the {{YDS}} for how it works. –droll [chat] 07:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Someone put an ad-like template on our participant list that completely broke the project page: I removed it. Another editor designed an ad for the WikiProject. I removed it too, pending discussion: do we want a project advertisement with animation? It seems highly annoying to me. —hike395 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Definitely no animation, I agree they are very annoying. RedWolf (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another template: epi

I've created a new template to simplify and compact sortable tables of mountain peaks. Template:epi creates three consecutive sortable cells in a table row displaying the elevation, topographic prominence, and topographic isolation of a mountain peak. The template only requires three measurements, but has many display options. See Mountain peaks of North America and the List of Ultras in Canada for examples.

Peak Wikitext Elevation Prominence Isolation
Mount Everest {{epi|8848|8848|40008}} 8848 m
29,029 ft
8848 m
29,029 ft
40,008 km
24,860 mi
K2 {{epi|8614|4020|1315.8}} 8614 m
28,261 ft
4020 m
13,189 ft
1,316 km
818 mi
Kanchenjunga {{epi|8586|3922|123.99}} 8586 m
28,169 ft
3922 m
12,867 ft
124 km
77 mi

If you prefer to create just one cell at a time, you can use Template:moft and Template:kmomi, or their U.S. counterparts Template:ftom and Template:miokm. See the Table of elevation extremes by country for an example. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox mountain}} code updates

Hey folks,

There's been a lot of work over several months to overhaul the codebase of {{infobox mountain}} to make it easier to maintain and to make it fit better with other infobox templates. At present, the code at {{infobox mountain/sandbox}} looks like it's good to go: a comparison between the old and new layouts is available at the test cases page. In addition to significant code cleanup, several bugs look to have been fixed compared to the deployed code. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any comments on the code, but just on the aesthetics:
  • I like the brown left column of the original infobox mountain: it immediately identifies the article being about a mountain (which is not always obvious from the picture, for the less prominent mountains). Can we restore a light brown left column? I realize that geobox does not have this, but I really like that feature.
  • It seems that the spacing between lines have increased. This is good for readability, but bad for the room it takes up. I wonder if we should use a little less space around the text? perhaps even 1px less?
hike395 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"Brown" could immediately identify all sorts of things, from furniture to sausages. Mountains are not, to my knowledge, synonymous with the colour brown. Indeed, rather a lot of the Earth is brown. It's unnecessary decoration. Leaving it in the title is simply a concession to the common use of a colour bar in infobox headers. As for the spacing, it has increased slightly, but only to the same spacing as in all other {{infobox}}es. It can easily be decreased if really necessary, but is it really necessary to override this here as compared to a large majority of the rest of the encyclopedia's infobox templates? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm saying that existing mountain infoboxes are brown on thousands of pages, and that particular color immediately identifies pages associated with this WikiProject. If, 7 years ago, we had chosen blue, I would now be arguing for keeping that blue. It has nothing to do with actual colors of mountains (or sausages).
As for the spacing: you wanted feedback --- I gave it. I think that a slight compression of the spacing will make the infobox more compatible with existing mountain infoboxes. —hike395 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I just clarify that this is a replacement for the current code. It isn't going to be deployed alongside it. Right now, the mountain infobox looks out-of-place compared to other geography infoboxes, which it is deployed alongside. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious what the other WikiProject participants think: there are several devoted infobox-adders in the project, and I'd like to hear from them. —hike395 (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I can understand the need to standardize infoboxes and try to use a common code base. This infobox has seen a lot of changes over the years and is now used in nearly 8,000 articles. There was an attempt a while back to get the project to convert to using the Geobox template but due to a number of major issues that remained unresolved, we decided not to switch to using Geobox for individual mountains. Geobox is however recommended for mountain ranges. Geobox does have some nice features that the current infobox does not have and it does make sense to try and make Infobox mountain and Geobox generate similiar results. The proposed changes do bring the infobox closer to Geobox (and some other project infoboxes) in terms of layout. As for my comments on the changes, I agree with Hike395 that there's a bit too much spacing. I do not feel as strongly about keeping the color shading on the left side —other infoboxes have stopped doing this and I somewhat agree that it's a decoration that perhaps no longer suits an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Why not get rid of the line separators (the table's grid lines)? I do not think they are necessary and I actually find it distracting for them to be there if the left side color shading is no longer there. We might want to consider grouping some of the fields under a subheading (see Himalayan blue sheep for an example). RedWolf (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I dug into the template coding a little bit. My attempts to override the default geography CSS class didn't work to my satisfaction, so I guess we can stick with the default spacing.
I really liked RedWolf's suggestion of using headers. Chris helpfully put the code for headers in, so it was easy to add: Mapping, Geology, and Mountaineering. I had to re-order the rows to make them group more sensibly into these headers. What do people think now?
I agree with RedWolf about the lines, but I am unsure how to get rid of them. —hike395 (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Later: I managed to fix the spacing, font-size, and get rid of the lines. I'm now quite happy with the new infobox. I can see that it matches other infoboxes, and I appreciate the work of Chris (and others) in using the better {{Infobox}} code. Any comments on the new sandbox results at {{Infobox mountain/testcases}}?
  • Looking pretty good now — not seeing the range and location in the same area as elevation takes a bit of getting used to although it's probably fine the way it is. Should there be white spacing around the headers? The taxobox (see example link above) and albums (e.g. The Wall) add spacing which is probably done via CSS. RedWolf (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry: I just cannot figure out how to put white spacing around the headers. There's something about the geography infobox class that is blocking me. I'm certainly not a CSS expert. —hike395 (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I like it although I think I like the Geobox style more (some of this is just down to the smaller text size though). I'm also a fan of the infoboxes on fr, it, sv, nl etc which move the map nearer the bottom. Some of these also have very slightly grey backgrounds for the headings which I think works quite well. If someone wanted to go live with the new template as is though I wouldn't object. JMiall 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Font size: Do people prefer slightly smaller fonts (i.e., 90%)? I find them hard to read, so I overrode the default and made it 95% (to match the current infobox). But, if the consensus is to compress the infobox, I can change it back.
Map further down: I like the idea of the map further down --- that would conflict with the layout given by {{infobox}}, but it might be do-able.
Color of headers: I'm still partial to the color that we chose back in 2003, just to maintain continuity. —hike395 (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the fonts a little smaller but if most prefer 95%, I'm okay with that. If there's a photo, then the map on the bottom might look better. However, if there is no photo, I think it looks better with the map on top. Perhaps the template logic could default to that but add an override parameter? I like the current color for the headers. I think we just need to see an example with the extra spacing added for the header rows as I suggested and if everyone likes that (or not), I think we can prepare for flipping the switch. RedWolf (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I was unable to make the map move down without giving it a brown background, so that's no good. Hopefully someone else can try to put in the extra spacing —hike395 (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it, particularly the useful subcategories in the right-hand column. Would there be any way of having a choice between "First ascent" (the row on the left) and "First recorded ascent" for cases when the mountain had obviously been ascended before the first recorded ascent (eg Ben Nevis, Piz da la Margna etc etc)? Can this be done manually on the new template or are we just stuck with "First ascent" and where there is a deviation from this it will have to be noted case by case? I have tried to alter it manually but the new template (as with the old) is resistant to this. Ericoides (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to do this, either. —hike395 (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I can perhaps take a stab at this but won't have time until later this weekend. If anyone else can figure it out before then, that's great. RedWolf (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    I cannot figure it out either as to putting white spacing around the header lines. The geography css is somehow preventing it as all the other geography templates I have looked at do not use the geography css and simply use vcard and in those cases it displays with the white spacing around the heading lines. We need someone with more CSS expertise to help on this. RedWolf (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that RedWolf and I are both stuck on further improving the infobox via CSS, should we give up on major changes to the proposed box? If so, the last issue is the font size: the current infobox has 95%, which I copied over to the proposed infobox. The geography infobox default is 90%, which both RedWolf and JMiall seem to prefer. Any other opinions, one way or the other?

