Talk:Western Cordillera/Archive 1

Archive 1

Geographic scope and Article Title

I'm working to try and improve the geographic scope of this article. There is a lot of confusion and debate over the naming convention for this topic. The debate stems from the nebulous referencing to the Western or Pacific Cordillera - which could mean any number of places on the planet. However, the geology literature regularly refers to the Western Cordillera and Pacific Cordillera less so. Properly defined - cordillera refers to interconnected or a span of mountain ranges. In this instance, however, there are many references to basins within the Western Cordillera. The reason being is through the evolving geologic history the basins and their contiguous range evolved together. I have tried to modify this page so that it references places more broadly covers the Western Pacific Cordillera in the published literature. Sub-sections can link to other articles to deal with the more specific features (e.g. physiographic/eco-provinces, terranes, or tectonic boundaries). Hopefully this helps. The specific places and sub-section titles need to be updated to assist with this clarity. I'll tinker away at this - but it isn't going to happen overnight. Thompsma (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the US part of the mountains were geologically different from the Canadian part, since the US part has low lying foothills and such, while the Canadian part (and northern US part in the lower 48) rose steepily out of the great plains / prairie. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Geography/physiography and geology are two different sets of categorization; toponymy tends to follow the former, and the latter is largely irrelevant to what people call any landform; it's the form, not hte content, that matters. There is a shift in "style" of mountains around the head of the Missouri - the Big Hole area of Montana; the Rockies north of that, from the Flathead east anyway in US terms are a tightly compressed belt of block-faults; south of that it's a mish-mash to the Rio Grande of all kidns of different terrain. Terminology does differ from one side of the border to the other; the Percells are an extension of BC's Purcell Mountains, which are part of the Columbia Mountains (and in Canada are not a part of the Rockies), and to thier south the Cabinet, Salish, Clearwater and other ranges in the "Idaho Rockies" are a continuation of the same landform; though in the US considered part of the Rockies, even the final bit of the Selkirk Mountains near Spokane....(again, part fo the Columbia Mountains).Skookum1 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Pacific Ranges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given that Western Cordillera appears in many published reports - this article should not be merged. I give some of my reasons above and invite discussion on this debate. Thanks! Thompsma (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Pacific Ranges??? Whatever are you talking about - read Pacific Ranges why doncha? They're only a subset of the Coast Mountains (which Americans mistakenly think are a continuation of the Cascades); I gather you mean Pacific Coast Ranges, which does have a formal, though different definition; and in the singular is the official name of the "Oregon Coast Range", which also goes by the name "Coast Range", which is also a more casual name used for the BC Coast Mountains. It would hav helped if our geographic-naming folks had had more originality so there's less confusion, but that's the way it is. The three main subdivisions of the Coast Mountains are the Boundary Range, the Kitimat Ranges and the Pacific Ranges, from north to south, with the Boundary Ranges approximately half the total length...Skookum1 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you notice - I was not the user who suggested the merger, rather I followed a link that suggested this. I voted that the article should not be merged. In regard to some of your other comments, please note, however, that I am providing references to original sources. Hence, it is not me that is referring to these geographic place names - but published and peer-reviewed literature. However, as I am just starting to work on this article - you may encounter editorial mistakes that could be misleading or misrepresent the facts. Please give this a week or more to develop. Thanks. Thompsma (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your edit history focusees on conservation biology and other ecology-related articles.....read some geographic resources/sources and also look over conncted geographid articles before attempting to revise a "core" geographic article as you have done; you're out of your depth, and apparently too impatient to read input from others who are trying to help you. I'm pissed off at your attitude towards me and will likely give this article a wide berth as a waste of time; there's LOTS of cites on other geographic/mountain range articles, all of which you should have looked over before you tried to begin "Organizing geographic scope" as your edit comment on your debut edit on this important (and in need of experienced input) mountain-range articles without any other mountain-range article experience. I've done my research (I'd avoided trying to fix this article before because of its many problematic confusions; but apparently you're too arrogant to respect or appreciate the work done by others (I don't mean this article, I mean the scope of mountain-range articles you're clearly unfamliar with), and set yourself to revamping a core moutain range/geographic article without ever being near one before....SHEESH. I'm gone, have fun in your sandbox, no wonder geography in the ecology articles I've seen is so poorly laid out....Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion was made at Pacific Cordillera, which you made into a redirect (which aren't allowed to be prodded) to this article and then prodded. It was by user:79.180.225.62; AND it is NOT for the Pacific Range, it is for the Pacific Coast Ranges article. Since you decided that this should be the article for everything, I merely transferred the merge over. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing entire sections

I think the entire sections on Western Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada should be removed and re-written. There isn't a single reference in here!! Please...if you are going to put in a long winded description of something have the courtesy to cite it. Even if you cite a textbook to give us some clue where the information came from. I will work on this page and its sections. If I don't see references popping up in these sections as I re-write or as I check the facts - I will delete the information. It is better to have cited facts than mis-information spreading throughout. Thompsma (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Western Pacific Cordillera"

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was rename to Western Cordillera (North America)

The title of this article, Western Pacific Cordillera is "original research". There are only 2 valid google hits for this phrase, both of which are Wikipedia. This article needs to be renamed. "Western Cordillera" is the US name, "Pacific Cordillera" is the Canadian name, "North American Cordillera" would encompass Mexico as well. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Western Pacific Cordillera → ? — 76.66.198.171 (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Western Cordillera, which is what it's properly called. Please don't reinvent wheels and turn them into flat tires....Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose These articles contain little information and almost no references. I've attempted to clarify the geographic scope of the region in Western Pacific Cordillera by including all the geographic regions referred to in the literature as either Western Cordillera or Pacific Cordillera - which are synonyms. Instead of merging - the title, references, and scope of the article needs to be clarified. Until this is completed a merger should not take place. Thanks. Thompsma (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Revert to Western Cordillera - I totally oppose "Western Pacific Cordillera, it's a neologism and not used in any physiographic literature. Skookum1 (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Western Cordillera of North America should resolve this dispute. See reasons in article why Western Cordillera or Pacific Cordillera doesn't work from a global context. Western Pacific Cordillera was an early attempt of mine to try to geographically pinpoint the name - it was the wrong title, but I was trying to find something that worked since the titles before had been in dispute with discussion of merger. I had to think this over. Since, Pacific & Western Cordillera have been used synonymously and can refer to other place names on the globe, I believe it is best to settle on Western Cordillera of North America so there can be no ambiguity.Thompsma (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So, the first mountain range article you've ever worked on and you figured you knew enough to rename it? And you presume to lecture me on not referring to citations/peer reviewed articles. You're out of your depth, Western Cordillera is more than correct, and the proper dab according to WP:NAME and conventions at WP:Mountains is Western Cordillera (North America). Your rename campaign is what's been a waste of time, not my attempts to set you straight (which you'er too arrogant to read).Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gentleditors: let's try to stay cool. There's been an unresolved controversy about the WP naming of this mountain cordillera since at least 2004 (see Talk:Pacific Coast Ranges). We can take a few days or weeks to calmly and rationally decide on what to do.

Let me put some more context into the debate. There may or may not be a standard term for this cordillera. I found a 1946 book titled "Pacific Coast Ranges" that may be relevant. Then, I decided to ask, "What would other encyclopedias do?"

Britannica: the 1911 edition of EB does not have an article on this cordillera, but searching 1911encyclopedia.org reveals the usage "North American Cordillera". The latest on-line edition has an article on "North American Cordillera".

Encarta: only has an article on "Cordillera", which said that the one we're talking about is called the "Western Cordillera". Apparently, cordillera originally was not a generic term, but referred to the South American one. As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, "Western Cordillera" is a confusing term, we may wish to avoid it or modify it.

Columbia Encyclopedia: says that "Cordilleras" is the general term for the one we're talking about. This seems very ambiguous

Dictionary of Earth Sciences: refers to it as "Cordillera of North America"

Physicalgeography.net: refers to it (in passing) as the North American Cordillera.

