Talk:List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska–British Columbia/Yukon border

Other Boundary Peaks

I still have to further cite and tidy up this page in various ways; including what to do about parallel citations from GNIS (for each name of the same peak; which sometimes vary in coordinates, though usually be 1 second of longitude only; plus how to fit in the BCGNIS and CGNBD citations and unofficial sites/links like bivouac and peakbagger links). But just to note there are other peaks named Boundary Peak, which seems to beg a disambiguation page because of others in NV and NM and elsewhere; but one is in the Yakutat region and is unnumbered - U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Boundary Peak, 5194' - and I'm not sure it's a "treaty peak" and may just have that name because it's near/on the boundary. Also I'm very curious where BP's No.s 1-14 and other gaps in the numbers are; maybe they're only Boundary Monuments or Boundary Points, I'll look into that later. I have to check over this page because it seems the GNIS catalogue search gave me the same thing a couple of times, and maybe I missed some that should be here. Skookum1 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity these are the coordinates for the unnumbered Boundary Peak just named; I want to see if it's on the border...no idea why it's unnumbered if it is....59°50′33″N 138°41′29″W.Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good Skookum1. I was going to add Mount Lewis Cass, but it appears you already added that in the list. BT (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why did you omit the boundary peaks in the Haines and Skagway area (Van Wagenen, Foster, Ashmun, Raymond, Seltat, Prinsep, etc.)?

Section breaks

I'm thinking that maybe the list can be broken into three setions for hte better functioning of GeoGroupTemplate; one that's just the Panhandle from Portland Canal to the White Pass or Chilkoot Pass or Chilkat Pass (Chilkat being the boundary of the Boundary Ranges, actually....), another for the Fairweather Range, another for St. Elias-Kluane.....the current "county" names are only a result of using GNIS to build the table; IMO the better thing to do is name the range/icefield and/or park that something's in.Skookum1 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

Why is the title of this article "... of the Alaska-British Columbia border"? Because the list includes Alaska–Yukon border peaks, shouldn't it be List of Boundary Peaks of the Canada – United States border or List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska–Canada border? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When I started it I hadn't realized the jagged line of treaty peaks went north of the 60th Parallel, i.e. into the Yukon; I found out in the course of the creation of hte list - having been under the misapprehension that Mt St Elias was on the 60th Parallel, nice and neatly; turns out it's not even quite on the 141st meridian, not even its northern neighbour, I think it's Boundary Peak 187, 13000+, is quite at the 141st....anyway I did address this issue at WPTALK:Mountains but I should have cross-posted it here; my own suggestion is List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border - "British Columbia-Yukon" would imply the border between them, but none of these peaks are on that border. The Alaska-Canada dichotomy rings kind of strange because one is a state, the other an entire country; I thought of the US-Canada version but it's a specific stretch of border, involving specific provinces and a specific state, and is not part the "other" border; and there are no treaty peaks along it of this kind. I tried to not use the most likely Canadian construction "of the British Columbia-Alaska border" and of oourse "British Columbia/Yukon-Alaska border" is just too cumbersome. The most telling title, which is a historic reference as opposed to a purely geographic boundary-name one, is List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska Boundary Settlement of 1903 (rather than the Hay-Herbert Treaty by that title; btw in BritCanSpeak history that's a "Settlement", in USspeak it's "the Alaska Boundary Award", as i recall. Maybe the treaty-oriented title is more descriptive; but at least hte "Alaska first" hyphenated form with "British Columbia/Yukon" following is a bit more natural. There's various other notes on WPTALK:Mountains, I guess I should copy that over here....Skookum1 (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What you moved it to is just as well, if a bit awkward. If anyone else comes along and suggests it be moved, we can reconsider. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did it as a maybe-temporary measure because I was adding a link to the see also on the peaks that have articles and some of them were on the Yukon border; namely St. Elias and Augusta and Root, so far, i.e. in the course of adding their "Boundary Peak" names....it did occur to me that List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska Boundary Settlement of 1903 would work better in terms of placing the WP:History template on the talkpage, i.e. because this is as much a history topic as it is a geography topic.....btw are you an admin? Mount Root, Alaska needs changing to simply Mount Root because it's "in BC" too, but that's currently a redirect.Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am an admin. Let me know if you need me to crack some heads together. Just kidding. I'll take a look at the Mount Root page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Pretty straightforward, since as you say Mount Root was redirecting there anyway. No disambiguation is needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention it....there's a backlog of moves waiting at WPCanTalk which I don't know why anybody else hasn't changed them; they're mostly pretty straightforward.... ;-) As for my pet list, as you can see from its edit history I've been slaving over it all day, adding some peaks not in BCGNIS or identifying those that they do that also have gazetted names but which aren't linked in their system.....LOL makes me laugh that list, the humber of people who worked on the boundary, either diplomatiiiy or as surveyor, has made me wonder how big the budget was for the whole affair over its duration (the dispute, the negotations, the survey being three different things). There are also significant elevation differences between the three sources used so far (GNIS, BCGNIS and Bivouac.com), which I take to probably be the result of GNIS notes being old manual survey data; Bivouac.com is STRIM I know so in t he course of amending listings or adding them I'm using that one (usually higher) and mentioning ht othe two in refs/footntes....lots more to go, been an interesting if arduous project.....Alberta-BC's gonna be hell though....Skookum1 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I always get nervous moving articles, and I think a lot of admins are the same way. Often when it is done for stuff that seems relatively uncontroversial someone will pop out of the woodwork and complain, report you at WP:ANI, ask for you to be de-sysopped, etc. Some of those listed there are of that nature where you think—yes, straightforward, but then you can also imagine someone complaining about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

