Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Portal-puzzle.svg Portal  People icon.svg Project  Nuvola apps edu languages.svg Discussion
Mountains
Silvretta panorama from the Ochsenkopf

Wrong image in article?[edit]

Please see Talk:Mount Hope (Eternity Range)#Image is wrong for a claim that the article is showing the wrong image. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

There is a proposal to merge Vertical metre into Metres above sea level. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Metres above sea level#Vertical metre merge. —hike395 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting Article Importance[edit]

I am considering reviewing the importance of the top and high importance articles in Project Mountains . The primary criteria that seems to have been used is country high points, and then quite a number of volcanoes. This throws up some strange anomalies. For example, Town hill, Bermuda (79m high) is currently seen as more important a mountain than Mount Robson, high point of the Canadian Rockies at 3954m. There are also some significant omissions from top or high ratings - the Dolomites are not even rated. I will try to apply reasonably objective criteria as follows:

Top importance

  • Major peaks - typically the highest of their range/sub range, or generally high or prominent in their continent.
  • Otherwise highly notable or renown peaks (internationally) for climbing, cultural or historic reasons (Eiger, mount Kailash)
  • Ranges - major ranges of the world - smaller ranges only included when particularly noteworthy and parent not included.

Without setting hard limits I am thinking around 10-20 peaks from the main continents, a few more from Asia. Would like to bring the number down, ideally under 200.

High importance (probably roughly twice as many)

  • Country high points not listed above that are proper mountains (roughly at least 1000m high,300m prominence)
  • High points of lesser ranges, additional major summits of major ranges.
  • Other peaks notable for climbing, cultural or historic reasons (e.g. Piz Badile) for a more specialised / regional audience.

This should help focus priorities and give a clearer state of where we are. Any coments welcomed before I embark on this. Marqaz (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In my purely personal opinion, this distinction isn't really important to anything. I generally agree with the school of thought that for Wikipedia it's actually the little known things that are important, since the major ones are likely better known from other sources. And even if that isn't the case, the "importance" rating has little relevance to any editor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Still keen to proceed with this as classifying articles correctly is a foundation for efficient project work. If articles are to be classified by importance that should be reasonably robust and sensible. Table below shows proposed revision of table on assessment pages (notably changing important of country summits).Marqaz (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Since we have importance ratings, it makes sense to have some criteria for ranking articles by importance, not least for consistency. Your criteria seem a good starter for ten and, unless you get any major objections (with alternative proposals), I'd be bold and add them to the project page. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking that the importance ratings could be simply removed. I certainly don't use them for anything, and their original purpose (which was to select a set of articles for a CD edition of Wikipedia) is long obsolete as nowadays people are far more likely to use other means to access our material. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-importance}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project. Globally important mountains such as the highest peaks of major ranges, or generally high or prominent in their continent (so all of the Seven Summits or Seven Second Summits) or otherwise internationally notable or renown peaks for climbing, cultural or historic reasons. Major ranges of the world (sub ranges only included when particularly noteworthy and usually only if parent is not included).
High {{High-importance}} This article is fairly important to this project. Mountains which are the high points of lesser ranges; additional major summits of major ranges or geographic areas; country high points (not listed as Top importance but that are proper mountains (roughly at least 1000m high,300m prominence)); other peaks notable for climbing, cultural or historic reasons for a more specialized or regional audience. Significant mountain ranges, sub ranges of major world ranges.
Mid {{Mid-importance}} This article is relatively important to this project. Significant peaks in a mountain range generally fall into this class.
Low {{Low-importance}} The mountain/peak is typically not well known even to most mountaineers and has no significant elevation within its mountain range (if contained in such).
NA {{NA-importance}} This article has no importance (as it pertains to article improvement) and is typically used for categories and disambiguation pages.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.
@Marqaz: I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus that very few (or no) editors look at these importance levels to decide what to work on. You can change them, if you wish, but I would suggest that maybe you should spend the same hours improving articles themselves. —hike395 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. Taking a synthesis I will be bold, but not spend too much time on revising ratings.Marqaz (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Prominence/Isolation parents[edit]

Would it be a good idea to include the prominence and/or isolation parents of mountains in lists where the prominence and/or isolation are given? Fridge Leprechaun (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't find prominence parent a particularly useful or important fact (because it has to be a more prominent mountain rather than simply the next higher mountain, it can be some way away) - I feel it appeals to a specialist audience only - arguably more useful is the key col itself but these are rarely listed. Prominence doesn't need the the prominence parent to be useful. Isolation parent is more understandable and useful but not essential. More useful to add the prominence and isolation to lists that don't have them.Marqaz (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
There is already a parameter for 'parent peak', which I assume is the isolation parent, but am not sure. There isn't a parameter for the key col which, I agree, is worth listing. There are ways round this; for example, see Acherkogel where the parent peak and key col are indicated rather neatly by arrows which help to make the meaning clear. However, they have to be entered manually; on German Wikipedia, the template does this automatically if the data are available. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals[edit]

Editors might be interested to see a discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nix Olympica[edit]

FYI, there's a deletion process tag at wikt:Nix Olympica on Wiktionary. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

How to handle multiple peaks?[edit]

I'm working on Meru Peak. It seems that mostly it is conceived of as one mountain, with three peaks. Inconveniently, the third-highest peak ("Meru Central") is of most interest to mountaineers, as it's the highest.

How should I handle this? It seems a bit much to have a separate article for each peak. Yet if there is just one article for the whole mountain, then many of the fields of the infobox don't quite fit ("first ascent" etc) because they would all be about the highest peak (I presume).

Suggestions for models to follow? (Please consider pinging my on my talk page so I see the reply.) Stevage 06:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)