In summary, I would like to propose combining all of these pages into one page called "North American Cordillera". What do other editors think?

hike395 (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever which one is more proper. I find this article is more like a hellhole right now..... Black Tusk (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hike395. Skookum1 - calm down, this is not my first article. I'm researching, reading, revising, and doing my part. As Hike395 points out - there has been a lot of debate on this topic since 2004. Look at what has happened to this page in just a few days. Granted it is a mess, but by coming in here and following the Wikipedia creed: Wikipedia:Be bold. This instilled new life and discussion into this topic. I believe Western Cordillera (North America) is a title we can all agree on? Western Cordillera and Pacific Cordillera refer to other places on the globe, so we need a way of distinguishing the area. I think the skeleton for this page is taking shape and it will be a good article when finished. Thompsma (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Given Britannica, I would prefer North American Cordillera, which, as anon IP 76 points out, would encompass Mexico as well. hike395 (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Given Britannica - I'm fine with either North American Cordillera or Western Cordillera (North America). Using either of these as a search term identifies the same region. Western Cordillera appears to be used more often in primary literature, but North American Cordillera is also used commonly. However, retaining western in the name does differentiate this area from potential confusion with any references to an Eastern Cordillera - which I have turned up none for NA, only in SA. Given the amount of debate that this has generated, I doubt a consensus will ever be reached. I'm more of a practical applications person - if I need to research a place I would prefer a more universal term that will provide the greatest number of 'hits'. There is no clear-cut right/wrong in this, North American Cordillera or Western Cordillera (North America) seem equally appropriate and synonymous. I vote we leave it as is, but wont be upset if it changes.Thompsma (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Problems with this name, "Western Pacific Cordillera"
  1. Title is Original research / Synthesis
  2. The "Western Pacific" is next to Japan, the "Eastern Pacific" is next to North America
  3. This name is not used, at all
  4. This article covers more than the western part of the Pacific Cordillera

Although I have never found a specific reference to Western Pacific Cordillera I selected this name in an effort to resolve the debate - it is always either Western Cordillera or Pacific Cordillera (less so). This is not "original research" per se, it is an amalgamation of synonyms. It is also not true that "Pacific Cordillera" is the Canadian name - I attended a Canadian University with my masters and it was always called the Western Cordillera (e.g. [1]). Other Canadian researchers, papers, and books published in Canada refer to this as the Western Cordillera. This is a difficult one to pin-point because the same name refers to the Western Cordillera in the Andes. There is even reference to a North Pacific Cordillera.[2] Perhaps Western Cordillera of North America would more accurately cover this topic, since there is a north and south Pacific and a north and south western Cordillera, and this title is also used in the literature (e.g. [3]. It makes sense to have the title pin this region down as best as possible. Thompsma (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the name "Western Pacific Cordillera" is not used, and this article is not about the western Pacific Cordillera (The western part of the Pacific Cordillera), it appears that you've violated WP:SYN with this particular name (you've reached a conclusion not supported in publications, by combining two supported definitions) 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Major problem - "Western Cordillera, North America" is a redirect to Pacific Coast Ranges. I was trying to tell User:Black Tusk how to find this discussion and couldn't find my way back here until I looked in my history; this article shoudl be hte prime address for Western Cordillera, and there shoudl be a hatnote for the spanish-name versions, which are rarely referred to by their English names....other than that there's a BIG tangle of articles/titles now and it shoudl be straightened out, and their contents harmonized, before any more "improvements" to the content of this one are done. If there's argument about the south American ones then teh Western Cordillera link can be a dab page with Western Cordillera (North America) and Western Cordillera (South America) as its own dab page (since there are three such ranges). Skookum1 (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I concur with Western Cordillera (North America).Thompsma (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

From bad to worse

I looked at this earlier today, and grimaced; once I cam back I've looked over it and it's gotten worse; I just fixed the "Pacific Coast Mountains" section (now "Pacific Coast Ranges") and fixed some of its geographic descriptino - the Pacific Ranges end at Bella Coola, British Columbia and do not extend into Alaska; whoever the Brunsfeld reference is, it can be ditched as entirely unreliable if that's what was in it. Other than that I don't know where to start in criticizing this article's many, many faults. The listign of what's included at the top doesn't even have half a handle on the structure of the range hierarchy in British Columbia, and confuses the Okanagan/Okanogan Highland with the Okanagan/Okanogan Range - t he former is east of Okanagan Lake and teh Okanogan River, the latter is south of the Simlikameen River and a subragen of the Cascades. And a map accompanying this section which ends at the Canadian border can just be junked; partly because the US definition of the Rocky Mountains includes southward extensions of physiographic regions of BC which are grouped as the Columbia Mountains adn are not part of the Rockies; apples and oranges lined up and you might as well call the whole thing a big rotten kumquat. Adjectives are mixed up with terms ("Pacific Coast Moutains" was such a jumble; the Coast Mountains do limn the Pacific, but to combine them is ..... ick, and entirely misleading; the Alsek/St. Elias/Chugach I'll have to go re-check as I wrote that from memory; they're included in teh Pacific Coast Ranges, while the Alaska Range beyond is not. The Ominecas are a subset of what is known as the Interior Mountains which the other authors of this article should have a good long look at; likewise Columbia Mountains. Even the stateside dsecriptions are hopelessly jumbled. This page needs expert attention, even more than globalization. S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia is the authoritative and definitive work for landforms in BC, and its author attempted to coordinate with US-side definitions, but it appears tha few US authors make any attempt to work the other way north of the border. I'm going to lightly scan this article and maybe comment on the POV/globalize debate above; my feeling is it shoudl be ditched and rewritten from scratch, with reference to the existing mountain-range articles on the phyiosgraphic systems it attempts to manage. And the title has gotta be booted; "Western Cordillera" is the most suitable title, bedmaned what that means in Spanish and in South America; "Pacific Cordilllera" happens to be a Canada-only term and I would oppose it for that reason (and I'm Canadian).Skookum1 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see Thompsma disagrees with me on the Pacific Cordillera-as-a-Canadian term; maybe it's a US term but if so it would seem to have to exclude the Rockies thorugh Wyoming/Colorado/New Mexico; "Western Cordillera" is the most relevant and widely used term and, again, it doesn't matter that Cordillera Occidental translates as "Western Cordillera"; a hatnote saying that is sufficient to refer to the South American article(s); it's not as if South America has ownership of the concept....Skookum1 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to 'fix' sections - please provide citations to help the article along. I'm not sure of what all this rant is about, it is filled with grammatical and spelling errors beyond comprehension. Your comment about Brusfeld I could understand - see below about the reputation of these authors - it is a peer-reviewed book chapter from highly reputable sources. Moreover, there are maps in our library much like the one show here: [4]. The Coast Mountains extend south of Bella Coola, sorry. I have visited all of these mountain ranges, have been to Bella Coola, and have read extensively on the geology and paleoecological history. The Cascade Range extends north until the Fraser River basin where the Coast Mountains begin. However, please note that I didn't write most of this article. I didn't put in the figure. I just came here a couple of days ago and saw it was in a complete mess. Much of the written stuff in here I have just ignored, because it wasn't cited. I'm not going to waste my time reading someone's opinion on this topic, rather I'm going to read peer-reviewed works and cite them. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the Brunsfeld reference (which I added) but it was cited in an odd place - where I didn't include it. Someone just posted it to the end of a paragraph - not me. Perhaps this is where your concerns stem. Thompsma (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personal (though I have, read on...), I'm well aware a lot of this article's problems aren't your fault; and when I leave typos it's because I type VERY FAST and also am in a hurry to keep up with all the thingso on my mind (I'd rather have spent the evening doing history articles but needed to "head you off at the pass" to advise you of what's already in all the other articles; reversing letters as I type is a consequence of going at it about 140wpm, and also of having a slow computer that backs up letters, forgetting sometimes whole words; generally I come back and fix things, others are more used to me. I'm also habitually prolix and write a good deal more than people used to sound bites and point-form are used to, but I know my stuff, and then some. I was criticizing the article, not you, and there were additions being made, i.e. since the last time I looked at this article a while ago, that just didn't make any sense or flew in the face of geographic reality. Citations? Citations for me throughout are S. Holland, Landforms of British Columbia, which as I've explaiend is THE authoritative and official source used by BC government bodies and by BCGNIS as its basis, and also by bivouac.com (more or less) and peakbagger.com and other sites. "Much of my written stuff I [you] have just ignored" is an asinine comment, I suggest you eat some humble pie and learn to "waste your time" reading Holland, BCGNIS, and all the mountain/plateau articles before you say somehting so rude again. Citations aren't required on talkpages, if you're using that as a reason not to do the research that I already have and was trying to explain to you, and take my informations as something personal, then it's you who've wasted my time and also wasted a lot of edit energy, as others will have to come along and fix your mistakes. Citations? Citations?? Just read Holland, OK, and don't be a sophomoric jerk. "I've been to Bella Coola" etc.....buddy, I was raised in the Bridge River Country and Lillooet Country and lived throughout the Lower Mainland, Sea to Sky Country, and ahve been studying maps and geography likely for a couple of decades before you were born....if you're too aloof and educated to read past the typos and see the facts and appreciate somebody trying to teach you something, you're incapable of appreciating any "peer-reviewed works" taht you seem to think are better than what I've already gleaned from them. Was it you who included Boreal Cordillera here? Where was that coming from, for pity's sake??? All the mountain range articles and plateau articles you're re-arranging here alreayd have lots of content written by other editors - you should have done researcdh as to what related wikipedia articles already said. and what their talkpages said. Wikipedia is collegial, and don't snot at me about "peer review" when you've ignored the fact that other articles have all been based on an authoritative source (Holland). I'm done with you for the night....what a waste of a few hours; i try to help, try to educate, and get told you're too uppity to bother reading what I've very carefully tried to explain. To try and help you not waste YOUR time. Sheesh.....and dno't dump on me for being rude; you've been rude by saying that you're too intellilgent to read things that you, well, just azre too important to.Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to material in the article that wasn't cited. Read all your stuff in talk pages. In know who Holland is - I have a copy sitting right here on my bookshelf.Thompsma (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

