Talk:Ishpatina Ridge

Canada: Ontario / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Mountains Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Temagami

The Ishpatina Ridge is not within the municipal boundaries of Temagami; it isn't even in the same census division as Temagami is. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park is owned by Temagami meaning anything within the park is part of Temagami. If you do a google search for "Ishpatina Ridge Temagami" you will find lots. I live in Temagami and it's considered to be part of the Temagami wilderness area. Therefore it is part of Temagami. See here, here, here, here and here, which say both Maple Mountain and Ishpatina Ridge stretch to the very edge of Temagami's rugged backcountry. Black Tusk 09:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just readded the Temagami category because Ishpatina lies in the Temagami area. The Temagami category is NOT just for the town, it is also for the region. Because users (or just you Bearcat) seem to have a problem with Ishpatina being in the Temagami area for some reason, I have added this article on my watchlist. I will attempt to undo any deletions related to Temagami in this article. The Temagami area is NOT just located in Nipissing District. BT (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are not for the town and the region simultaneously just because you sez they iz; a category on Wikipedia cannot simultaneously serve two different incompatible functions. If you want categories for the Temagami region, then by all means create separate ones at the title "Temagami (region)" — but you cannot conflate two different topics into a single category just because you want to. The existing categories were originally created for the municipality of Temagami, and because it's an actual incorporated municipality, with defined boundaries that aren't in question or subject to debate, that purpose comes first. If you want region categories, then don't try to shoehorn the municipal categories into double duty — create separate region categories. You're the first person to admit that the region of Temagami and the municipality of Temagami aren't the same thing, so why on earth would you even want to use the categories as if they were? There's certainly a place for what you want to do — but making one set of categories do two different things at once isn't the right way to accomplish it. Bearcat (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added the municipality and region cats to Category:Temagami is because I do not see a reason why there should be categories for both the municipality and region of Temagami. The area that is commonly referred to as "Temagami" is in fact a series of protected waterway parks within a large wilderness area with the Township of Temagami on its eastern boundary. Anyway, this problem has been solved on my talk page so I am going to readd the cat. Volcanoguy 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

officially gazetted as Ishpatina Peak

Hello, I would like to delete this line. The reference provided mentions "Ishpatina Peak", but does not mention it as being the official gazetted name. My Google search using this term only returned 6 results, most of which sounded like they had come from a single source (possibly from this article!). Additionally, a check of the Geographical Names Board of Canada (the people who give geographical features their official names in Canada) returns only one result for a query of Ishpatina: "Ishpatina Ridge". I have not seen the name "Ishpatina Peak" on any map, ever. Perhaps a compromise would be to mention that the highest point on the ridge is sometimes (rarely?) called Ishpatina Peak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.175.140 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the top-right corner of the webpage here and it says: Name Status: Official. Black Tusk 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it does say that. But do you think that Bivouac.com is a more reputable source than the Canadian Government? In my opinion, "official" denotes something weightier than user generated content (which is what Bivouac is, if I am not mistaken). Why not type Ishpatina into the Geographical Names Board of Canada's website here:

http://gnss.nrcan.gc.ca/gnss-srt/searchName.jsp?language=en

"Ishpatina Peak" is not a name recognized by the Canadian government. In addition, a Google Book search for "Ishpatina Ridge" returns 16 returns, while "Ishpatina Peak" returns 0.

The thesis here is two-fold: Ishpatina Peak is not the official name, and is so rarely used that it doesn't deserve mentioning in the article.

For all we know, the author who added that information to Bivouac could be the same person that originally added the information to Wikipedia. Sadly, the Bivouac article doesn't appear to provide references.

If one agrees that the Canadian government has a greater say over what its geographic features are officially named than a few anonymously authored websites, then it's not possible for anyone to dispute these edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.206.116 (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the name bit you deleted reads as WP:OR; Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. I have added it back to the article. There's also some mountains called "unnamed peaks" by the Canadian government that are actually not unnamed so the Canadian government can be wrong as well. Ishpatina Peak is the name for the highest point of the Ishpatina Ridge, see here. There are many mountains/hills in Canada that use the unofficial name. For example, Fairweather Mountain officially is generally referred to as Mount Fairweather, and as far as I know the redirects work that way in that case; there are others; Cheam Peak/Mount Cheam, Dickson Peak/Mount Dickson, Silverthrone Mountain/Mount Silverthrone and I could go on. Black Tusk 23:56, April 13 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks: I hope this helps: according to this page on wikipedia convention, the Geographical Names of Canada people are responsible for giving mountains official names. I hope that is useful! I've updated the entry in question! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains#Government_sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.137.121 (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ishpatina Ridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic anomalies

As I was browsing wiki, I found a lint to this page from another about a magnetic anomaly. However there is nothing in the article mentioning such a thing being present here. I would like to ask that, if there is a magnetic anomaly in this place, that such information be added to the article. And if there is none then for the links to and from this page tying it to said anomalies be removed. Thank you! 115.36.107.117 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Ishpatina Ridge.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]