Talk:Nanga Parbat

Fairy Meadow -2

Mr Spireguy. Thanks. I tried to write article about Fairy Meadow but could not as the name is already there. Can it possible that Fairy Meadow use twice. I have to add Nanga Parbat for article.

Well Fairy Meadow has its own attraction. I have gone there twice. Many people dream to go Fairy Meadow. It is many kilometres away from the base camp as you can see in the picture.

I'm a bit suspicious about the Fairy Meadow section, it has been rewritten in a manner that looks rather like attempted advertising to me, or least contains duplicate sections and 'micro-local' information. I have contented myself with correcting the language, however, it would be good if someone who has been there would like to rewrite it Summitscribbler 11:56, 25 May 2007

There are two Fairy Meadow articles as noted here. Both were very similar and, as noted elsewhere, had microlocal content that looked very much like advertising. I have cleaned up one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Meadows,_Nanga_Parbat) although it needs further work. The other (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Meadow_Nanga_Parbat) has been left. The latter should be deleted and/or merged into the former. I'm not sure whether the former should be merged into Nanga Parbat, and leave that to the discretion of others.

Rupal Face is not the tallest mountain face

While Rupal Face is enormous (4500-4600 meters of vertical relief within 5 km of horizonal distance), it's not absolutely tallest in the world. There's a less known southwestern flank of Annapurna topping on a non-prominent peak of Baraha Shikhar (vel Annapurna Fang vel Bharha Chuli) at 7647 m. From its base (a very deep valley of some Kali Gandaki's tributary) it rises about 4800 meters within 5 km of horizontal distance including a huge 45 degree (average) slope with 4700 m of vertical relief. It can be verified by Google Earth (screen here) or good maps. here is a plane photo with the face exposed below Annapurna I. Unfortunately there are very little photos in the internet as the valley below Annapurna Fang is not the path of trekking routes. In addition there is the big west face of Dhaulagiri (8167 m) which is similar to Rupal Face (also about 4500-4600 meters of elevation gain within 5 horizontal km) where climbers start from Italian Base Camp (3600 m). These three faces are the biggest in the world. I think this information should be included in this article as well as Annapurna and Dhaulagiri articles. Places with even bigger vertical relief (like 6000 m of Rakaposhi-Hunza) obviously cannot be considered mountain faces as horizontal distance component dominates over vertical distance component.1123581321 (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Name

This mountain has a stress on first syllable “Naa-ngaa” (نانگا) Bare/naked in Urdu/Hindi is pronounced “Nangaa” ننگا with no stress on first syllable. The stressed name is corroborated by:

-BBC Urdu page with recent story of rescue on mountain here shows Naanga, so does [www.dw.com/ur/پاکستان-کا-قاتل-پہاڑ-ايک-اور-جان-لے-گيا/a-42339308 Deutsche Welle from Germany] -also on Voice of America -Pakistani newspaper Jang also shows stressed name -also on Nawa I Waqt, Express News, also on Geo TV

A google book search yields A Pakistani journal and this book with the نانگا پربت spelling, but no publications in Urdu with the ننگا پربت spelling.

There are some search results that display the unstressed ننگا that link to Twitter/Facebook, and an article on “Such Tv” but a quick google search shows these are much less common, and are likely spelling errors.Willard84 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation is based on the urdu wording. There are many references which term in Nanga Parbat and even call in Naked Mountain. Here are some ([1], [2],[3]). So do we need more references? Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course it’s based on the Urdu spelling - the country in which it is located uses Urdu as its official language. Why would the translation of the Urdu name *not* be based on its Urdu spelling? That would make no sense. Foreigners’ (mis)translations based on incorrect transliteration don’t trump the proper and official spelling in the local language (the journal I posted above was published by a Pakistani government ministry, and reflects the official spelling). Several sources show the naangaa spelling is officially used as listed above - so why would a translation of the wrong name trump the official name? But the confusion is easy since the words sound similar.I’ve included other sources in my original reply above after your comment by accident. Willard84 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, your second source 2 just says Nanga Parbat - I don’t see anything about a translation as Bare/Naked Mountain. A term-search within the book for the terms “bare” or “naked” doesn’t yield the translation as claimed.