Later: tried 92% --- doesn't seem different from 95% on Linux Firefox 3.5 :-( —hike395 (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, by simply removing "geography" from the bodystyle, it achieves what I wanted to see. What do others think of this change? With this change, I definitely think the map should go on the bottom. BTW, why is sandbox calling sandbox2? RedWolf (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying an experiment, where all of the compatibility functions go into an outer template (sandbox), which then simplifies the main template (now called sandbox2). When we deploy, we can advertise the new argument names: eventually, someone who is interested could make a bot to change over all old parameters, and we can ditch the compatibility template.
I'm mostly doing this to see if I can shift the map to the bottom easily (by making it a subtemplate). But, I'm running into a mysterious bug (see the first test case), and I'm really puzzled.
Re: your edits. I'm not sure that I like the white border. It's ok: it looks a little "loose" to me (i.e., too much white space) I adjusted the whitespace to be only 2px, which is definitely better —hike395 (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Later: I moved the map into the mapping section (only if there is a photo). That made sense to me: what do other editors think? —hike395 (talk)
  • Yea, I didn't quite like all that extra white spacing so your change is good. I fixed the issue with the first test case by adding the rounding parameter -- perhaps a bug in that template when being passed through a number of template calls? I also added the Sunwapta Peak test case as this does not have a photo. This test indicates to me that the pushpin_mapsize parameter is not being honored in the new template but it is in the old. One other thing is that I don't quite like the name of the "Mapping" header. How about Geography instead? RedWolf (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the pushpin_mapsize problem: (I added a spurious _ by mistake). Re: Mapping header. I almost used Geography when I added it, but then it seemed to me that Elevation and Prominence are also geographical entities. Not sure how to fix this: is there a better term? —hike395 (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I kinda liked the border. It grew on me :( ResMar 01:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I liked the border, too: I think it helps readability, especially when there are citations in the data field (see, e.g., range and prominence in Template:Infobox_mountain/testcases#Mount Baker). The question is: how much do we want to conform to a de facto geography infobox standard, vs. doing our own thing? —hike395 (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The current infobox has 95% data font and 90% label font. I just find 90% data way too small: the subscripts and superscripts (e.g., in the coordinates) are unreadable, and the references are just as large as the data font itself. What do you think? I was trying for a compromise between the standard and what I thought was reasonable. —hike395 (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The current font sizes are okay with me although my preference would be 90%. Are you perhaps using small fonts at a high resolution on your system? I don't think this is a big issue as far as going ahead with implementing the new layout. As for the Geography heading, yes, I would agree that Geography is a bit too broad but I find Mapping just sounds/looks a bit strange. I'm open to suggestions on other terms. Nothing immediately comes to mind. RedWolf (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm using the default FireFox fonts (16 pt "serif") on a netbook at native resolution (1024x600), so I'm not doing anything outrageous.
As for other terms: Environment? Perhaps the split is too artificial, and there is a different way to sort the rows? —hike395 (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The correct term for the sort of things listed in that column is "location". But that is already being used. Perhaps change "location" from its present position. Ericoides (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right: "Location" is the sensible header name. We could rename the current "location" field to be "Political division"... or, would it be that bad to have both a "Location" header and a "Location" field underneath it? It's unambiguous and keeps things close to the current infobox. —hike395 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Later: updated {{Infobox mountain/sandbox2}} with Ericoides' idea: examples at {{Infobox mountain/testcases}}. What do other people think? I like it. —hike395 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not like using the term "Political subdivision" to be honest as I don't think I would put the country or continent (e.g. Antarctica) at that level. Looking at what the French Wiki has done, which may have been based on {{Geobox}}, another option is splitting the location into its respective pieces such that we have country, region, subdivision on separate lines. We could add a region_type and subdivision_type parameters to override the default labels where it makes sense to do so. For example, region_type=Province or region_type=State. We should even have a country_type so it could be set to continent for Antarctica. Counties would be set as the subdivision. The drawback with this is having to add these new parameters to existing infoboxes. The positive is that we could have "Location" as the header and it would be more in line with the Geobox layout of this information. I will also note that the French wiki is using "Geography" as the header for elevation, range and coordinates while they use "Administration" for the location fields. This all being said, I know this is really nitpicking over a few labels and something that is easily changed. If others are in agreement, I propose adding the flexibility of separating out the location field into its respective parts and if these are used then the duplicate "Location" goes away. Perhaps if we leave the second Location, others not following this conversation can bring a new perspective on the naming once they see it — or one of us stumbles onto the "magic word(s)". RedWolf (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If we have separate country/province/region fields for Location, how are we going to have backwards compatibility to existing infoboxes? Won't we still need a Location field? —hike395 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, we would still have the location field if the new parameters were not being used. As the infoboxes are updated to use the new fields, the Location field would disappear from the article. Hopefully, I'll have some spare time in the next day or two to update the template to show some examples. RedWolf (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Should we go ahead and use the template? Or should we wait for RedWolf? —hike395 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I vote to go ahead. I'm not sure there's an elegant way to implement what I propose using that messy #if syntax. It can always be added later and not having it now will not break existing pages. RedWolf (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin: can someone copy over {{Infobox Mountain/sandbox}} to {{Infobox Mountain}}, and move {{Infobox Mountain/sandbox2}} to something appropriate? —hike395 (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New mountain infobox goes live

YesY Done The new layout is now live! {{Infobox mountain/sandbox2}} was copied to {{Infobox mountain/main}}. I have added a section to the infobox talk page about the new layout. Thanks everyone for your valuable input.RedWolf (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work on it too. One small point. For peaks such as Piz Badile, where they were once listed as in the Bregaglia Range they are now simply listed as in the Bregaglia, which is a municipality not a range. Any idea why the template has done this to the mountains in this range whilst correctly assigning the peaks in the nearby Bernina Range to the correct place? Do they all have to be changed manually? Ericoides (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is anything we did: I went back to the very first version of Piz Badile that you wrote in 2007, and it had a link to Bregaglia, not Bregaglia Range. The template does not alter the link. Not sure what happened. —hike395 (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks. I'll change the relevant pages manually. Ericoides (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing has definitely been broken during the revision: the parameter "Language" used to only display if the parameter "Translation" were also present, but now it displays improperly without that dependence. For an example of the problem, I noticed this by looking at the article Hauhungatahi which I created last month, in which I had filled in the "Language" parameter (since the name is obviously Maori), but left the "Translation" parameter blank since I had not yet found a source giving the translation. This used to work fine, the "Language" parameter would sit quietly in the template and not display, but now all of the sudden, the new infobox does display the language beside the word "Translation". This looks weird, the old behavior was much better. I suspect there may be many other mountain articles which how have this display error, so it would be best to fix the template to re-include the old dependence, instead of trying to find and change an unknown number of articles. I'm sure I could figure out how to do this myself, but someone else here who has been more involved with the infobox revisions could probably fix this much more easily and reliably. Lemme see: in Template:Infobox mountain/main, would changing data7 to read "{{#if:{{{translation|}}}| ''{{{translation|}}}'' {{#if:{{{language|}}}| ({{{language|}}})}} }}" (i.e. moving the language within the "if translation" statement) be the required fix? --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed As you point out, it is an easy change. I added it to the test cases. —hike395 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Found another problem as well: the "Elevation_m" parameter sometimes makes a very poor conversion using the wrong number of significant figures. I noticed this on Hvannadalshnúkur, where "Elevation_m = 2110" displays as "Elevation 2,110 m (6,900 ft)" -- but 2110 m is 6923 ft, not 6900 ft, and rounding off to the 100s digit is not correct here. It appears that this is the automatic rounding behavior in Template:Convinfobox. Is there a way to specify the proper number of sigfigs in the Elevation_m or Elevation_ft parameters? If not, it seems best to never use them (in which case they should be deleted from the infobox template) and always use the old standard method of "Elevation = {{convert|2110|m|ft|0}}" instead, which properly gives 2,110 metres (6,923 ft). --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This a bug feature in {{convinfobox}} which is rather cryptic. I'll take a look. –droll [chat] 20:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • After thinking it over I realize that it would be better to write code specific to our template. {{Convinfobox}} is sort of one size fits all and IMHO really shouldn't be changed for this template only. –droll [chat] 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite summitpost

So I finally wrote a temple to cite and it is named {{Cite summitpost}}. Its just like {{cite pb}} etc. –droll [chat] 20:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move for Karkonosze

Hello. Article about Karkonosze mountain range is nominated again for a move. Discuss at Talk:Karkonosze#Requested move 2. - Darwinek (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Giant mountains? Karkonosze? Krkonoše? Riesengebirge?

You are invited to participate in a poll. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


One of the things that should be included in the outline somewhere is the function of the mountain in drainage. That is, what part it plays in the watershed to which is provides (usually) significant drainage. While this shouldn't be overemphasized, neither should it be omitted. Student7 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • That would certainly be welcome but for other than well known mountains, such information would likely be very hard to find. If you find such information for a mountain, please go ahead and add it, citing the source of course. RedWolf (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

White Carpathians

I have a disagreement with the user Nmate on whether or not to keep the Hungarian name for the White Carpathians. which are located on the Czech - Slovak border There isn't a Hungarian minority in the area where the White Carpathians are located. So I think the Hungarian name is not relevant.

PS I'm a beginner on wikipedia, so i'm sorry if posting this message here was not something good (Iaaasi (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Center location in infobox

I have a proposed change to the infobox, which you can see at {{Infobox mountain/testcases}}.

I propose that, instead of having the location of the mountain have a label "location" directly underneath a header "location" that we simply center the location underneath the header, and above an optional map. The code was a simple change: please see the testcases to see if you think this is an improvement. Comments welcome! —hike395 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I have to admit that it just looks a bit "off balance" to me but I cannot think of anything yet that would help my first impression of the change. I'm curious to see what others think. RedWolf (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't said anything because I've cogitating about this. I now feel that the change would be positive. It says location just above so why say it twice. –droll [chat] 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of this change. It looks OKish if there is a location map there (functioning something like a second map title) but without this it just looks like one of the rows hasn't been formatted properly. I prefer the double 'location'. JMiall 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What about if there is a map, we set the map caption to the location. If no map, we leave the double Location? RedWolf (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I implemented RedWolf's idea (see testcases), and it does remove some of the redundant "location", so I like that. There's still some silly cases (like Mount Everest and Mount Fuji) where the map captions are redundant, but I kept them to not throw away information. Should we always override the map captions with the location?hike395 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Later: I'm experimenting with using the location as a map header when there already is a map caption.I'm still trying to adjust the format (to get rid of the space above the map) What do people think of this? —hike395 (talk)
Big improvement. How about
Map & map caption & location - use double location
Map & no caption & location - use location as map caption
Map & caption & no location - use map caption as normal
No map - use double location? JMiall 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If by "double location", you mean a row that looks like "Location Absurdistan", then the version in the sandbox is almost what you are suggesting. The only difference is "Map & map caption & location".
Question for other editors: Take a look at the Mount Everest and Mount Fuji (2) examples at {{Infobox Mountain/testcases}}. Notice how the location is above the map and under the header, with no Location label. I like this --- it is like a map header. What do other editors think about this specific case? —hike395 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yea, it occurred to me after what to do when the map location is already specified. Another alternative to what JMiall suggests is to put articles into the maintenance tracking category when there's both a map caption and a location but keep the map location as the caption. That way, we can manually check the articles in the tracking category and probably just blank the map caption in most cases. I think it's quite rare indeed that there's a map without a location. RedWolf (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This could work, also, because it gets rid of the case where we haven't reached consensus. How does one set up a tracking category in the template? I'm not sure: Droll has done it. —hike395 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Discussion has died out, so I went ahead and implemented the least change that we all seem to agree on (which is JMiall's suggestion, above). Currently there is no map header in the live infobox, but I'd still like us to consider it. (see testcases) —hike395 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Elevation source precedence question