S. Holland Landforms of British Columbia, pdf download

Attn Thompsma and others: you may find this useful. I can't find the original download page - there'sn ancillary map that goes with it, I have it stored on a Cd, if you shoot me an email I'll be glad to forward it. while looking for the map I also found this powerpoint - Landform Regions of Canada which is Canada-wide and shoudld explain the full scope of the Rockies (Holland discusses the Alberta Rockies somewhat, but his job was BC-oriented).Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Skookum1! Hopefully everyone can be a little patient since I just started to get this sorted out. As for the Brunsfeld reference, it is cited, and it came from a peer-reviewed book chapter. The authors in that book are highly accomplished in their respective fields, one of the authors - Soltis is one of the great authorities on the paleoecological history of this region with over 30 years of publications. Dr. Brunsfeld was a professor at the University of Idaho. Some of the other authors are highly notable in their respective fields, e.g. [5] Curator, Molecular Systematics & Evolutionary Genetics. To save time I referenced their paper, which gives a broad overview of geological history, but I have also read and have copies of the original sources and will add these with time. I'll be running through this and checking over things. The article is starting to take shape and it will be cited. Thompsma (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Being notable in "Molecular Systematics & Evolutionary Genetics" doesn't qualify him to be a reliable source in geography or geographic toponymy. And geologic history isn't relevant to geographic toponymy, either. Just because someone has a ph.D in one field doesn't make them an authority, or even a useful reference, in another....Skookum1 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the chapter then come back with your critique. Your reasoning is flawed. With respect to your concerns about me coming in and writing on this article - this is wikipedia - the worlds encyclopedia. I can read, write, and research. As far as I understand things - this is the only requirement. You've been placing long winded angry rants on these talk pages attacking my contributions. You seem to be most angry because you believe that I haven't read your posts on the talk pages. However, I mentioned earlier that this is not true and as you can see I've responded to almost all your posts and followed through where the information you provided was helpful. Your angry rants are not helpful. When I said I wasn't willing to read through unreferenced material - I was referring to the garbage that was posted on this site when I first arrived. There wasn't a single citation and lots of it was nonfactual. This is the last time I'm going to respond to one of your comments where you are having trouble with your interpersonal skills on this site. I hope that we can move beyond this and focus on making this a useful site.Thompsma (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I got angry because you said some stupid things about my posts not being worth reading and not being cited etc. That's why, and styling my writing "rants" because I'm long-winded is a boring dodge from those who I see as simply ahving short attention spans. AS for "read the chapter" it's not relevant to cite a Moecluar Systematics paper in reference to geography. You might as well as me to read a passage of the Bhagavad Gita or Das Kapital - they're irrelevant to geography though no doubt use geographic terms. The reason Holland is relevant is because it's an official toponymy, it's the basis of official toponymy in one of the jurisdictions this article covers; USGS is the official toponymy in another, and CGNDB (Canada GeoNames Database) is the one taht covers Alberta and Yukon and the NWT. I could care less what Encyclopedia Brittanica or the Bible say what things shoudl be called, or what they think they're called. WP:NAME is very clear about official names trumping anything else, unless the "most common usage" is overwhlemingly better known than the official usage. Geography is not moleduclar systematics and vice versa; the same reason that I deleted mention fo the Ecozone names, which confusingly used terms liek "Cordillera" and "Plateau" in their names, is because they're not geographic references, and this is a geography article and there's an existing literature on it; even geology, which is related, uses different terms; but those terms are not what this article is about, which is dfeining the term which is from GEOGRAPHY. What you're suggeseting is like having a geographer come in and use vague and inappropriate terms to re-name things in biology or molecular genetics, just because they have a ph.D and used the term. "Just not on" as Brits would say; the releveant RELIABLE SOURCES here are those from the field, specifically that of official toponymy. If we started including cites from tourist brochures, literary works, religious revelations, UFOlogy/Sasquatchology reports, linguistics and ethnography papers, they just wouldn't belong. Mount range classification systems are their own field, and BCGNIS/USGS/CGNDB are the official designations and have their OWN sets of citations and back-up works (if you really do have Holland, ahve a look at his bibliography and footnotes). And this isn't a rant, it's avery detailed explanation, learn the difference.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To underscore all of the above, here's what you said above:

Some of the other authors are highly notable in their respective fields, e.g. [5] Curator, Molecular Systematics & Evolutionary Genetics. To save time I referenced their paper, which gives a broad overview of geological history,

BUT THIS ISN'T ABOUT GEOLOGICAL HISTORY And it's certainly not in the field of an evolutionary geneticist either, no matter how well-read she is. This isn't about GEOLOGY, it's about geography ("Orontography" I think is the exact term for mountain ranges, literally "mountain writing"). What physicists or geneticists or geolostists say about it is not relevant in the SLIGHTEST....Skookum1 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you're suggesting that geological history SHOULD have something to do with it, then you're engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH and SYNTHESIS just as you did when you re-coined the title of this article without knowing what you were talking about. yes, this is thet world's encyclopedia, but if sources from all fields were relevant in all articles it would be total chaos. Eggs go in egg cartons, apples go in apple crates. This isn't a free-for-all, it's an article on geographic classification. I'm saying this over and over again to make sure you understand. Maybe you just don't, I don't know. You seem to think highly of this one source, but any number of other people could come alogn and quote from the Book of Mormon or the Popol Vuh, or someone frm an indigenous poeple could come along and say "this aritcle is wrong because it doesn't cite my people's mythography" and so on (and actuall, they have more of a point than your molecular geneticist or geological history types would). Mountains are not named or classified because of their geology, any more than children are named because of their DNA code.Skookum1 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Phylogeography - notice the word geography in there - is a discipline that looks at the relationship between the geography of the land and the migration of species over ecological to geological time scales. The field includes geographers, ecologists, and molecular systematicists. This is the field of study that I am trained in - and it has lots to connections with geography of landforms, although it isn't the primary focus of study. Once again - you have been upset with me and written volumes of your anger here because you think I was ignoring your comments. This isn't true - I was referring to unreferenced material in the article pages, which I will ignore. I don't think so highly of the Brunsfeld article - it is just one reference and it is cited properly. In time the article will grow and I (and others) will add additional reference material. In the meantime there is nothing wrong with referring to a published resource that gives a general overview of the geography, geology, and ecology of the area. You are incorrect to assume that geology has nothing to do with mountains or geography. There are geographers that find it useful to look at the evolving topography in relation to geological history. Perhaps one of the most notable resources in this regard is your favorite book by S. S. Holland (which I don't dispute, is an excellent resource):

"This bulletin is concerned with the physical features of the Province, such as plains, plateaus, or mountains, as well as valleys, cirques, or volcanic cones; these are the landforms which combine to make the topography of the Province. Their description, classification, correlation, and origin comprise the study of geomorphology,* which is a branch of the broad field of geology as well as that of physiography. Essentially therefore what follows in this bulletin is the geomorphology of British Columbia."