The first source you gave is also just a memoir, so I’m not sure if that deserves much credence since its neither an academic source, or a primary/secondary source like a major news outlet or the Pakistani journal I listed above which was published by a Pakistani government ministry. And why should that memoir be given more credence than this memoir by a popular Urdu writer who uses the correct spelling naangaa. Perhaps an etymology section explaining these issues would be useful.Willard84 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging and here is the issue with your line of thought. First you insist that your version is correct based on the urdu spelling but none of these sources speak about meaning of that name. They just use the urdu spelling of it. There is no mention of the naanga spelling since they are in urdu. The rest is pure WP:OR on your part. I have sources in English which spell it as Nanga Parbhat. Moreover, I have sources which state that this was from Sanskrit Nagna Parvata ([4],[5], [6]). This the reason why your edit later about Urdu was also wrong. It should mention Sanskrit. Now unless you have a source which explicitly states what you are stating about the origins of the name and not based on the spelling then we discuss more. Until then the new sources should suffice. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn’t my line of thought as none of your sources until the Brittanica one mentioned etymology in depth, but that source shows that the Urdu name is derived from a Sanskrit term, which is no surprise since Urdu is derived from that language. The other sources you gave aren’t necessarily independent academic sources, since they may just be referencing the Brittanica source. I think an etymology section would be useful to explain the discrepancies between the nangaa vs naanga issye. It’s nit as if the Urdu name can simply be ignored.Willard84 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Well if you can find the sources which explains what you claim that it can be added. Currently as it stands your explanation is WP:OR since it is based on the spelling of the Pakistan government not any scholarly source. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary wording in image caption

Willard84 Please discuss your edits here. You are a senior enough editor to know that what are you doing can be termed edit warring. It has been reverted by 2 editors. Get consensus here or explain how does that wording help the image. Raymond3023 You were the other editor so I am mentioning you as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 It’s obvious why that piece of info is relevant to the image of the pictured mountain. Is associated with an important fact regarding its place in a famous mountain range. Why is this being removed? Initially it was determined to be “puffery” which suggests an unfounded or exaggerated notion. This was reiterated by the other user. But that’s not the case because it is a sourced claim now. So now the issue is what? The claims that this was puffery were already disproved. I’m not sure this level of extreme nitpickiness is warranted, frankly.Willard84 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And not to mention that facts in picture captions is exceedingly common in encyclopedias. Encyclopedia Brittanica article for example. What exactly is your reason for removal? Because it’s been demonstrated as fact and is has been demonstrated as usual encyclopedia practice.Willard84 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The wording was always present in the content section (but was not referenced) then you added to the image caption by you. It was removed by me because it is not relevant in the image caption. Please explain me to how the statement that it is western anchor of the Himalayas relevant in the image caption? I would say you are depicting WP:OWN behavior. If it is a minor detail which is nitpicky then you should let it go since the current image caption is explanatory enough. How is the word western anchor relevant in that particular image is my very specific question To elaborate more how does it help when it is already present in the content. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 You’ve now changed your position. Please take note where you actually removed it on the basis of it being “puffery.” This was the same reason used by the other editor. You now changed your reasoning to something completely different. The reason why I included the source afterwards is because of your initial claim that this was puffery. I did it to demonstrate to you that this was not a false or exaggerated claim.

As demonstrated in that other Encyclopaedia Britannica our article, facts about the image subject can be included in captions, which are then repeated in the article. Bland descriptors are not the only permitted information. Can you point a WP style guide disproving this? Perhaps I’m wrong, so I’d like to know if this is based on style guides or your own preferences. This being the western most point of the Himalayas is actually a pretty interesting point in my opinion. This is the very western most point of perhaps the worlds most famous mountain chain. That’s a pretty interesting fact. How does removing that improve the article? There is no space constraint. Willard84 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that the content is already added in the lede. How is this helpful in better describing the image? (you still haven't answered this question just throwing around that it is an interesting fact. There are many other interesting facts so why this?) And you ask about policy/guideline. Please read the WP:CAPTION and the paragraph about Succinctness. It says to avoid needless words which these are since they are not adding to any more information about the image. By puffery I meant this very thing about being succinct. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80Your use of the word “puffery” was incorrect, but this is still the same argument used by the other editor. But that’s why I included the source as you pointed out above.