Have been working on a lot of Rocky Mountain peak articles lately and other related articles where peak names are included in content along with their elevations. In some of these cases, the elevation in the peak's article differs from the elevation on another article because different sources are used. This is usually a difference between Peakbagger and GNIS data. Here is one example: Chief Mountain (peakbagger el data) and the Chief Mountain entry in Mountains and mountain ranges of Glacier National Park (U.S.) (GNIS el. data). This presents inconsistent information to the reader and should be corrected. In correcting these inconsistencies, which source should take precedence and why?--Mike Cline (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I wrote some notes on this subject and you can find them here. I'd be grateful for any comments. –droll [chat] 05:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. There are two templates I use to help identify which vertical datum is being used. They are {{NGVD29}} and {{NAVD88}}. See Mount Whitney for an example. –droll [chat] 05:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
GNIS data aren't entirely reliable for discontinuous points like summits:
"Elevation figures are not official and do not represent precisely measured or surveyed values. The data are extracted from digital elevation models of the National Elevation Dataset for the given coordinates and may differ from elevations cited in other sources, including those published on USGS topographic maps. Variances between the NED and GNIS elevation data and other sources generally arise from acceptable tolerances, and will be most evident for features such as summits, where precision is of more concern, and where the local relief (rate of change of elevation) may be more prominent. When the elevation figure is of particular note, for example the highest point in the State, then the actual elevation is recorded in the description field of the feature. The elevation figures are sufficiently accurate for most purposes of general information. Efforts are continuously being made to improve the accuracy and resolution of both GNIS and NED data, the results of which will be reflected at both sites."
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) : Frequently Asked Questions
—WWoods (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite peakfinder

I created still another citation template, {{Cite peakfinder}}. It's a very good source for information on mountains in the Canadian Rockies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Droll (talkcontribs) 06:23, February 20, 2010

AfD Cerro del Quinceo

FYI, this article is being considered for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerro del Quinceo (2nd nomination) for discussion.--RDBury (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

New location map for BC - nd botmaster pls

I got tired of seeing mountain location maps showing regional district boundaries, a vice which has spread to fr-wiki and de-wiki and farther; so I went and created {{Location map Canada British Columbia (no subdivisions)}} for use with mountains, lakes, provincial parks, Indian Reserves, bumps on a log - anything that's not to do with municipalities or regional district governance (which can keep {{Location map Canada British Columbia}}. I've made the change on only a few mountain articles so far because I"m working on a REAL slow connection, and also because it's incredibly laborious to do manually. So if one of you out there is a botmaster and knows your way around wikibots, please help out and globally apply the change to all contents of Category:Mountains of British Columbia and, if you'd also oblige, Category:Lakes of British Columbia etc etc.....myself I'm going to try to figure out how to create the necessary interwiki maps, as it's those that twigged me off - people in foreign countries should not be given the impression that the regional district boundaries are the framework for how people in BC describe their locations/geography...more and more I see pages on the web which use this style of description, but it's because they have learned the idea from Wikipedia (I'm not speaking of wikipedia clones like wapedia or but they're part of the problem). Wikipedia is supposed to reflect usage paradigms, not invent them; misinterpreting and relaying false information about political goegraphy is, to me, definitely "not on"....Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • This is fine with me. No changes are needed to the infobox templates but the map parameter needs to be changed from "map = Canada British Columbia" to "map = Canada British Columbia (no subdivisions)". This is pretty straightforward for a bot to take care of, perhaps placing a request on Wikipedia:Bot requests might be in order. RedWolf (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
YesY Category:Mountains of British Columbia is done.
N The union of the set which transclude Template:Location map Canada British Columbia and the set that folds Category:Lakes of British Columbia is empty. The Template:Infobox lake does not seem to have a map param but its very late and I must be looking at this wrong. –droll [chat] 11:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed name of cite pb to cite peakbagger

I changed the name of {{cite pb}} to {{cite peakbagger}}. I think it is a less esoteric and more descriptive name. I left the old template name as a redirect and so it will still work. I edited all the articles which use the template so that currently there are no links to the old template name. –droll [chat] 06:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kang Yatze

Hi everybody, I have created a page for a summit in Ladakh/India called Kang Yatze added two pics as well. Just FYI. cheers --SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing mountain topics

I've updated the mountains section of one of my missing topics lists - Skysmith (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavian Mountains -> Mountains of Scandinavia

I came across this article via its link/name in the lede of Jotunheimen and hadn't seen the term before; indeed, it's a fiction and I think the article should be retitled; see Talk:Scandinavian_Mountains.Skookum1 (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I find that not a good idea. The Scandinavian Mountains is not just term for mountains of Scandinavia, it is the name of a mountain range. Sure it contains several mountain ranges but so do others like the Coast Mountains and Rocky Mountains. BT (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rinjani (Indonesia) page edit

I have just done a revision of the Rinjani page. Thos with an interest in this page may want to run their eyes over it to make sure I have not transgressed any major wikipedia or content guidelines...hope it is OK. Please have a look as time permits to ensure there are no issues as I am a newcomer to wikipediaFelix505 (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hight of Lars Christensen Peak

While working on Peter I Island, I have discovered that there are several different claims for the hight of the island and Lars Christensen Peak. Some claim 1755 m, such as GNIS, while others claim 1640 m, such as Global Volcanism Program, Norwegian Polar Institute and Lonely Planet, while Barr (1987) claims 1695 m. All these seem to be reliable sources, so does anyone know what is correct, or if any of these sources is not reliable? Thanks, Arsenikk (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot provide any references but from what I remember the GNIS elevations for Antarctica come from some very old sources (sometime in the mid 1940's). I would go with 1640 m. –droll [chat] 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • They all can be considered reliable for the most part; I would probably pick the height given by at least two sources but add a footnote about the discrepancy among sources, e.g. see Lhotse. RedWolf (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Peter I Island was first subject to typographical surveys in 1987, so any older sources than that may very well be incorrect. I will go with 1640. Arsenikk (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Your project needs to sign up Starzynka. He told me on my talkpage, he likes creating mountain stub articles. He's at work right now. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pizzo Coca

Hello, could someone look over Pizzo Coca and improve it with the aim of bringing it up to a higher class article? I found this one as stub and took it as far as I could. I really don't know much about doing this type article. Thanks in advance, ----moreno oso (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be merged with Pizzo di Coca, I just noticed the article already existed. ZachG (Talk) 16:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the smaller one which you just noticed just be merged or deleted. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
When I re-worked the stub article I found, I quickly nominated it for DYK. On the DYK nom page, I was told it did not have enough characters. I then did a websearch and found the Italian Wikipedia version which I used for all the pics. I pretty well documented on its article talkpage all I did as I wanted to be systemic and easy to follow. I knew that I was out of my league in fleshing out this article and gave it my best shot. If your project can polish it up, it would be nice to see it B classed and maybe even FA. --moreno oso (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You can see the DYK nom here, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Pizzo_Coca, and what I was told/did. Here is the DIFF of what I started with. --moreno oso (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Pizzo Coca is in the Template:Did_you_know/Queue Prep Area. It will have its picture featured on Wikipedia's front page most likely on May 26. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Recommend someone set up an archive that moves my article building notes off the talk page before the article is featured. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Pizzo Coca is now frontpage DYK for next six hours. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite peakbagger

See {{cite peakbagger}} for updates. I have added the parameters lid, pid and rid for lists, peaks and ranges. after everyone is used to using pid instead of id I would like to deprecate id and unnamed parameters in order to make the syntax less complicated for future users. There is currently no documentation of id. –droll [chat] 06:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the id parameter should remain and be a synomym for pid. A lot of the other citation templates (e.g. bivouac, gnis) use id and forcing people to remember that peakbagger is an exception to the rule would be a PITA. RedWolf (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point but consider this. I went through 600 some articles and found cases were the editor apparently assumed any id was a good id. The page they actually wanted to cite was a list or a range page. I think that using pid will make editors think. Besides they can and, IMHO, should cut and past the pid from the URL. The error rate for typos was very low for this template. I don't remember any. I've checked other templates article by article any noticed an unacceptable error rate. They were mostly cases of transposed or dropped digits. I was thinking that just not documenting the id synonym would be the best way to go. Any thoughts. –droll [chat] 06:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have submitted a request for Mr.Z-bot to produce monthly statistics on the most popular pages for this project. We should see the first stats at the end of May. RedWolf (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea!-imars (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • We will see the first stats at the end of June. The request in May got the project added to the data collection list for it to start harvesting the logs for article hits. RedWolf (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do I find?

A discussion on using topo maps as acceptable source for topography descriptions?
Obviously, they offer precise & extensive information to map readers. But how is this information cited?

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since no oneelse has jumped at the chance to answering this question. I'll give it a go in the morning. First I should probably knoe what do you want do, and where in the world do you want to do it. In general, mapping companies are competitive. I don't think that Wikipedia should give one commercial product a head start of over an other. Do you want to begin locally. or globally. Let me know what your thinking about. –droll [chat] 08:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Age of oldest dated rock vs. age

A slight edit to the root template that would clear up a good bit of confusion here. ResMar 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mountains of Central Asia needs work or deletion

Mountains of Central Asia isn't of very good quality, is a near-orphan, and contains a lot of redlinks that should probably be reassinged to other existing articles.

We should fix or delete this article.

-- (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ural Mountains could use map

The article Ural Mountains would benefit from the addition of a map.

The article "has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale."

