Talk:Whistler Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


hi-- 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may I humbly request someone take a picture of some or all of the mountain...I would but I'm in ontario and also do not have a digital camera. TotallyTempo 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well admittingly not understanding, nor caring about all the details about Topographic prominence, it is troubling to find that Whistler Mountain has an elevation listed as 2,181 m (7,156 ft) and that it is not even listed within the List_of_highest_mountains_of_North_America which shows that Mount_McKinley as the highest with elevation of 20,320 feet (6,194 m).

Note the difference in the Elevation of 2,181 m (7,156 ft) vs 20,320 feet (6,194 m). If you read this as I did, you probably did not notice the ft first on Mount_McKinley and the m first on Whistler Mountain.

I would suggest the pages and notations for elevation be consistent?

-jim 09:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talkcontribs)

There is no reason at all for Whistler Mountain to be listed on List_of_highest_mountains_of_North_America. It's not even one of the tallest mountains within 20km of itself, it's really just a round bump with a (very) small glacier. Blackcomb is higher, so's the Tusk, and Spearhead, and Overlord, and Armchair, and Weart, and of course Wedge and Garibaldi (the two highest in that particular area). Whistler Mountain is a blip distinguished only by being the site of a half of a ski resort, which was located because it was a certain amount of driving time from downtown Vancouver and because it's at the maxiumu isohyet (and, as the planners thought - wrongly - it must get more snow than mountains farther inland). As for the number formatting thing, that's something you're welcome to change, although there's a template-code to present it right, I'm not sure how to use it (probably already in use in the article, you'll see it in edit mode).Skookum1 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mountain range and geologic information[edit]

Stopped by and was surprised to find no mention of what geological range of mountains Whistler Mtn. is a part of? Is the "small" Fitzsimmons Range connected in any way with the Cascades? And what is the geologic story here? Anyone have good sources for this? N2e (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The SMALL Fitzsimmons Range (yes, it's small) is part of the Garibaldi Ranges, which are part of the Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains. I'm surprised that's not in the article, I'll add it. The Cascades, as in the Cascade Range (or, as official in Canada, the Cascade Mountains) end at the Fraser River, though an older, 19th Century, designation, uses the term "the Cascades" (but not the Cascade Range or Mountains) to include the Coast Mountains, but that's long obsolete and nowadays considered incorrect. Geologically, however, I think Whistler is a volcanic dome and would be part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, which is part of the Cascade Volcanoes geologic system. User:Black Tusk is the volcanoes specialist locally, I'll see what he can add....Skookum1 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Great. I think adding that information, with sources of course, will greatly improve the article! N2e (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Whistler is a volcano or not. This is something I have been wondering about myself because the rock looks a bit volcanic in the pics and is obviously located near volcanoes. But it could be intrusive as well. It does not appear to be in the list of young Canadian volcanoes on the Natural Resources Canada website, but that does not rule out the possibility of Whistler being volcanic. I know there are volcanoes that erupted/formed in the past 1.8 million years not listed there like West Vent, Grizzly Butte, Volcano Vent and Bowie Seamount, but I have no reason why they wouldn't be. BT (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Surprisingly, while I was doing some research I found a bit of geology about Whistler by volcanologist Jack Souther. It turns out that Whistler is indeed volcanic, consisting mostly of andesite and dacite lava flows. Unfortunately, the lava flows that make up Whistler are some 100 million years old. Thus, the volcanics would not be part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt; the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt volcanics date back no more than approximately 4.5 million years ago. BT (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks BT and Skookum1. The article is much better now. N2e (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)