[6]

It seems as though Holland would even disagree with you - geology is important and it is relevant.Thompsma (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You ARE trying to change the subject of this article, just as you tried to OR/Synth its title to suit your interpretation of what YOU think it shoudl be about. Please stop this nonsense, you're engaging in WP:OR and WP:Synthesis by trying to turn this from a physiography article to a physiogeography article. You're trying to combine tow different definitions (or more) from two (or more) different fields to create a new definition. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.Skookum1 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Just putting in some relevant context. Are you an angry person in general?Thompsma (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be patronizing - "are you normally a snotty person?" (since you've been insulting me from day one here), unless you are trying to provoke me (and considering your earlier contemptuous comments that p'd me off in the first place, all couched up in talk about peer reviews and such, I nominate you for "passive-aggressive of the month". You are committing original research by what you see is "relevant content". You are creating new definitions by mixing fields/terminologies/contexts and generally being a nuisance. Angry? No, I just know a fool when I see one.Skookum1 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I may have misread some of this but I don't agree subjects like geology should not be included in this article. The formation of mountains is geology (i.e. orogeny) and most of the Pacific Northwest landmass was formed by volcanic activity at least in the past 200 million years. This article should include everything that lies within this cordillera. If this article is only about geography, I suggest an article called Geography of the Western Cordillera (North America). Geology is more than what people think. It's the formation of the Earth. Black Tusk (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Black Tusk - I agree with you. While I do agree with Skookum1 that the primary focus of this article should be geography - I don't think you can separate fields like geography, biogeography, or geology with a clear-cut distinction. The world just isn't so black and white - one affects the other. I don't think skookum1 (or most people) understand the link between biogeographical genetics (phylogoegraphy) and geography - but phylogeography (involving genetics), like Paleolimnology, is being used extensively to assists in understanding the timing of events. Using molecular clock calibrations and looking at the splitting of lineages in relation to landforms allows geologists and geographers to understand the historical timing of events. When did mountains first appear? This sort of understand comes from looking at sediment deposits for pollen and other biological features that tell us what the climate was like in the past. From this researchers reconstruct the timing of events and look at the evolution of the landscape. This is a geographical field of study - historical geography it might be called. To suggest that we ignore historical geography of the Western Cordillera (North America) doesn't sound impartial to me. As I understand things - the focus of the article is the Western Cordillera (North America). Any article or notable fact about the geographic context of this region is relevant, some facts are more prominent or valuable than others. The land is a living entity that has evolved through time, it isn't a static element and this change has a significant bearing on the geography. People are undoubtedly interested in the history of a region as it pertains to the geography. I've been tinkering with the lead through this sort of perspective - but trying to remain respectful of Skookum1's perspectives on this. His thoughts and insight are certainly valuable contributions in this regard and will undoubtedly improve this article. However, there are places where we disagree - and in my experience, this usually improves the end product because it drives collaborators to be more wary, cautions, and conscientious of what they include. It has certainly influenced me and I'm trying to be more careful. The lead that I have contributed at this point is not completed and in the end I hope that I can help it to give a broad overview of this region. I've gathered a lot of reference material and have been revisiting some of my old papers on this topic. Just need to refresh my memory on a lot of this stuff and hope to help out where I can.Thompsma (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

the doodoo is getting deeper

I just followed the Boreal Cordillera link, which is very amateurish in tone and is about an Ecozone not a physiographic region, it also has a further link to Montane Cordillera which apparently is the Ecozone folks' name for what we're here wrestling with as Westenr Cordillera. Please note there are competing hierarchies between phsiographic regions, ecoregions/ecozones and geological regions; an that the Canadian federal ecozone system as represented in this link you've used for Boreal Cordillera does not jibe with the BC Ministry fo Environment's Biogeoclimatic zones which is also different form the BC Ministry of Forests forest-zone classification system (go figure). Nnne are physiographic systems, which is what Holland (above) is all about. The Ecozone folks have also done things like appropriate terms like Fraser Plateau and Basin complex which co-opts physiographic terms with very different terms from what they mean (Fraser Plateau and Fraser Basin - which doesn't mean what you'd think it means) and talks about them exclusively from ecoregional dimensions/perspectives; in many cases stateside I've dabbed them as Columbia Plateau (WWF region) to make the distinction, and there's more than one set of Ecoregion/Ecozone defintions, so other dabs are possible. Before you do too much more I encourage you to read the articles already extant in Category:Mountain ranges of British Columbia and Category:Plateaus of British Columbia, consult/read Holland and be aware of User:Black Tusk and his work on volcanic geology and also his knowledge of the "belts" as defined in BC; the Interior Mountains and Interior Plateau are one belt, the Rockies/Columbia Mtns another, the Coast Mountains another, and the Insular Mountains the fourth (of four); the range hierarchies in articles such as Stikine Ranges and Interior Mountains, Skeena Mountains, etc are those as laid out in Holland, which I tooko a long time over (I was the senior and most active geographer at http://bivouac.com until that siteowner started to screw things up on his own whim irrespective of sources, at which point I left; www.peakbagger.com tends to be much more valid as far as what physiographic mainstream sources say, though his terminology varies). Note I'm not done with your breakdown/sections on the ranges and plateaus; I think the subsection/main template format is highly unwieldy and cumbersome to use, also "clutter" - see how I laid out Interior Mountains or Stikine Ranges or Omineca Mountains or Coast Mountains...I've tried working on Canadian Rockies but it's a bit more complicated....the Columbia Mountains I hadn't gotten to breaking down the many, many subranges of the Selkirks and Monashees yet....Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere, maybe on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Canada, I've tried to lay out the problems of all the competing hierarchies of regional definitions; Boreal Cordillera should be stated cleearly is not a physigoraphic region, and Montane Cordillera is an ecoregion-group-based physiographic term, maybe an Ecozone name, that is roughly identical as I I noted with what we've got goign on here; I think both of them should have "WWF Ecoregion" or "whoever it is's ecoregion" in their titles as dabs, even though they're unique title,s to avoid them being put in Mountain range or other geographic categories....Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Boreal Cordillera I've removed entirely, it didnt' belong here at all and just confuses the many issues the article still faces; Columbia Basin is a regional article, not exactly a physiographic article (see Talk:Columbia Basin). PLEASE read all the other articles and their talkpages before trying to correlate them here further....you're reinventing the wheel and turning it into a roller coaster....Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is disasterous and needs lots of work. Black Tusk (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mergers

• Comment - "Danger, mergist at work".Skookum1 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mergewith Pacific Cordillera

This page was redirected here and sent to PROD, which is weird.

• Oppose deletion - Retain as redirect to this page That shoudl be a redirect only to Western Cordillera (North America) (which is the apporpriate Gog/Mtns dab for this title (as if it needed one). Pacific Cordillera is a sometimes-used term to refer to the Rockies westward (in its Canadian meaning, when used; it may have a different meaning in the US but it's not common).Skookum1 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mergefrom Pacific Coast Ranges

The PCR article states its alternate name is Pacific Cordillera

• Oppose See Talk:Pacific Coast Ranges. The Pacific Coast Ranges are only one element in the Western Cordillera; and the term also has a dual meaning (in the singular it rerers to the Oregon Coast Range and I believe has a similar local meaning in California where it doesn't normally take in the Sierra or southernmost Cascades, which are part of the larger "continental meaning". It may also (I can't remember just now) exclude the Alaska Ranges and others west of the Chugach; whereas WEstern Cordillera includes the Brooks, Selwyna, Ogilives, Mackenzies and Interior Mountains. You're trying to take oranges, apples, peaches and pears and merge them all into "fruit".Skookum1 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mergeto American Cordillera

That article states that this article's contents are a portion of that ones.