-- (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Map has been added. RedWolf (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Mountains to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is great! I think we should
  1. Alter the importance of these Mountain-related pages to reflect the number of visitors.
  2. Check that the highest-importance articles are really B-class, rather than C-class (it may simply be that no editors have verified the B-class criteria
  3. Start at the most-visited pages, and bring the articles up to Good Article quality (at least).
I'll slowly work on these tasks. Everyone is more than welcome to join in!! —hike395 (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's quite interesting to see what articles are receiving the most views. No surprise about #1. The top 50 in the list probably deserve top importance on the assessment scale if not there already. There's probably a number of C class articles that deserve B but as you say, the B class criteria have not been added to the assessment so by default, it goes to C. These stats can provide some focus as to the articles that deserve a bit more attention than others at the moment. I would really like to get Everest to GA but I have had trouble finding reliable sources for some of the statements that require citations. The Sagarmatha name has been especially troublesome. RedWolf (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that the top 50 be "top". I would suggest that the following 100 be "high", the rest "mid", and anything not on the list be "low". I'm not an AWB user, so it would be tough for me to implement this.
Should we have some sort of mountain-specific Article Improvement drive or Collaboration of the Week or something similar? —hike395 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of this except that I think there is a difference between importance and popularity. Its a kind of picky distinction but at some time there might be an article that gets a lot of hits but objectively is just not that important. One the other hand there might be an article that is objectively very important but doesn't get the hits. Then there is the problem of what objectivity is. Just thought I'd chime in.  –droll [chat] 05:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Droll. I think if you look at the list, you'll detect a bias towards mountains on the West Coast of the United States. Is Mt.Whitney the 15th most important mountain in the World? Shasta is also very prominent. In the top 150 you find Mount Diablo, Twin Peaks in San Francisco, El Capitan and Half Dome in Yosemite, etc. I suspect you have certain areas which contain a large amount of people who are on the Web often. Maybe I am wrong. imars (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole point of rating the importance articles is to help prioritize improvement. And, if you want to help people seeking out information about mountains, we should improve the articles that most people look at. So, importance is equal to popularity. This is not just my definition: take a look at the definition of article importance.
This was the first time in the 7 years of the WikiProject that we actually have data to see what mountain articles people are reading. I think it's a great gift: if we spend time improving the top 50 most popular articles, then the experience for the average mountain information seeker will noticeably improve. —hike395 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Your both right in my opinion. It's the subjective vs. objective thing. Maybe a new rating (popularity) could be introduced. Lacking that, the most popular articles should get more attention but other simply important articles should not be disregarded. I wonder if this discussion is going on anywhere else. To me this is an important issue. We need a King Salomon.

If I had to choose I'd go with the most popular should be rated Top while not lowering the ratings the objectively important articles. (How's that for letting the baby live.)  –droll [chat] 01:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Himalaya

I'm running into a verifiability problem at List of highest mountains, just like RedWolf is at Mount Everest. List of highest mountains was denied Featured List status, because of a lack of lede (easy to fix), and because the elevations and locations were not verifiable. What are the WP:RSes for Himalayan mountain geography? Peakware? Summitpost? Should I just find several sources and report an error bar over all of them? I'm not sure what to do here. —hike395 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I have yet to come across a really good reliable online source for the mountains in the Himalayas (or at least in English anyways). Summitpost can be a good starting point but I try not to rely on it so much because of lack of sources for most of its data and/or claims. It's a good site but I find it a bit troublesome to rely on due to its verifiability of statements in the articles. Even relying on topo maps can be problematic because the elevations can differ a fair bit sometimes between different publishers. However, using any good topo map with summit elevations marked on it should be considered a reliable source. I have some maps I bought in Kathmandu which I have used for a few peaks in Nepal and thereby used the {{cite map}} template. I have used the and on several occasions for ascent and climber info but they do not focus too much on the elevation/coordinates data. You could also checkout which does provide elevation, prominence and coordinates of mountains in the Himalayas. The question is, can it be considered a reliable source for a featured list/article? As you say, find a few sources and pick one or two that seem the most credible. Another option is to drop by any good map store and they should have a few maps of the more popular areas of the Himalayas. If you find any good sites for this, let us know. RedWolf (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: mountain elevation notation

The following has been copied from Template talk:Infobox mountain#False precision. Prominence should, I think, merit another section if anyone wishes to revisit that topic.  –droll [chat] 02:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

== False precision ==

My peeve, again: Rounding to a tenth of a meter is often wrong. A lot of summit elevations are known only within one contour interval, e.g. ±10 ft. Converting that to a figure purportedly accurate to ±5 cm gives a false precision. This goes doubly so for prominence, for which both elevations are seldom accurately surveyed. Rounding such figures to the nearest 5 meters would be best.
—WWoods (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I moved your comment to a new section. Your point is certainly an issue but is not relevant to the section above. I believe we have had this discussion before but maybe its time to revisit the issue.

I agree that many summit elevations can only be determined by examination of a topographic map and that the contour enclosing the summit underestimates the elevation. In cases like this I always specify the elevation using the syntax elevation=(contour elevation)+ ft (floor of conversion)+ m) (e.g. elevation=1,680+ ft (512+ m)). This indicates (clearly I think) that the elevation is not well known. The British use a different method (e.g. elevation=c. 510 m (1,673 ft)). I have seen cases where editors add half the contour interval to the encircling contour. That, IMHO, is wrong.

Prominence is a different issue, IMHO. We use clean prominence which has a very clear definition. Clean prominence can be defined as the difference between the elevation of the higher contour nearest the saddle or the saddle elevation, if it is known, and the contour line which encircles the summit or the summit elevation, if it is known. There are two other ways to calculate prominence, namely: optimistic prominence and mean prominence. Calculating clean prominence results in a known value and there is no false precision possible. Also I believe it is in keeping with Wiki policy to use cited information when it is available. Doing our own prominence calculations when there are reliable sources is contrary to the spirit of that policy.

I would certainly like to know the opinions of others on this issue. I am prone to categorical statements I know but I'm not always right. I might be wrong about the floor thing. I think we had that discussion before too.

P.S. perhaps we could arrive at some guidelines that would help new editors.  –droll [chat] 22:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with Wwoods in this matter. I think it's misleading to add the tenths of a metre in the conversion as it indicates (to me) that the elevation is known to that exact precision, when in probably the vast majority of cases, that's really not true. The default precision should be 0 and if there are cases where the exact elevation is known, then people can use the general "elevation" field and use the convert template themselves to use precision of 1. Even then though, I think it's overkill (like over-categorization). It's like adding precision=1 to square km (or mi) values, it's not something that is generally done. RedWolf (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll go along with the precision thing. Tenths of meter are a bit much except, as you say, when the elevation is known with a high degree of accuracy.

      As to the prominence thing, I've been thinking about it and I think the advice I gave about is correct.

      When the elevation is interpolated from a topo map and no elevation is given then the precision should not be over stated. It should be the elevation of the closed contour, IMHO. Maybe we can discuss what convention should be used in a new section.  –droll [chat] 02:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the following options for displaying elevations on pages which pertain to this project. I think any clear results of this survey should be considered good advice for editors and be noted on the project page.

#1: All elevations should be documented when possible.
#2: Conversions from feet to metres should be to the nearest metre unless a more precise measurement can be documented.
#3: Approximate elevations, such as elevations of the highest closed contour on a topographic map, should the elevation be displayed as 500+ ft (252+ m).
#4: These approximate elevations should be displayed as c. 252 m (500 ft). This is a very common practice in articles about the hills of Great Britain and the hills Ireland. c. is an abbreviation circa or about. This notation could be implemented via a special purpose conversion template. Perhaps c. could be linked to an explanatory page.
#5: Should elevations conversions be rounded up or down. This has been discussed before but it is included here for completeness.
#6: When other reliable sources are available is it appropriate to link only to a topographic map site to document elevation. These maps might be considered primary sources. I think I read that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources.
#7: In articles that pertain to this project, should editors be encouraged to display elevations, with the unit most commonly used in the country, first.

You should, of course, feel free to add topics for discussion as long as they are relevant to the topic being discussed. Opinions can be prefixed by Support, Oppose, Neutral, Comment and the like. They need not be indented more than once. Use additional indentation only when commenting on someones opinion. Comments can follow each item and/or summary comments can be placed at the bottom. I hope this does not sound to authoritarian. My ancestors German were. Face-smile.svg  –droll [chat] 05:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mountain article count

There are currently 10,144 articles that transclude {{Infobox mountain}}. There are articles about mountains or hills that do not use the template but still it means we are well past a major landmark.  –droll [chat] 05:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Portal:Volcanoes is on featured portal nom. ResMar 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"parent peak" - notability?

I made some comments here about the concept of "parent peak", which did not get a response.