And actually, the article you cite says this “Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious.” Such as it being the westernmost anchor of the Himalayas, since that fact isn’t immediately obvious from the image. This is probably the same reason why the Encyclopaedia Britannica article had information about the Tower of London and a image caption on the page about that site.

And you misread what it said about being succinct. It said in the lead to be succinct and informative because readers Often don’t make it past the first few sentences of an article and captions. This is why academic books often have descriptive captions with information also in the text. This is very common practice.

What I provided is a sourced claim directly relevant to the mountain about one of the few unique facts about this mountain. And the way I wrote it is very succinct. Succinct is about using the fewest words needed to convey a message-it’s not to be confused with brevity. Succinct doesn’t just mean short, it means being as short an concise as possible when conveying whatever it is you want to convey. What youre advocating is a shorter sentence by chopping out a fact. That isn’t what succinct means. So what I wrote was both informative, and succinct because I didnt use excessive wording by saying something like “Farthest West mountain peak in the great Himalaya mountain range in Asia.” So what I’ve written appears to be completely congruent with standards and guidelines, so lets reinstate what was written because it meets the standards you pointed out, and we can cordially move forward with no sour feelings.

Willard84 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of the dictionary meaning of succinct but thank you for writing it here again. You still haven't answered my question. How does this wording help in understanding the image better? And this thing you keep harping about facts. Why this fact then? The very fact that is mentioned in the lede of the article is enough. I will provide you some examples of the existing articles on mountains to further convey the meaning of succinct and being directly relevant to the image. Mount Everest, Mount Fuji, Mount Kilimanjaro, Mount Kailash, Mount Baker, Mount Tamalpais, Mount Garibaldi. I can provide many more articles which are in the same area and depict succinct relevant captions. And you are very much depicting WP:OWN behavior now by claiming sour feelings. Please let's be objective about this and don't let our feelings (passion about the topic if you may) get in the way. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You’re not using the word succinct properly, you are confusing it for brevity. You’re talking about cutting out information. And none of this was puffery either as you and the other editor claimed. If you actually look under guidelines for writing good captions, one of them is that it draws you into the article. Did you look at the example they provided?

”The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say "William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government." Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is”

And this:

”While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial ("People playing Monopoly"), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text ("A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today.").”

These almost exactly analogous to the kind of caption I wrote. There is nothing that says the caption has to directly reference only the image, as your demands imply. In fact, the second example clearly contradicts your position. Nothing in the style guide you posted contradicts what I wrote. A caption can in fact include interesting facts about the subject of the image, and can eve add infinite directly evidenced by the image - as the example above very clearly demonstrates.

These sorts of captions are a very common practice amongst academic and historical books. I find it very surprising that you find the sort of caption I wrote to be unusual. And pointing to other examples doesn’t really prove your point - because what Ive written is found in the style guide. Please demonstrate by using that style guide why I’m wrong. I’m not making the claim that those shorter captions aren’t valid. It’s you who is saying that mine is invalid, and you haven’t demonstrated this. Willard84 (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have explained to you what I meant with my usage and cannot speak for another user (not sure what the other user was going for who has not shown up at the discussion after that). By pointing to other articles I am trying to explain to you what the convention here is. The fact you add, might be interesting to you but you have no basis to say that fact will draw the reader in. If this is the case why chose that fact itself. Why not chose something like it is ninth highest mountain or the fact that it is nicknamed Killer Mountain which are equally interesting facts. Thus, for the sake of succinctness and keeping it relevant the text we have is fine. This also follows the convention on similar articles. The arugment about "drawing the reader in" seems to me very random and no real validation that this interesting fact itself should be chosen. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Actially those other alternate facts are fine as well! I was never making the point that what I wrote is only the best option, my whole point is that an additional facts can be put into the caption which are interesting. It being the ninth tallest mountain is fine, so is it’s monicker killer mountain. Those are perfectly acceptable alternatives. And again, even if those other articles use a certain style, that doesn’t mean the style on this page is incorrect, because the caption guide that you yourself cited permits more developed captions. Anyway, the “Killer Mountain” title you mentioned seems more interesting than 9th tallest mountain, agree? Willard84 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Willard84 Killer Mountain might be more appropriate but please keep the text concise. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Will do. Glad we could work this out amicably. Willard84 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)