• Oppose Such a merger is like merging North America into Western Hemisphere or New World. "American Cordillra" includes a much larger area than "Western Cordillera", and also includes the South American Cordilleras Occidentales'.Skookum1 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Where should Canadian Cordillera go? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Change title to Western Cordillera (North America)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move (which someone already did) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support name change Rather than merge - the title of this article could be changed to Western Cordillera (North America) as seems to be the consensus. As can be seen in the article - the other place names are too ambiguous from a global context. The title as it exists does occur in the literature and it gives a clear definition of where we are talking about. I took a bold move and changed the title of this article a few times when I arrived - because it wasn't at all clear where it was referring too. When I arrived it seemed like Western Cordillera was a part of Western United States and that's it. Now we have a broader geographic scope with a list of citations all that use Western Cordillera, Pacific Cordillera, or Western Cordillera of North America and all of which are referring to the same place. Only the latter reference to North America proper gives us the precise definition of where we are referring. Overall I think this page is looking a lot more useful - we now know where the Western Cordillera (North America) is. When people are reading geological or other forms of literature discussing this place - they can refer to this site and see what is included in these terms. The problem, however, is that the amount of place names contained within this region are so many. I think this article could act as a sort of portal to all the other places that fall under the heading with one or two sentences describing each land from with a link to the main page. This will act as a useful portal and clarify the details. Please post if you support this name change proposal. I believe Western Cordillera (North America) will finalize this debate and we can all move along peacefully. Thanks for everyone's contributions!!Thompsma (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer North American Cordillera to match Britannica. Western Cordillera (North America) is OK. hike395 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Whoever you are, would you please start signing your posts, especially when you undertake bulk mergers adn renaming campaigns????Skookum1 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On 17:19, 30 March 2008 user:Skookum1 requested a merger with Pacific Cordillera and this article - since user:Thompsma subsequently requested deletion of that page, and redirected it here, I ammended the mergeto request to a regular merge request. I have no opinion on it. It's just cleanup. I also unredirected and deprodded the other page, since it seemed highly inappropriate, since you can't PROD a redirect, and there's also a significant edit history there, plus it looks like a reasonable thing to merge with.

On 16:12, 13 May 2008 user:79.176.156.20 redirected Pacific Cordillera to Pacific Coast Ranges. On that page, the article claims an alternate name for the PCR is "Pacific Cordillera". IF this is so, then there are two articles on the same subject. On 09:33, 7 August 2008 user:79.180.225.62 requested a merger between Pacific Cordillera and the PCR article. Since user:Thompsma subsequently redefined the articles as having this article as the article, I just shifted the merge template over. That is just cleanup, I have no opinions on it.

as for American Cordillera, I placed those tags there, because of the dispute user:Thompsma has created with the two Cordillera articles (Western and Pacific), as a logical location should no dispute resolution be evident, as one is part of the other, and can legitimately be merged, if so desired; the Pacific Cordillera article was short, and this article was being hacked into a smaller thing by user:Thompsma, so the resultant merger would not have overwhelmed that article.

I also initiated the move request, because the title chosen by user:Thompsma was WP:SYNthesis and thus not allowed. Since it's a {{moveoptions}} request, the opinions of the discussion determine the ultimate final name of the article, should such a thing result. I have no opinion on the final name, but I did list the three most common choices, from evidence from the articles, and a cursory google search.

76.66.198.171 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How I stumbled on this mess... I was looking at WP:PROD nominations, and then I examined Pacific Cordillera. As the hostility level here is rather high, and I don't really care anymore about this, I will stop interacting with this subject and the four concerned articles for the near future. Cleanup sucks, I wonder why I ever tried. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're talking like an admin, but you're not identifying yourself by loggin in. What is the reason for this? And it's normal when alleging that so-and-so did such-and-what to refer to the specific edit, instead of simply saying/claimign it was so. I don't recall placing an AFD/delete tag on Pacific Cordillera, I'm not normally a deletionist unless something is utterly spurious; I'll look into that pages's history but I quite honestly don't recall placing that tag. ARe you sure it was me? And, once again, who are you?? It's very uncommon for IP users to patrol pages like WP:PROD.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it was Thompsma who wanted that deleted, and the reason I don't recall the merge tag is that

this page was then titled Geography of the United States Pacific Mountain System). The IP user who confused the "Pacific" on the start of Pacific Cordillera and Pacific Coast Ranges hasn't read much, it seems; "Pacific Coast Ranges" is a subset of Pacific Cordillera aka Western Cordillera, and there's a subset of it that is also known (officially as I recall, in USGS, as the Pacific Coast Range, which are the coastal ranges of northern California and Oregon west of the Williamette/Siskiyous; to confuse matters further it's also called the Coast Range locally, which is also a common casual name, often used in "peer reviewed articles) (by non-geographers) in reference to the Coast Mountains; which further to confuse things were once named the Cascade Mountains or Cascades (not "Cascade Range", though); Cascade Mountains is still the official name of the extension fo the Cascade Range into Canada; see Talk:Cascade Range and Talk:Cascade Volcanoes about all that. What is not helpful in all of this, given the existing similarilty-confusions in geographic nomenclature alone, is to mix in references from non-geographic fields like ecology, geology, botany, or molecular physics; the only Reliable Sources which are relevant here are geography references, ideally those from BCGNIS, CGNDB and USGS (and their Mexican counterpart(s)).Skookum1 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And re American Cordillera, that term takes in both continents as well as Central America, and I think also includes the Arctic Cordillera and maybe also the Appalachians. It's never been clear in any writings I've seen that use the term Pacific Cordillera if it includes the Brooks and Alaska Ranges, which are not included in the Pacific Coast Ranges AFAIK. The term Pacific Cordillera in Canada includes the Rockies as well as the Interior Mountains; in the case of the Rockies also because the term Pacific Slope is a reference to anything west of the Continental Divide of the Americas and is a near-reference to the Columbia District/Oregon Country (which aren't quite the same thing...). See Talk:Crotalus Oreganus for further on Pacific slope re the misnomer "Southwestern Canada", also...Skookum1 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Cordillera should redirect here, but a hatnote saying "Pacific Cordillera redirects here. See Pacific Coast Ranges for the westernmost subgroup of this range. See Oregon Coast Range for the Pacific Coast Range in Oregon (and California??). See Coast Mountains for the range in British Columbia and Alaska also known as the Coast Range." A long hatnote, but layign it out at the head of the article should avoid any later confusions/redirects....Skookum1 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maps?

This article could use maps for improvments. I don't know this cordillera that well, so I'm not the one to create them. Black Tusk (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Well, if no one wants to reply to any of my comments, I will not add any suggestions. Black Tusk (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mapmakers are hard to find, Black Tusk....maybe Spireguy will drop by, we'll see. User:Qyd is semi-retired, User:Pfly has paternal duties going on (occasional edits between diaper changes and bottle feedings...). The map that's already on the article is USPOV - it obviously shouldn't end at the 49th Parallel - but here's an idea - could you lay out the four "belts" of the Canadian section of the Cordillera; I remember Intermontane Belt but can't remember what the Rockies one is called etc....as you must realize only the top-level systems of the cordillera can be laid out; we can't put in every range easily, only the very major ones, or the groupings they belong to, depends on the scale; suggestions for map content from you would help a lot, i.e. which ranges/belts and I'm wondering about range of maps, i.e. long ones north-to-south on a vertical axis....such maps can also be translated over to the subarticles, and there might be some maps on subarticles already usable; look around User talk:Spireguy for some stabs at maps of the Cascades I tried, using NASA/JPL images....Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually we're moved beyond bottle feedings now--it's been a while! Time is lacking still though. And I'm not sure I have the knowledge/sources/data to make a map for this page without killing myself! Pfly (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean something very detailed. Want I ment was something like a highlighting, similar to Boundary Ranges. Black Tusk (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why non-geography sources are dubious