Does anyone have any info to show whether the concept of "parent peak" is well established? I am asking in particular about the case where the parent peak is outside the immediate mountain range, so that the connecting "col" is in a lowland area some distance away, and so the parent peak is more of a mathematical concept than an intuitive one. There seem to be many wiki articles that mention parent peaks in this situation (at least for mountains in the UK), but I don't know if it is a concept invented by people here on the wiki or if it is really used. I see there is material at Topographic prominence#Parent peak and that that article has numerically quite a lot of external links, but I don't know whether any of them really count as suitably authoritative sources. Many thanks. No name is good name (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

How about published books/papers:
  • Helman, Adam (2005). The Finest Peaks : Prominence and Other Mountain Measures. Trafford Publishing. ISBN 141205995X. 
  • Chaudhry, Omair Z.; Mackaness, William A. (2008). "Creating Mountains out of Mole Hills: Automatic Identification of Hills and Ranges Using Morphometric Analysis". Transactions in GIS 12 (5): 567–589. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2008.01116.x. 
  • Chaudhry, Omair; Mackaness, William (2007). "Automated scale dependent views of hills and ranges via morphometric analysis". Proc. International Cartography Conference. International Cartographic Association. 
(comment added by user Hike395)
Nice, thank you. As you are familiar with these books/papers, it would be great if you could please add appropriate citations to them at Topographic prominence#Parent peak. That section currently has no inline citations, although I see that the Helman book is cited elsewhere in the article. Many thanks. No name is good name (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Location of of Pančić's Peak

There is a question about the location of Pančić's Peak (formerly Milan's Peak (Serbian: Миланов Врх, Milanov Vrh)) sometimes Kopaonik peak, whether it is in Kosovo or central Serbia. Discussion at Talk:Pančić's Peak#Central Serbia or Kosovo. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the summit define a point on the boarder? –droll [chat] 21:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That's my belief, but I would like the opinions of others. The group at Pančić's Peak seem to be nationalistic. I think they need help. -- (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mountain articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Mountain articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for peak heights

Following a discussion at DYK, the reliability of peakbagger, summitorg and peaklist has been questioned as sources for peak elevations. I raised the issue at WP:RS/N, but thought that input from this project would be helpful, as these sources are widely used in mountain articles. Mikenorton (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak for Peakbagger and summitorg's sources, but as former senior geographer at the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia I can tell you that all summits, British Columbia summits at least, in there, are STRIM in origin, taken from point-specific elevation markers in "Basemap Online Store", which is how joe-blow taxpayer gets at the BC govt mapping system and was formerly just BC Basemap (see "Geomatics BC" in google). For the Yukon and Alaskan points, we had a Nat'l Geographic digital atlas, can't remember what we used for Alberta. Elevations in US states in the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia were all pulled off USGS quads.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
There may be better sources for summit elevations, but one interesting tool for getting elevations (US only, it seems) is the USGS Elevation Query Web Service. You enter latitude and longitude (remembering that "X" is longitude and "Y" is latitude) and it returns the elevation from the "best-available (highest resolution) data source available at the specified point." Of course you have to make sure your lat/long point is in fact the summit. Pfly (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
For summits in the U.S., I have found very reliable. The source gives elevations bases on USGS topo maps. These elevations are based on the  NGVD 29 datum. If a benchmark is located on a summit then the NGS datasheets are a good source. These elevations are given using the  NAVD 88 datum which usually are very close to the data on the topo maps but converted. Sometimes an estimated elevation is given by which simply states that the elevation of the summit is some value greater than the nearest closed topological couture. For example the elevation of Bernal Heights Summit is given as 475+ feet (145+ m) NGVD 29. It's almost midnight. I get back to help clarify if there are additional questions. GNIS elevations might be the best for point elevation but are sometimes the best available. –droll [chat] 08:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

List style for list of mountains of Japan by height


I wanted to have a brief discussion on Talk:List of mountains and hills of Japan by height. User:Alpsdake has been making some improvements and I want a sanity check to see if I am the only one, who has problems with the changes. Plus, someone who is a table expert might be useful. Thanks!

-imars (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


I have created a new portal for mountains which I hope will prove interesting and a useful addition for the project. It is based on the one at German Wikipedia, so is a bit thin in some areas, but we can add stuff over time. Please feel free to check it out and improve it. Enjoy! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Kudos on getting this setup. RedWolf (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I should have said, it still needs "proof-reading" and further development as well as enthusiasts to help maintain e.g. article and picture of the month. But at least we have a start. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Can someone figure out how to insert a suitable portal photo on the portal line entry within the infobox instead of the puzzle piece? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Need to specify the file name in Template:Portal/Images/Mountains. RedWolf (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Dude! Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Very good work, Bermicourt. I've made a few modifications. Ericoides (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New citation template for

I created yet another citation template. {{Cite peakware}} can be used to create links to articles at See the documentation for more information. It looks like an interesting site. See the "Mount Whitney".  page. The data is entered by users so it would probably be good to check questionable stuff and should not be considered an independent source since the user might get their data form Wikipedia. It appears data sources are listed at the bottom of the page. –droll [chat] 03:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yokun Ridge

Don't know how to handle this article concerning a group of features in the Taconic range in Berkshire County, Mass.
"Take-away" is that term "Yokun Ridge" is recent, politically imposed term, rather than one which grew "organically" through folk-ways and local usage.
Term "Yokun Ridge" makes its earliest appearance I can locate online in about 1990, and appears to have originated from a land conservation group seeking a convenient label for some contiguous wild land (a fact confirmed by 2010 newspaper article presently cited on the talk page).
This group's efforts resulted in creation of "Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge Reserve" in about 1990, a federal designation that offers some fairly minor incentives toward the sale of conservation easements by landowners.
Term incorporates a number of locally well-known hills whose names have centuries-long standing.
Term has been picked up by a few tourist and hiking guides during past decade, and is gaining currency. Fed. Bureau of Names recorded it in 2009; Defines it as "distinctive ridge" which a slight stretch.
Large majority of books seen on Google, & Lexus Nexus articles that mention major features of "Yokun Ridge," don't incorporate the term.
Earliest LexisNexis hit is 2007.
Region has fair bit of cultural significance, at least two landforms within "Yokun Ridge" having been written about by Nathaniel Hawthorne (classic American author).

How to handle?? Calamitybrook (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC) edit above Calamitybrook (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC) EDITCalamitybrook (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Outdoor Recreation WikiProject Proposal

To all members of this WikiProject: please visit the proposal pagefor a new Outdoor Recreation WikiProject and give your feedback, especially in regards to how (and whether) it could build on and complement the work of this WikiProject and connect it to related WikiProjects.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Highest mountains in Germany

I created the above article some while ago and have now completed the expansion of all the stub articles on Germany's highest mountains from German Wikipedia - some 30+ articles in all - to give better coverage of this area. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention for lists

Is there a naming convention for lists of mountains? There seem to be variations e.g. "List of the mountains of Foo", "List of the mountains in Foo", "List of mountains of Foo", etc. Ditto for lists of highest mountains. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, I have noticed the discrepancy as well over the past few months; i.e. "of Foo" vs "in Foo". Personally, I just think "List of mountains in Foo" sounds better than "List of mountains of Foo" (the double "of" just seems strange to me). That being said though, the convention for categories of mountains is "mountains of Foo" so this is why we see others preferring to use "List of mountains of Foo". I would also note that the first sentence of these lists seems to always say "list of mountains in Foo" even though the page is called "List of mountains of Foo". Since a naming convention that is decided upon should be equally applied to other geographic features (e.g. lakes, rivers, forests), perhaps this is a question to be discussed at WikiProject Geography. RedWolf (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I hunted around the WP namespace for quite a while, and couldn't find any direct relevant guidance. The closes I could find was WP:NCCAT, which said that categories that contain mountains by country should end in "of country". Instead of WikiProject Geography, perhaps we should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) ? —hike395 (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is not much guidance on this. I looked at WP:LISTNAME but there is not much there. I like List of mountains in Foo. Maybe "of" implies ownership. So the question is do the people of Foo own their mountains or do the mountains just happen to be in Foo. It seems to me that List of the mountains of Foo does not conform to the MOS which prefers List of Foo people and not List of the people of Foo. I'll look around a bit more. –droll [chat] 03:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Compare the "in" search results with the "of" results. Remember redirects are in italics and some lead to articles that are not lists. This just shows that there is a good deal if diversity. There are no List of the mountains of Foo. I also checked lakes, rivers, and mountain ranges. –droll [chat] 03:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I had another thought. We say that Mount Whitney is in California and not it is of California. –droll [chat] 04:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I started out by using "List of the mountains in Foo", but then moved some of the articles I had created to "List of the mountains of Foo" simply because of the category convention, which I assumed also applied here. So I may have inadvertently added to the confusion. Actually I think the category convention is daft. "Geography of Foo" makes sense but "Mountains of Foo" sounds a little pompous or something out of a novel IMHO. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I used the list generator function in AWB to do a count and found that there are currently 250 articles using "of" and 151 articles using "in". Not that this really means anything. –droll [chat] 08:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New stuff

I've just added a new map and table (with images) at List of Alpine four-thousanders and created a three-thousander article. Other recently created Alpine articles include:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps

I've just come across this sub-project which may need some support. Feel free to join it. Some assistance with the banner would be good too. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The site is down today. My first reaction was panic but I think we should wait a few days before doing anything. The pages are available at –droll [chat] 00:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The server is back online. –droll [chat] 01:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The article about "Scandinavian Mountains"

I was looking for information about the mountain range in scandinavia, and was very suprised about how little information I could find, not only on Wikipedia but everywhere. Sure, it wasn't that hard to find some information about the highest peaks, but there were very limited information about the range as a whole. I find that strange, because I have also heard that some of the mountains and the rocks and origins are among the most studied in the world.