the refs

for now, though I did resize them smaller so they weren't so bukly, I've made the GNIS citations title-less; they'd have been too buiky to fit in the table; if they're all converted into refs their full titles can be displayed, though those would all ahve to be typed/copied in as I did with the name= fields in the coords. what I got thinking, also, is doing that there's no need for three separate primary-source columns; Peakbagger and Bivouac are secondary sources, though both are based in USGS/BCGNIS/CGNDB/BAsemap data; all five (or more) could just go in one column; many of these peaks have other citations or are otherwise notable; the comments field could include a brief description of who each individual named is; or a relative location to the nearest settlement. tag off because each and every item here is a citation; it's how I built the list....why there are blanks in teh numerical order is probably to do with peaks that were part of negotiations but which never reached the treaty itself; if they could be sourced that would be very interesting; i.e. to see where they were...Skookum1 (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with coords format

{{help}}I just tried formatting the gnis refs and coord labels and in the process somehow the coords format has broken; I don't see any code difference between those that work and those that do; the error begins at Boundary Peak 84/Mount Brundage and repeats from there....Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. You had a hard return in place of spaces in two spots. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, but "huh!?"; weird, because I didn't change any (or many) of those entries in the course of my recent formatting of the coords and refs....somehow what had been spaces turned into hard returns without me touching them.....huh.Skookum1 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. Could be a stray electron or two, I can tell you that it was this edit which placed the offending hard returns. Maybe someday we'll be able to just do this all WYSIWYG and these problems will go away.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

CGNDB refs

Just to note that these will only be found for named, i.e. not numbered peaks; there are no "Boundary Peak" listings in either CGNDB or in the Atlas of Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Double table

Probably no need for a second table, as tables can be sorted by name or by boundary peak number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.133.131 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

re undiscussed move to de-capped "Boundary Peaks"