The dangers of mixing sources from different disciplines are well-demonstrated by this blurb from Environment Canada regarding the Montane Cordillera Ecozone, which misnames and mis-spells the Selwyn Mountains as the "Selwynn Mountains", and also even describes them as being "beyond Dawson City and Keno"....yeah, by quite a bit, I've stood atop the Midnight Dome and you can see the Ogilvies, but uh-uh not the Selwyns; their writing makes it sound as if Dawson and Keno were at their feet - implies it anyway. Such shoddy geographic descriptions are commonplace in ecological writing, both official and also from envirnomental groups/orgs, e.g. on Great Bear Rainforest, which I long ago revised to correct teh bad geography and mis-named this and that. [re my shift of "Selwyn Range" to "Selwyn Mountains", I'd been misled by teh absence of a bluelinked article on the Selwyn Mountains (I just created one) - the Selwyn Range is a small subrage of the Canadian Rockies; and yet another example of the fudginess of non-official toponymies and the confusions they can create; cf. Talk:Mackenzie Mountains.] I've seen similar disabuse of official geographic toponymy in geology papers from within the BC government (MoF tends to get it right, interestingly...). I have little faith in the veracity and usefulness of such sources, even though they're from government ministries/agencies adn even though they may have hired academics to write them; clearly, nobody in Ottawa hired to write that website, or the documents it's based on, bothered to refer even to the Canada GeoNames Databse (NB Natural Resources Canada, which runs GeoNames, is not part of Environment Canada; it's a parallel ministry. Such gaffes are the equivalent of Margaret Thatcher's complimenting Vancouver for its setting at the foot of the "beautiful Rocky Mountains, and they're commonplace in academic as well as official writing. Something that ordinarily may semm to qualify as a reliable source very often isn't because it's .... well, it's just a bad source with bad information, I don't care about its pedigree. Trying to integrate such poorly-written sources into this article as if they were valid is only going to cause problems and is a form of original research ESPECIALLY when it's claimed that they're just as valid as any other source. No, they're not - they're WRONG and should be discounted as mistakes, and which themselves clearly properly referenced. Another example is cross-border terminologies; the U.W. prof who coined the term "Cascadia" waxed poetic about "the Cascades", which in his map run beyond the Stikine, i.e. appropriate the Coast Mountains as an extension of the American toponymy. Official toponymy must be the paradigm here, and if it's in the US, then use USGS, if it's in BC, then BCGNIS is the primary source....Yukon's a bit different because its government is a proxy of the federal, but it may have a differing system from CGNDB/NRC conceivably, likewise Alberta. Natural resources are a provincial jurisdiction in Canada (which is why BCGNIS is more relevant in BC than CGNDB, though they are mostly similar in content) and why official toponymy in the US is federal, i.e. USGS. Nomenclature and classifications from other fields belong in specialized sub-articles, not in a general geography article e.g. Geological history of the Western Cordillera of North America, Ecozones and ecoregions of the Western Cordillera of North America, Economic history of the Western Cordillera, Ethnographic and cultural history of the Western Cordillera of North America etc etc. Cites from papers which use jumbled terms and jumbeld definitions ARE NOT USEFUL and are NOT "reliable sources". Mistakes are not reliable, and shoddily-researched works which disregard official topopnymies are not to be given the same weight/credibility as the official toponymies; suggeseitng otherwise, or trying to integrate them all, IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And just plain bad geography/orography....Skookum1 (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re "orography" - I'd used "orontography" before, I suppose because I've studied Ancient Greek, and it's a better construction; the former is somewhat "ungrammatical" in AG terms - "oronto-" is IIRC part of the genetive or dative participle of o oros, i.e. "writing about mountain(s)" as opposed to "mountain writing", which is un-syntactical in Greek constructions....AFAIR....Skookum1 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also called orology. Black Tusk (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually BT, "orology" is subtly different even from "orogeny" in its origin - the former is "the science of mountain(s)", the latter is "the creation of mountain(s)"; "orography" is "mountain(s) writing", my "orontography" is "writing about mountains". Greek is very specific in its coinages, although granted most latter-day users/coiners of quasi-Greek terms aren't schooled in their actual meanings; it's why "geology" and 'geography" mean two different (albeit interrelated) things.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

C)

Language evolves and by proxy so do place names. While I see the importance of sticking to convention and having stability for the purpose of effective communication, I don't agree with your views on what is or is not an appropriate citation. Given the lack of citations on many of these sites, I would encourage people to reference their work to add credibility, NPOV, and assist with the debate as people can review the original works and discuss how they fit into the context of the article in question. There is no such thing as one standard or correct nomenclature out there - nor is there a litmus test for right/wrong in this debate about language usage. That language evolves is a positive and will occur naturally - dictionaries and encyclopedias deal with this by evolving in parallel (changing with the times). It is also important, however, that our decisions to be guided toward the conventional usage. There will be outliers, but to discount an entire scientific discipline like ecologists or to discount government reports is not wise. Most researchers are cross-disciplinary and I'm certain that there are geographers that disagree on nomenclature as well. Moreover, you provide no direction on what are appropriate references to use - where to do we go? Who decides what is and what isn't appropriate? Your points about 'Original Research' however, are useful and so adds important considerations for this discussion. Your views on what constitutes a reliable source does not accord with the world of academia or any other published works that I have dealt with - where, as I understand things, the peer-review process determines what is and what is not reliable; this also accords with wikipedia NPOV. Having someone peer-review the peer-reviewers decisions on what should and should not be published or reliable would mean we would never hold any viewpoint or consensus and the discussion would continue blindly ad nauseum. If people cite works and others read the original source and disagree about the facts as presented, then this is the way the review process should work. However, stating outright that some published literature isn't appropriate (deemed inappropriate by whom?) is a view that I've never encountered before. If you can give some guidance on what is and is not an appropriate resource (beyond Holland - which is a good reference) then this could be more helpful. Thanks!Thompsma (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Holland is the authoritative reference, at least in official government terms; this I know from conversations with EMR staff in discussions about what to regard as primary sources when working with the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia. They use him as the basis for Basemap and the provincial gazetteer. You can't get much more authoritative than that, in official-use terms.Skookum1 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are so very wrong this this comment:

There is no such thing as one standard or correct nomenclature out there - nor is there a litmus test for right/wrong in this debate about language usage.

I'll repeat myself again - there is an official set of geographic names (not geologic or ecologic or ethnographic ones, which are different subjects). The official name-sets are explicity USGS, BCGNIS and the Canadian GeoNames Databaes (and maybe there's a Mexican counterpart, and others farther south to Panama). You're equivocating by suggesting that terms used by authors in difgferent disciplines - which often are not consistent even within those disciplines are valid and should be incorporated; some can be mentioned (e.g. by way of a footnote saying "The Coast Mountains are sometimes unofficially referred to as the Coast Range, the Coastal Range or the Coastal Mountains, and historically were known as the Cascade Mountains or The Cascades, but only Coast Mountains is official".) It's that simple, especially if you have a good read through WP:Name, and in the case of topography the Canadian naming cnventions area of WP:Name which I believe is linked through the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada project page. these are not small matters to be equivocated over by assmeling mentions of an array of quotes from other fields. And once you start drawing in other fields and mixing their definitions, it's not just geology and ecology that are involved but also ethnography, linguistics, even literature and journalism (though I note that major media styleguides usually get nomenclature right within their own countries, although for example CBC still says silly things like "Prince George is in the Fraser Valley" (or Lillooet or Lytton, which are clearly Frraser Canyon to anyone resident in BC. Now there's another good example of a common and widespread mistake which many of your cherished "reliable sources' regularly "gaffe up". Bad sources are bad sources, I don't care if they're published works by "accredited authors" or not. WP:Name calls for official usage" trumping all else, unless there is a widely-used variant in "most common use". It's that simple.Skookum1 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why non-geography sources are needed AND in compliance with convention

The Geographical Names Board of Canada Policies and Procedures Guidebook[7] - and other international committee's on naming conventions having such rules and regulations (e.g. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ON SURVEYING & MAPPING (ICSM)[8]) have taken this sort of debate into account. For example, the GNBC policies and procedures guidebook states:

"First priority shall be given to names with long-standing local usage by the general public. Unless there are good reasons to the contrary, this principle should prevail."