I just wanted to say that it would be very good if some experts provided information about this article, or at least explain why there are so hard to find any summarising information about the scandinavian mountains as a whole (I mean things like geology, climate, flora & fauna, origins, population, geography and more). After all it is one of the most significant ranges in Europe, and when looking for information about other ranges there was much easier to find stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

When is a mountain a hill

If there are mountains (or hills) that are commonly referred to as mountains and are named Mount Such and such do they have to be above a certain height to be a mountain? I am referring to Mount Coot-tha, Mount Petrie and Mount Gravatt in Brisbane. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this project has ever defined the difference between a hill and a mountain. Take a look at the mountain article for some ideas. The term "independent peak" is sometimes used to identify summits that meet some prominence criteria. See the article Summit (topography). –droll [chat] 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no universally agreed definition of a mountain vs. a hill. Whittow's Dictionary of Physical Geography, though, says that "some authorities regard eminence above 600 m (2,000 feet) as mountains". This roughly ties in with divide between "uplands" and "highlands" or "mountains" used as names for ranges and is the definition I use when translating from German since they only have one word (Berg) for both. But I have also heard of 1,000 feet and 3,000 feet being used as the dividing line. However, I would say all your examples are definitely hills; the word "Mount" is often used in Britain as a name for a low rise especially in a town. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Project members have used {{Infobox mountain}} on very low-prominence peaks (e.g., Mount Sunflower). So, for purposes of this project, we don't distinguish between hills and mountains. —hike395 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Location map ID

NOTE: This was originally posted on my talk page but I think this merits project level discussion. -- RedWolf

Hello RedWolf. A little problem I have been running across on my infobox edits is how to indicate to the reader which location map is being used when the peak is located on the border between two countries. If one of the countries is easily recognizable by its shape, China for example, then this is usually not an issue. But if both countries are rather obscure and their shapes would not be recognized by most readers (example Lenin Peak on the border of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) then the reader would have no idea which country is represented or highlighted on the map. Is there a prefered method to address this issue?--Racerx11 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi. This issue has come up before with mountains that sit on international borders. An editor picks one of the countries (arbitrarily or not) and inevitably someone else will come along and question the decision or change it to one of the other countries. What tends to work best in these cases is to choose a map of the mountain range. This has been done for mountains in the Alps and Pyrenees. However if there is no existing map for the mountain range then we are back to choosing a country specific map — there is currently no consensus on what map is preferred in this case. Of course creating a map of the mountain range would solve the problem. Some might argue that the country which has the highest percentage of the mountain's mass should be chosen but that can be quite problematic as this is rarely scientifically proven. One could also choose the country where the summit lies but sometimes the summit marks the boundary. If neither of these two criteria are helpful in choosing a country, just pick one to your liking I guess. There is also a "map_caption" parameter for the infobox template which should then be used in this case to help the reader identify the countries involved. RedWolf (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Some infoboxes allow use of {template:location map many}}, which would allow additional labels for the countries, I don't know enough about how infoboxes are coded to guess if such a thing is possible in this case. Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Relief parameter for infobox mountain template

Discussion has started on adding a relief parameter to the infobox template to have the relief map displayed by default (if specified in the location map template). See Template talk:Infobox mountain#Relief parameter. RedWolf (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add one-pixel white border around marker in infobox

Please comment at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Add white border around mountain marker?. Thanks. —hike395 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass renaming of mountain articles

User:Drift chambers is mass renaming articles about mountains to include a geographical location in parentheses for all mountains, regardless of whether they are unique or not, e.g. he has moved Mount Kailash to Mount Kailash (Tibet) (see Special:Contributions/Drift chambers for more examples). This seems to be unnecessary and contrary to this project's naming conventions. Should he be stopped, and the moves reverted? BabelStone (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is against two of the five principal naming criteria at WP:TITLE, namely conciseness and consistency (as Wikipedia generally does not do this except where disambiguation is required. I have pointed this out on his talk page. The moves should be reverted. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with Bermicourt here. All of his naming changes need to be reverted unless he can justify every single renaming which is very improbable. RedWolf (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
He seems to have stopped his crusade now, after a flurry of complaints from other editors, and User:Muchness has reverted all his renames. BabelStone (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on US Geodetic Survey vs. US Geological Survey

Hi. This is notice of a discussion at Talk:List of U.S. states by elevation on the use of US Geodetic Survey data or US Geological Survey data in that article. Given the potential effect on other articles, User:hike395 suggested I add a note here. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Guiideline for mountain vs. hill

As discussed above, there is no universally agreed definition of a mountain vs. a hill. However, it may be useful for reasons of consistency for us to agree a guideline, as long as we make it clear e.g. in lists. I find it helpful to use Whittow's definition of 2000 feet/600 metres especially when translating from German which has one word (Berg) for both hill and mountain. This definition fits quite well with the naming of highlands and uplands etc. Equally I accept this may be too contentious for some. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Tibetan peak: Xixabangma or Shishapangma?

Discussion over the choice of peak name has not yet reached consensus. If you wish to join the discussion, please feel free to at Talk:Xixabangmahike395 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What to do with multiple spelling forms for the same same?

Check here

I'm not sure what is the best way of inserting the multiple English spelling forms existing for the same mountain. I gave two different ways WP is currently dealing, one for Gauri Sankar, one for Taboche. Any help is welcome.

Comments from the referenced page: : As a reader, I would prefer the format used in the Taboche example as it gives a clear and unequivocal relationship between the names without any POV. The infobox should remain unclutttered and contain only the article name unless an alternative is so necessary to the point that leaving it out would be confusing. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Which elevation source is the best?

I realize that this has probably been asked before. If so, just point me in the right direction.

I'm working on an article for Grizzly Peak, Jackson County, Oregon, but I'm not sure which elevation source is the most reliable/accurate: Summitpost and the USGS topographic map (42.26943,122.61656) both say 5,920 feet, while Peakbagger gives a range of 5,920 to 5,960 feet, GNIS says 5,850 feet, and NGS says 5,801 feet (5,751 plus about 50). Which one is the best? (Or is there another source that's better?) Thanks, LittleMountain5 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot, bot, bot

User:Bulwersator/illustrations - mountains - I generated list of pages with {{Infobox Mountain}} without illustration and with interwiki to plwiki page with illustration. There is possibility of errors (incorrect interwiki, incorrect image on plwiki etc, so please check before inserting into article). I suggest to remove no longer useful entries from list. Bulwersator (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Good job. I have taken an initial stab at this list. RedWolf (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I updated this list, thanks for using it! Bulwersator (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Flag order in mountain infoboxes

There is a dispute on the Mont Blanc page as to whether the French flag should precede or follow the Italian flag in the infobox. Please contribute to the discussion on the talk page. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an even more contentious threat looming. The flag burners at MOS:FLAG are moving from infobox template to infobox template, having a quick vote without alerting project members and then using a bot to delete all flags in instances of that infobox. This, despite the fact that MOS:FLAG is nowhere near fully supported. Keep an eye on the infobox template talk page! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, welcome our new MOS:FLAG overlords. —hike395 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the MOS. When the article is about a natural landform, there is no reason to emphasize the country where it is located at the expense of other important information (e.g., the mountain range in the case of a mountain). ZachG (Talk) 12:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming discussion at Xixabangma still going on: new poll

There is a naming discussion at talk:Xixabangma. There is a new poll to determine support for the move from Shishapangma to Xixabangma. If you are interested, please provide your opinion here.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First hand accounts of first ascents?

Does anyone know if there are first hand accounts of the first ascents of Manaslu and Shishapangma? For the other 8000ers, I’ve added first hand accounts of first ascents to the further reading sections (or equivalent) (unless they were already there), but I have been unable to find them for these 2 mountains.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Mountain vandal

If you haven't noticed, there has been an increase in vandalism on mountain articles lately. Much of it is simply the changing of the elevation to some random number close to the correct value. Most of the activity has come from IPs through the connection provider TALKTALK COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED in the UK. In no particular order, here are some known mountain vandals from this provider just to name a few, trust me there are many more.












Like I said there are many more. It took me about a half an hour looking through recent mountain edits that are both vadalizing mountains/changing elevation randomly and located at TalkTalk Communications. Stopped when I got tired. Any thoughts about what to do about this? or just keep reverting?--Racerx11 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I watchlist most of the mountain articles I create or edit and would pick up any suspicious changes. Tricky one... --Bermicourt (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The vandalism from the above IPs are roughly centered around the major Asian peaks but not by any means limited to these. See edit histories of K2 and Cho Oyo for some examples of what I'm talking about. The edit histories are full of IP edits followed by reverts, especially in last month or so. Click on the contributions of any IP beginning with 92...but again its not limited to just these. There are some others, not from TalkTalk, but also from the UK that could be the same individual. --Racerx11 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
For specific examples here are a couple diffs:
[12] from Kangchenjunga by
[13] by and [14] by both from Chimborazo (volcano).
Like I said, moutain page histories are filling up with these edits, and they are all originating from the same location in the UK. Must be the same person.--Racerx11 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Almost certainly the same guy. We have three options: a) range block(s), b) article semi-protection, c) edit filter. Range blocking is probably the only one remotely feasible, but since he uses a biggish UK provider, the collateral damage may be considerable. Furthermore, he typically strikes only once per day, so the drawbacks will probably outweigh the benefits. That pretty much leaves us with the trusty old WP:RBI. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I hear ya. A least maybe after reading this more editors will now be aware. Thanks Favonian.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Kékes - Elevation

There are 2 refs

So infobox, in elevation_mfield should mention

  • Only 1014
  • Only 1015
  • Both
  • Nothing

? Bulwersator (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancies in elevations are not uncommon, especially in less studied parts of the world. What editors seem to do is choose the elevation of most authoritative source or the median of a set of authoritative sources and put it in the infobox. Sometimes (e.g., Pacific Crest Trail), we put in a footnote noting a large discrepancy, and listing all of the authoritative sources with their elevations.
In this case, I think 1014m is more common (see, e.g., [15],[16],[17]), so I would recommend using that. Not sure whether 1m difference is enough for a footnote. —hike395 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
My Farago Mátra (1:30000) map seems to give a height for Kékes of 1011 m and a height of 1014 m for 'Mag*aroszag legmagasabb pontja'. the * is too worn at a fold in the map to make out. JMiall 07:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that should be "Magyarország legmagasabb pontja", which means "Highest point in Hungary" in Hungarian. Since we use the highest elevation of a mountain peak, that would yield 1014m for Kékes, matching the other sources. —hike395 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Need bot help with edits

User:RadioKAOS and I have discovered that almost all articles in Category:Set indices on mountains are listed as being dab class on their talk pages. This is incorrect: WP:SIA describes set index articles as being list articles, not dab articles. Thus, they should be list class, not dab. Can someone with easy access to AWB or a bot make a correction? I don't have easy access to a Windows box, or else I would run AWB myself. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mount Kitanglad, Mount Dulang-dulang and the Philippines top four

Could someone take a look at Talk:Mount Kitanglad please, and related problem at Talk:Mount Dulang-dulang. I suspect there is a simple explanation and fix, but I'm stumped at the moment. Thanks. --Racerx11 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of "Parent peak"

As many of you realize there multiple meaning for the term "Parent peak". The website defines two:

The website also gives explanations of the terms. Interestingly it does no distinguish between "Line parent" and "Next higher neighbor". The wiki article on Topographic prominence talks about three types: Encirclement or island parentage, Prominence parentage, and Line parentage. I think most of the information might have come for the website. gives a definition of Line parent. defines Line Parent, Island Parent (Topographic Parent), and Source Parent.