It was titled that way not only because of the plethora of officially named "Border Peak X" items in it, some of which do have other names, but both names are official; many have no other name. "Border Peaks" is specified in the text of the treaty, as I recall; this was named that way because of that. The move was ill-advised and not following sources. and IMO should be reverted; it was not a legitimate move and was unresearched. An RM should have been held, and the sources read. Lower case-ing things on a knee-jerk basis is not acceptable.Skookum1 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This move made about as little sense as moving American-Canadian Border Peaks to American-Canadian border peaks. It's not just any peaks on the boundary, it's legally-named summits with monuments on them naming them that we're talking about. Not quite the same as making Boundary Ranges into boundary ranges or Canadian Rockies into Canadian rockies. This isn't just about "peaks on the Alaska-BC/Yukon boundary" it's peaks that are the Alaska-BC/Yukon boundary and formally named as such. This is not a generic usage where capitalization can be wiped away because of an undue imposition of MOS.Skookum1 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Re the American-Canadian Border Peaks being a redlink, that's because American Border Peak is in USGS and Canadian Border Peak is in BC Names and CGNDB. Mountaineering guides as well as locals on both sides of the border regularly capitalized as well as hyphenate the pair; the 49th Parallel bisects the col between them. I can see that redlink needs to be filled by citations, to make a page which will sort of be a mini-dab, though the history of the Boundary Commission in the 1860s may well cite them together, I've never read either journals of the respective British and American co-commanders of same. But they are regularly paired together and never as "American-Canadian border peaks". There's other examples of terms that may seem to be generic terms but which are not, I'll come up with other examples that are clearer and official. My core point is that these are not just any peaks on the border, the AK=BC/YT ones, they are the border and have monuments atop them marking them as such, in fact (an amazing feat given the terrain and the era they were sureveyed and created in).Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Question. So if the individual mountains are called "Border Peaks", why was the previous name at "Boundary Peaks"? Shouldn't it be List of Border Peaks of the Alaska–British Columbia/Yukon border? Or are the two terms used interchangeably? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • sorry I got confused, look at the cites, it's "Boundary Peaks", my bad. But those are their legal/treaty names. I got confused also because of American-Canadian Border Peaks near Chilliwack. This is the USGS cite for one of them, Boundary Peak 16, which is in Canada called Mount Jefferson Coolidge, "Boundary Peak 16" is only mentioned in the description and doesn't have a separate entry in BC Names, it may in CGNDB I haven't checked yet. Given the name, it probably has a dual USGS entry, as do many....we'd long ago discussed something very cumbersome like "List of summits named 'Boundary Peak' on the AK-BC/YT border" or List of treatied 'Boundary Peaks' of the AK-BC/YT border etc.....lower-casing is entirely inappropriate.`Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • note that some - many - only have the name "Boundary Peak X" and not a dual name.Skookum1 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I can move this back—I just wanted to check on that point. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

elevation sort in tables not working right now

I happened to come by here last night and found that the elevation sort function in the tables is not working right; there's half a dozen that sort from highest to the fifth/sixth-lowest, then it starts from the 4000' range and goes up from there, rather than down; doesn't appear to have anything to do with the humber of digits/integers in the number, which I thought maybe was the case. Has there been some change in table codes or some other change to a cite code or something that could cause this malfunction? (try it yourself, you'll see what I mean)Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed (only today!). Also: if anyone want to display elevations in both ft and m, I think the syntax to use is {{convert|5151|ft|m|abbr=on|disp=br|sortable=on}}, giving:

5,151 ft
1,570 m

All entries will need to be changed, otherwise the templated ones will be at the bottom of the table if sorted by elevation. Don't forget to remove "Ft" from the column header. Pol098 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pointless table

I've resolved an issue with tables not sorting properly by elevation (see previous comment), but they could be improved further. I'm not myself sure of how the dual names (number + usual name) work, or what to do about peaks having separate references under each name. Things that I think would be an improvement:

1. Given the facility to sort tables, there is no point in having two large tables with the same content, one initially sorted by number, the other by name; one could be dropped with no loss of information or functionality. That is my main point.
2. Given the length of the table(s), they could be hidden, revealed on a click.
3. Instead of giving elevations in feet, they could be in both feet and meters. A previous post of mine gives the way to do this using the {{convert}} template. As other columns in each row have several lines of content, requiring two lines for elevation does not extend the length of the table.
4. It seems unnecessary to have columns containing only references; they could be appended to other fields, leaving more space for the longer text fields. Pol098 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)