Here is another useful quote:

"A geographical name usually includes both a specific and a generic element. The generic term in a newly-approved geographical name should be appropriate to the nature of the feature. Its position in the name should be dictated by euphony and usage. The generic term will be recorded in English, in French, or in an Aboriginal language by the names authority concerned."

While there are rules for historical precedent and priority (an analogous debate that I am more familiar with is found in species nomenclature[9], the fundamental debate and principals are the same) there is always room for adjustment that recognizes and accommodates the dynamic nature of culture and language. Haida Gwaii vs. Queen Charlotte Islands is an example to consider. What is the official debate on this? The naming on this is meshed in with cultural history vs. official rules and naming conventions. Based on what I read and interpret from the policies and procedures for naming conventions - I see latitude within reason. While there are official names that have been submitted and accepted, this does not mean that other names don't or cannot exist, nor does it mean that such unofficial names are nonfactual or of non utility.

Ironice that you should bring up Queen Charlotte Islands vs. Haida Gwaii; this has already been gone over on those articles - the verdict is twofold, one is that Queen Charlotte Islands is the official name and for now remains so, and that's the priority usage; Haida Gwaii is mentioend in the lede. However, successive POV name-changes have taken place trying not only to supplant Haida Gwaii as the name but to denigrate the name Queen Charlotte Islands; all have been reverted, and those reverts have been supported by WP:NAME and also because they explicitly were POV in nature, and given that the most widespread name for the islands remains Queen Charlotte Islands, despite global media campaigns to refer to it as Haida Gwaii, it is clear that the one title is what's official, the other is an agenda meant to replace the so-called colonialist name. Not just to supplant and replace that name, but to oblierate it. Simliarly some other editors tried to change the name of Georgia Strait to the POV-agenda Salish Sea, which (horribly enough) may actually become official, but it's not yet; other editors from stateside tried to use another indigenous-flavoured name Whulge, based on only one of the Salishan languages in the region, and it, too, did not survive. Similarly attempts to rename Pacific Northwest as Cascadia were another POV-flavoured agenda. So you picked a bad exmple. On the other hand the Frog-Gatage Wilderness is now officially the Duneh Ke Ziyeh Provincial Wilderness Park (and Proteected Area?) and because that's official that's the wikipedia title/ similarly Port Simpson, British Columbia is now Lax Kwa'laams, British Columbia, as THAT is now the official name. Haida Gwaii is not ht e official name; its "press kit" also claims that it's an ancient name; in reality it's not and was only coined in the 1960s....many renaming cmpaigns try to refit reality/history to suit a particular political/cultural agenda; others are arrived at by treaty - Nisga'a Lava Beds Memorial Provincial Park now has a new official name in the Nisga'a language ([[Anhluut'ukwsim Laxmihl Angwinga'asankswhl Nisga'a)), but it is a dual official name (one has not supplanted the other) and so for purposes of usability the English name is used rather than the elaborate one in Nisga'a. Other rivers in the Skeena and Nass regions have had their names officially changed to more indigenous forms, e.g. the Khyex River, and while Ts'il?os Provincial Park is an indigenously-POV name for what might have been Chilko Lake Provincial Park, Mount Tatlow has two official names. There are other examples like this. The Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii is not one of them; that that article and related ones ahve been edited by POV contributors to omit any mention of Canada and BGritish Columbia tells the whole story of the agenda behind such a renaming.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, the name-qualfications of CGN are alrady taken into account by WP:NAME, but WP:NAME is what decides Wikpedia naming, not CNG....this is not a Canadian government document.Skookum1 (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another example under: "GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF MOUNTAIN NAMES"

"Except where local and historic usage dictates otherwise:"

The remainder of the section describes rules for nominating official names. However, notice that the clause for local and historical usage - i.e. a degree of latitude recognizing that there are different reasons for naming places. Hence, common or historical usage and referral to places within separate research disciplines must be taken seriously and considered - this is where historical usage is derived! To ignore this makes the information unpractical as a reference source - people simply need to know what and where other people are referring to. International naming conventions have taken this into consideration, but there are approved names and for the most part this article (I believe) has managed to identify most of the official ones. I don't believe there is an official name for the Western Cordillera (North America) versus some of the other proposals that have been suggested herein - I could be wrong, but have been unable to locate one. Hence, we must rely on usage (local or historical) and I believe published works are the appropriate place where this sort of information can be obtained. From a historical context it is also important to recognize that different mountain ranges or plateau's had different boundaries, shapes, and contiguous regions requiring a mechanism of referral not only for the spatial context but to account for temporal changes. This is geographic in scope and necessitates context. The article must accommodate different research fields and usages referring to the same geographic space but in different time periods or for different purposes (i.e. geology, biogeography, human geography, etc.). There is nothing wrong with doing so and it makes the article more useful. Skookum1's comments on what citations are appropriate is simply wrong and not NPOV - it is a loaded point of view that absolutely goes against the principal of neutrality. I encourage everyone to use citations and if people have problems with the original source of reference being used, discuss here and use another citation to counter the claim. To say only one group of citations is appropriate is an extreme bias and out of the ordinary for any sort of publication standard. As a precaution - I discussed this issue with several of my colleagues over lunch here at UNBC (who are professors in geography) and they thought the idea of having exclusionary rules on sources of reference an absurd notion. Thompsma (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No doubt because of the way you explained it to them because you clearly don't understand WIKIPEDIA guidelines. What prevails in academic equivocating is irrelevant here, this is not a sandbox to "evolve ideas" or stew them together. As far as moneclature goes there simply cannot be any old name that comes along, no matter what field it's from. BCGNIS/Holland and CGNDB are official; malapropistic re-brandings or re-namings popular in academia, or the result of academics not bothering to refer to the official toponymy, are no more certifiable than a tourism brochure. What counts is the official record re WP:NAME. To maintain otherwise is both NPOV AND Original reserach. This is not an academic sandbox. And I have no doubt that you were incapable of explaining Wikipedia guidelines to them except through the filter of your own ambitions towards this article. If all citations were incorporated, and detailed accounts, even from one field (e.g. geology) were builtt into it fully covering the subject for all ranges in this region, we'd be faced with a 1mb article. Waht some professor in Calgary of Montana decides to call the Coast Mountains is just as irrelevant as what a mistaken New York Times or Manchester guardian article might come up with; except it's conceiavable that press styleguides do heed official toponymies, whereas you're trying t6o come up with reasons to either ignore them or even byapss them in favour of....well, bloody near anything you take a fancy to, just because it has alphabet soup after the author's name.Skookum1 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed bulk (if hidden) geologic description (Sierras mixed with Cascades!)