The documentation for {{Infobox mountain}} currently specifies Prominence parentage.

Results for San Gorgonio Mountain:
Line parent - Olancha Peak
Line parent - Olancha Peak
Proximate parent - Charleston Peak
Line parent - Olancha Peak
Prominence parent - Mount Whitney
Island parent - Pico de Orizaba

IMHO, after doing some research, there seems to be some difference of opinion about some of these terms with the exception of of "Line parent". I have added the field to a number of articles about peaks in the western United States and now I regret having done so. I did a quick check of articles in the Category:Mountains of British Columbia and of 610 articles only 10 list a parent peak.

I would like to change the documentation for Infobox mountain so that it mentions Line parent instead of Prominence parent and I would like to remove the field from the majority of articles about mountains in the western United States except in the case of a few of the ultra prominent peaks. –droll [chat] 22:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox mountain range

I would propose that we use {{Infobox mountain range}} instead of {{Geobox|Range}} in articles about mountain ranges. The purpose of the new template is to make mountain range infoboxes look like mountain peak infoboxes, with the minimal amount of manual intervention. We also get better maintainability of both the template and of the articles themselves.

I designed {{Infobox mountain range}} to be plug-compatible with Geobox: I looked at the parameters used by the top ~15 most-visited mountain range articles, and I made sure that those parameters were supported. The new template is designed to have a style similar to other infoboxes from this project (i.e., {{Infobox mountain}}, {{Infobox mountain pass}}). You can look at how the proposed style changes for the most-visited mountain range articles by looking at the test cases. The largest change is that very long lists in the Geobox get collapsed into short lists with [show]. This makes the infobox about the same size as before, despite the use of the slightly larger fonts from {{Infobox mountain}}.

In addition to stylistic consistency, I believe we also get better maintainability with {{Infobox mountain range}}. The original Geobox editor has long since left the project. I don't know of any WikiProject Mountain editors who understands the Geobox code. In contrast, {{Infobox mountain range}} is simple, because it uses {{Infobox}}. It's easy to look at the code and understand what it does. Another aspect of Geobox is the wide set of parameters it accepts, many of which are wildly inappropriate for mountain ranges. For example, what, exactly, is the "lowest point" of a mountain range? Allowing all possible parameters for all possible geographic types allows nonsense and unreliable data to creep into the infoboxes. I think it is wiser for the WikiProject to discuss what parameters make sense for mountain ranges, and use those. I am happy to treat the parameters I have chosen as a starting point -- it is certainly easy to add and remove them.

I propose substituting {{Infobox mountain range}} for Geobox on all 1,812 pages in the range tracking category. We should see if we can come to a consensus before making such a change. I will leave a notification at Template talk:Geobox and Template talk:Infobox mountain. After consensus is reached, I can perform the edits with AWB, or we can see if a friendly bot maintainer will perform the edits for us.

What do other editors think? Improvements to the proposed template are welcome. —hike395 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I concur with hike395 that we move away from Geobox and back to a specific template. It would allow us to automatically build a list of mountain ranges as we do for mountains so we can monitor recent changes. I like the short lists feature of the new template, helps reduce clutter. I wonder if maybe we should separate a few subsections with horizontal lines like Geobox did. For example, length, width and area. Do the displayed coordinates of a mountain range represent the centre or the location of the highest point? As for conversion, I can't run AWB so I would leave it to those who can, unless there's a platform independent tool out that has a similar capability. RedWolf (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. Geobox is too unwieldy. It would be better to use {{Infobox mountain range}}, then we have greater control over it and it will be easier to use. I have no objection to it being harmonised with other geographical infoboxes where that makes sense e.g. let's use "image" or "photo" in infoboxes, but not both. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, for the reasons given above. When done, the range-specific parameters should be removed from Geobox, and its documentation updated accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I will use AWB to start to do the conversion, with a pointer back here. —hike395 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox details

Let's keep general pro/con discussion in the section, above. This section can be for the specific design of the infobox.

  • Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the template talk page? RedWolf (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
OK --- for discussion on the details of the infobox, see Template talk:Infobox mountain range. Copying discussion there. —hike395 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Geobox with type=mountain

Further to the above, I have proposed that we deprecate {{Geobox|mountain}} in favour of {{Infobox mountain}}.

Interesting new stuff

I came across a few things that might be of interest. Neither are relevant the this project necessarily.

  1. Some information on mw:Lua scripting
  2. mw:Visual editor

The ability to write templates using Lua should be interesting. (If it gets of the ground.) –droll [chat] 04:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Those pages do not exist. RedWolf (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Try Lua scripting and Visual editor. My bad. –droll [chat] 02:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Alpine huts

Are all Alpine huts "notable" or is there a guideline that indicates which ones qualify? Several Alpine hut articles have been tagged as needing to prove notability, even some with references and sources/bibliographies, others are stubs yet to be expanded. So I'm confused as to where the line is being drawn. See: Gaudeamus Hut, Fritz Pflaum Hut, Franz Senn Hut, Anton Karg Haus etc. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Height of Brandberg in Namibia

The highest point on the Brandberg massif in Namibia is Koningstein. Wikipedia's article on the Brandberg currently gives the height of the Brandberg as 2606m (as does several other articles from an Internet search). However the Namibia 1:50 000 topographical map gives Koningstein's height as 2573m (as do some other articles from an Internet search). I have also recently climbed the Koningstein summit on the Brandberg and my GPS altitude was very close to 2573m (ie 2571m). Is there some other point in the Brandberg which is higher than Koningstein, or has 2606m been established recently as a corrected altitude? A different fact mentioned in the Wikipedia article is the 45 000 rock art paintings, with the implication that they are all in the Tsisab Gorge where the 'White Lady' painting is, whereas other articles mention the total over the Brandberg massif is 45 000. Regards, Mike Scott-Cape Town (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It was I who, perhaps mistakenly, had changed the elevation from 2573 m to 2606 m. Here's the diff[18] from September last year. Allow me to explain. The article at that time had no value listed for prominence. I consulted to obtain a prominence value, which turned out to be 1802 m. However it was based on an elevation 2606 m, the elevation Peaklist (page link here) has for Konigstein (Brandberg high-point). I checked the existing ref and couldn't find a confirmation of 2573 m from that link as I explained in my edit summary. So I just went with the 2606 m figure and sourced everything to peaklist. I would be more than happy to put it back to 2573, but I would also like to add a note explaining that prominence figure is obviously derived from a higher elevation. Would you happen to have the info or a link to a reliable source that you would like me to use to properly reference the elevation?--RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have consulted several reference books on Mountains and as late as 2006 new books were giving the Brandberg's height as 2697m (Mountains of Africa by Duncan Souchon) so I wonder where that came from? I will contact the Namibia Trig Survey office, and the branch of the Mountain Club in Windhoek to see what definitive reference can be used. Regards, Mike Scott (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for List of mountains

In a nutshell: I think that List of mountains should be redirected into Lists of mountains. It is impossible to have one article to list all mountains in the world, and List of mountains is getting out of control. A while ago, I started adding branch-out links from Lists of mountains to other more focused pages. Hike395 (talk · contribs) disagreed with me, saying that Lists of mountains should be more of a list of peak-bagging lists. (See our conversation here.) Per their (his?) comment, I'm starting a thread here to see what people think. Thanks for any input. "Pepper" @ 21:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

List of mountains is too long and unwieldy. It doesn't exist on German Wikipedia. Instead they have a neat article on Highest mountain which covers the highest mountains in the world and each continent measured by different criteria and then points at other major lists. Otherwise mountains are listed a) by continent b) by country and c) by range. There are also separate articles on the eight-thousanders and seven summits etc. I suggest we adopt a similar approach, starting with breaking the existing list into separate continents. Where German Wikipedia has an article that we don't or where it is felt to have a better layout, I am happy to import and translate it e.g. we might be interested in this List of mountains in Asia. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I like the look of the Highest mountain article. Though our List of mountains kind of does that division, I like how everything is explained in much detail. However, it's not going to be as easy as splitting the article into continent articles... right now, List of mountains of Europe is a redirect to a list of mountain ranges in Europe, while List of mountains of North America redirects into the highest peaks page (including prominence and isolation lists). List of mountains of Africa redirects into its section in List of mountains, while List of mountains of Australia already has a pretty good article put together. List of mountains of South America and List of mountains of Asia just don't exist. We're going to have to decide whether it is better to break up the list into lists by geographic area (i.e. by range) or political area (i.e. by continent, country, etc.) or both. "Pepper" @ 12:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea to me. The actual article is pointless unless we want a list containing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of entries (we've got more than 1000 articles just for Switzerland!). I don't think the reader will be surprised at all to find a list of more specific lists instead. ZachG (Talk) 10:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Highest mountain currently redirects to List of highest mountains which has a section on what we mean by "highest" and then a list of the 109 (but why 109?) highest mountains in the world. The German version of Highest mountain has separate sections on the highest mountains based on different criteria i.e.: height above sea level, distance from the centre of the earth, height above foot (submarine), height above foot (land), isolation and prominence, as well as the highest mountains in the Solar System and links to the lists of highest mountains by range, continent, country, etc. If folk are content that I use the existing redirect to build an English version, that would be a start. We could then move any lists in the existing List of mountains that aren't already covered elsewhere to their own articles. If a new article is needed and it already exists on German Wiki, I'm happy to pull that across as well to save time. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say yes, but "Highest mountain" definitely isn't the best title - List of mountains is probably the page for a Highest mountain equivalent, with a "For lists of mountains around the world, see Lists of mountains" (or something like that) redirection at the top. That being said, it's obvious that I still think it would be better to separate a list of the highest mountains (like the first part of Höchster Berg) and a list of mountains lists. The Übersichten: Höchster Berg … section of Höchster Berg has a very limited quantity of mountain lists... :en's Lists of mountains has WAY too much for just a section of an article. And according to List of highest mountains, "...heights and/or prominences may be revised, so that the order of the list may change and even "new" mountains could enter the list over time. To be safe, the list has been extended to include all >7,200 m (23,622 ft) peaks." "Pepper" @ 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think we can make a perfectly good compromise. Before editing, Lists of mountains contained a list of notable mountain lists (e.g., peakbagger lists). It's not necessary to use Lists of X to break up a list that is too long. For example, see List of minor planets which is simply an index into a gigantic list. Or, see List of centenarians --- that is an index list of centenarians, sorted by profession.

Why can't we keep Lists of mountains as a list of notable mountain lists, and convert List of mountains into an index list of mountain lists per country? Or, if other editors think that the title is obscure, how about Lists of mountains by country ?

I'm hoping we can compromise and make everyone happy. —hike395 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That actually sounds fine: Lists of mountains = peakbagging lists; List of mountains ≈ first part of Höchster Berg; some other article title (Lists of mountains by country? Mountains of the World?) = index to more focused pages. Hike, I can tell that you would like Lists of mountains to remain as lists of notable mountains - what do you think about the rest of the plan/discussion, i.e. still having an index, and, potentially separate from, a more broad, categorised list such as :de's Höchster Berg? Also, List of centenarians actually redirects into Lists of centenarians. Thanks, "Pepper" @ 12:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Given Pepper's point about Lists of centenarians, I 'support turning Lists of mountains into a pure "index list" that contains other lists. But, I would really like a separate list of peakbagging lists. Right now, {{Infobox mountain}}'s listing label points to Lists of mountains, and that will not be so useful. How about if we revert Lists of mountains to the state before it got expanded, move that article to List of mountain lists, and then turn the resulting Lists of mountains back into a clean "index list"? We can then alter {{Infobox mountain}}.
Even simply listing all of the mountain lists may make a large mess. Perhaps we need Lists of mountains by continent, Lists of mountains by country, Lists of mountains by region to make Lists of mountains be more managable.
As for re-organizing List of mountains. Right now, there is a messy set of mountain lists. There are indiscriminant lists (e.g., List of mountains), and there are carefully curated lists with prominence criteria (e.g., Mountain peaks of North America). There are also "highest" lists, with both elevation and prominence cutoffs (e.g., List of highest mountains). I think that trying to put a uniform criterion on all of these will be a superhuman task. I would suggest a minimal approach, which is similar to what User:Pepper is saying:
  1. Redirect List of mountains to the new, pure index list that will be in Lists of mountains.
  2. Don't try to re-organize or move the sublists (like List of highest mountains, Mountain peaks of North America). Just try to list them in Lists of mountains.
  3. If you think List of highest mountains is too restrictive, expand it. But, I would not try to make a whole new hierarchy of List of highest mountains of X, because that would duplicate all of the patchwork of articles like Mountain peaks of North America (see point 2, above). —hike395 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I like most of this plan. Besides, I think "List of mountain lists" is a better title for the peakbagging article. Also, this way makes the moves clean, and we won't have to deal with merging edit histories which may have come up. If the current List of mountain lists is deleted, then the old version of Lists of mountains can be moved there. (Actually, according to WP:MOR, List of mountain lists shouldn't have to be deleted; I've never tried this, though.) Then, Lists of mountains will be free to be an index. The only thing is that, as I said above, I think it would be beneficial to have an article (List of mountains, probably) explaining the ways of measuring a mountain's height (see the first part of Höchster Berg). "Pepper" @ 15:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that List of highest mountains is a natural place to describe ways of measuring a mountain's height. I shall attempt to move the old version of Lists of mountains on top of List of mountain lists. —hike395 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Later: I've split Lists of mountains from List of mountain lists. It's about 50/50 -- a lot of non-peakbagging lists crept into the article over the years. I've also requested an edit to {{Infobox mountain}}. Oh, and I found another article that makes things even messier: Lists of highest points. Looks like that should be merged into something else. —hike395 (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice job. I don't think we have to worry about Lists of highest points - it is a separate issue. We are talking about mountains, and while highest points are at the top of mountains, the lists in that article are completely different than what we are discussing with lists of mountains (with a few exceptions). Now we have to figure out how we are going to fit List of highest mountains into this. I agree that it is the most natural name, but that means we will have to do a lot of reworking to the article in order to include all of the different measurements. (That is, if we even have to. If people are content with just a list of the highest mountains above sea level and mentions of the other measurement methods, then we're pretty much okay. As a matter of fact, I actually like the #Considerations paragraph how it is.) "Pepper" @ 12:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

New template for Alpine four-thousanders

Courtesy of German Wikipedia, I have just created a new template at {{}} which produces an external link to the individual mountain images and data at The format is easy: {{4000er|No.}} or {{4000er|No.|Name}} where "No." is the page number at (see the url at the top; it ends with vid=No.) and "Name" is added if the mountain name is different from the article title. Please feel free to add links to relevant articles. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Deprecation of Geobox for mountains

There are just 30 mountain articles using Geobox (down from 63 in March this year). We should shift those to {{infobox mountain}} (which has 12647 transclusions). Please see Template talk:Geobox#Mountain code for further discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

New member of WP:Mountains

I would be interested in joining the project. I have this (which may be ready to move to article space) to offer so far plus much more planned. Draconrex (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

More help is always welcome! You may wish to add {{Infobox mountain}} or {{Infobox mountain range}} to your nascent article. —hike395 (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, infobox done. Photo and other info to be added soon. Geology information and recreation will come soon as well. Draconrex (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Your article will be eligible for the Did You Know? column. If you'd like to see it nominated, leave a note on my talk page and I can help you nominate it. The Interior (Talk) 16:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change redirection targets for Cascades and Canadian Cascades

User:Volcanoguy has proposed changing the targets for Cascades and Canadian Cascades to Cascade Volcanoes and Canadian Cascade Arc, respectively. You are welcome to join the discussion here. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Geography at portal peer review

Portal:Geography is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Geography/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Make one correction and it affects eight different N. American lists

I created an article on a mountain in British Columbia, Whitehorn Mountain (British Columbia) because there were links to the wrong page. As a result I had to change eight, yes 8 different mountain lists. Not exaggerating, here they are:

Why on Earth do we have so many redundant article lists? Many of these have extemely long and sortable tables that make editing them tedious and overwhelming when one sees even more errors littering them once you start tinkering around. I mean there's no way all these lists are being maintained properly. It's a shame really because if the resources used to create these lists were used instead on the mountain article themselves, we would have much more accurate and complete articles on mountains as well as the lists, if there were just a couple of them. Took me half an hour to change all those. Jeez, what a joke! --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot. There is also:

all of which could have easily been involved in such a change. There's probably some more I'm missing. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 20:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely some redundancy among those lists, especially the ones dealing with prominence or "ultraness". The templates are different, though: they're meant to be navigational aids within articles, so overlap with list articles isn't a big deal (IMO). But some of the rest could be merged without much loss of info. The problem is that we're dealing with jurisdictions vs. geographical groupings, which do we keep? Also, the isolated summits one looks at a specific quality. The Interior (Talk) 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Certainly the Ultras lists could be combined. For example, if we keep List of Ultras of North America, then we wouldn't need List of Ultras of Canada, List of Ultras of the United States, etc. Or we could keep those individual region lists and delete List of Ultras of North America. Either way there would be no loss of information. Isolation lists would have to remain and of course the templates are fine. Most glaring to me is to have both Mountain peaks of Canada and List of mountains of Canada. Surely those can be combined with Mountain peaks of North America or something. I would have to look through them all again, but there may be a couple others that have potential for merger. It just threw a flag in my mind when I see one modest peak in BC linked in 8 different mountain lists. Seemed like excessive overlap and redundacy and I decided to vent my frustration here, not really expecting everyone (or anyone) to jump up and start merging the lists at my wish. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If you keep the country articles, then the North American articles become disambiguation pages, since people will still use it as a search term. If you keep the NorthAm articles, then the country articles become redirects to the country sections of the NorthAm articles. (or just the article, if you use a sortable table with a country column.) -- (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sierra Madre Occidental assessment

I have been working on the article Sierra Madre Occidental for a while now, and have come to a point where I would like to have some external input about the article. It is currently rated start class, but I have made some large additions since that rating, and I was hoping that someone from the project could come in and give an external assessment and comments for improvement. Anyone care to help? --Al Climbs (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Green Boots

The article Green Boots, about the fallen climber on the main Northeast ridge route of Mount Everest, is up for deletion here. Gobōnobō + c 19:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

References for Great Dividing Range

The Great Dividing Range article, rated as top importance for WikiProject Mountains, has been tagged as needing references for more than 6 years now. I am requesting some help from participants of this WikiProject to add inline citations to this article. Thank you. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Mount Everest height figure

According to this the value on the article is historical and has been adjusted upwards? ResMar 02:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD discussion on articles titled "X-thousander"

There are ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Antarctic two-thousanders and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight-thousander which project members may be interested in. Proposals to delete the articles two-thousander, three-thousander and four-thousander have recently been unprodded. The debate centres around whether such terms ("X-thousander") are used by reliable sources or whether they are Wikipedia inventions. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)