Once again, attempting to mix in descrptions from geology, ecology or other fields is NOT in the purview of this article; to claim so, or to continue to do so, is active original research and synthesis. Hidden below this paragraph is the hidden material excerpted from the Sierra Nevada section, which in the context of this article and given the linked article Sierra Nevada (U.S.) needs no more than a perfunctory geographic/locational description. All of the following belongs on "Geology of the Sierra Nevada (US), NOT in a geography article.Skookum1 (talk)

"I hid the rest of this section from view because it is way too long, lacks citations and there should only be a one-two page summary for this page:"[- Thompsma, I think- note by Skookum1 (talk)], whose further comment is "not a one-two page summary, but a one-two sentence summary.Skookum1 (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, yes...it should have read one-two sentence summary.Thompsma (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

removed hidden Cascade Range bulk/fluffery

There was no reason to leave the following hidden material on the main page; it's full of quasi-poetic eco/travelogue-fluffery and had no redeeming qualities:

"I hid the rest of this section from view because it is way too long, lacks citations and there should only be a one-two page summary for this page" [- Thompsma, I think - Skookum1 (talk)]

I am learning the process. I didn't want to remove it for fear of reprisal. Fully intended to get back and remove it if there were no comments or discussion on the matter. Should have brought it here to talk pages.Thompsma (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More removed bumpf about the Cascades, which was one of teh USPOV problems, but even in teh US context the hidden material (which is briefer and can be unhidden) doesn't apply to the North Cascades or Canadian Cascades:

Cleaning up subsection/listing

I've tidied the Pacific Coast Ranges and Columbia Mountains sections, there's more to be done, but as in my edit comment I hope you see/understand where I'm going with this; elaborate detail is not called for here, it's available in subarticles in various ways/forms. The order/arrangement of these need work yet, e.g. the Brooks Range is part of a belt that includes the Selwyns and Mackenzies and Rockies. Bulleting within sections like the Pacific Coast Ranges may be suitable, but textua ldescription of where things are seems better (see Interior Mountains for a plain-jane version that is a bit spare in content but also doesn't fuss with all those section heaings). There's a formal arrangement of all these, - I think it carries across the border too - the Canadian Cordillera, so-called, is generally divided into four Belts, the only one I can remember the name of now is the Intermontane Belt, which includes the Interior Mountains, the Interior Plateau, the Blue Mountains (Oregon) and the ranges in Nevada. the one holding the Rockies, as noted, includes the Selwyns, Mackenzies and Brooks (and the Foothills), I'm not sure what the other two are but they're to the west and I'm not sure just now where the Columbias fit in; probably with the Rockies I think. User:Black Tusk I think was who it was created Intermontane Belt so he would have that reference and also know which belong in which. There's a couple of more fixes I'll do before laying off for hte night, but please leave this subsection-tidying to me, as in the edit comment, as much as I can do anyway, as I'm not going to be as good dexcribing the layout of the southern US Rockies and the Great Basin-area ranges. "Columbia Basin" has a different meaning in the US, or rather it has too many meanings to be useful here; for one thing it takes int he Columbia Mountains in one of the definitions ("basin of the Columbia River") as well as a lot of the Rockies; the useful term is Columbia Plateau, which is a sub-plateau of the Interior Plateau....Skookum1 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rocky Mountains lie in the Foreland Belt, Coast Mountains lie in the Coast Belt, Insular Mountains lie in the Insular Belt. There's another belt called the Omineca Belt, but most of those seem to be geology. Black Tusk (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right, I was wondering about that re Intermontane Belt while I was getting dinner; I know there's a designation for the Great Basin-Interior Plateau-Interior Mountains-Yukon Ranges inland belt (the Yukon Ranges do not, or should not, I think, include the Selwyns, Mackenzies, or Brooks...not sure about the Ogilvies). Maybe there's only three systems in geography, I'll re-read Holland's intro when I get back in later; I just heated dinner, have a CD to select/burn/deliver and then go brave a Halifax blizzard to get it to a friend who's doing a gig downtown. Holland's map may answer my question, and many of yours; I'll be mentioning the Rainbow & Itcha-Ilgachuz, Camelsfoot and Pavilion (Clear/Marble) Ranges in Interior Plateau btw, and of course the Cascades section has to say right off "shoudl not be confused with the Cascade Volcanoes....I think there's an article on teh California Coast Ranges but the redlnk tells me I don't have the names right; I'm not sure if Whitney and the San Gabriels are in it...I think so....Skookum1 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The geographical belts could be the Coast, Intermontane, and Insular belts. Black Tusk (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just remember, when you're citing bivouac.com, you're mostly citing me, or my distillation of Holland/Basemap (we weren't using BCGNIS much), although there's some emendations by RT, the site owner, which were done for conveniences' sake...I can't remember if that was one of these, it may have been. I'll puzzle over it with Holland; a lot of Holland referencing had to be done by interpolating or excerpting what he said in different passages, i.e. to sort things out; a perimeter of one range might be given in the writeup not for that range, but in the description of another range or a highland, or something might only be mentioned as being part of something in a side-context whereas it might not have been in the area you'd expected it to have been in...anyway I'll puzzle it out, he may be quite explicit in that case....it might be on the map, too, as also might be the "belts", whatever term it is he uses.Skookum1 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[undent]The "belts" are called "Systems" by Holland, and they are (see table at upper right, and note different layout in map of geologic belts at lower left) the Western System, the Interior System, the Eastern System, and the Interior Plains - see this map, which is used as an official index of the province's toponymy by the British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources. Apparenetly not by the geography departments at UNBC or U.Calg though....Wikipedia calls for the use of official terms, rather than made-up ones, no matter who made thsem up...Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Insular Mountains/Alexander Archipelago

I've pondered what to do about the Alexander Archipelago; it would seem to "have" to be a part of the Coast Mountains, albeit not the Boundary Ranges; its defintely a mountain range, albeit a partially-submerged one....similarly the BC Coast Archipelago, which is a term I've heard, or is it North Coast Archipelago (from Fitzhugh Sound northwards to the Nass, is another archipelago-mountain range. And it's never been clear to me if the small mountains of the Gulf Islands are part of the Insular Mountains; if they are then pretty much the San Juans are too (since the only thing making them different is the internatinal boundary, i.e. who named them); ditto the Discovery Islands, though given the depth of Johnstone Strait/Seymour Narrows/Discovery Passage they'd seem to be an extension of the Coast Mountains. BUT (and it's a big but), unless Holland defines them that way, they're not really official as such i.e. being part of the Coast Mountains systme (the Alexanders, BC Coast, Gulf/Discovery, that is). They surely have to be mentioned; maybe just in the main Pacific Coast Ranges meta-section-heading as being unclassfied in either the Coast or Insular Mountains?? Of do I/we have to cite that they're unclassified (I hate negative citations...)Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen teh term "North Coast Archipelago" but can't remember where, i.e. in official contexts, or at least in CanStyle usage of some kind....but not as a mountain range..even though Princess Royal and Pitt are very, very mountainous, as also Gil Island and others; and terrain-wise all that separates them from similar terrain that are part of the Coast Mountains is the line of the Inside Passage. it's hard not to consider King Island (British Columbia) as not part of the Coast Mountains, sicne it's flanked on 6 out of 7 sides by the Coast Mountains...the Don Peninsula was originally thought to be Don Island, by the way.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"North Coastal Archipelago" are part of the Kitimat Ranges of the Coast Mountains according to bivouac.[10] Black Tusk (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm I must have had a system crash (I get a few from low RAM and have to crash the browser sometimes) so maybe never posted my comment that re bivouac references you're basically citing me. I'll re-read Holland about this, who I may have garnered that from, but it may ahve been a "convenience usage" we agreed on at the time, or it may be something the site-owner has done since. Quite likely it's Holland; the site-owner mostly only jigs around mountain-names, but in some range-cases he's made alignments that don't jibe with what's in Holland.Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Second reply here is that I google up "North Coastal Archipelago" and nearly everything were either bivouac clones or wiki clones, whereas a google for "North Coast Archipelago" turned up a variety of reports (no BCGNIS, though, as is often the case with macro-names or "general" terms). Not all of the linked items actually capitalize the term, and often it's "central and north coast archipelago" but I think, given what's in the google, it'd be safe to make North Coast Archipelago with "Central and North Coast Archipelago" in the lede as a "sometimes called". Not the subject of this article, escept as to whether or not the archipelago is in the Coast Mountains/Kitimat Ranges (some of the Central Coast islands could arguably be Pacific Ranges, though). Holland may indeed be quite explicit about it; the clincher may be if geographic terms in Alaska include the Alexander Archipelago in the Coast Mountains, or if they have a separate name in the fashion of the Insular Mountains, i.e. a separate name for the mountain range as distinct from the name for the archipelago.Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Interior System et al.

OK, found it, though only on a site using Holland as a source, it seems; Intermontane Belt is a geologic region, "Interior System" is the somewhat different physiographic region and it's one of four - the Western System, the Interior System, the Eastern System and the Interior Plains (which are BC's extension of the Canadian Prairies/Great Plains). Here is the ref, which is "casual" in nature but I'll dig the same out of a page/map item in Holland tomorrow (it's 2:08am). What the corresonding American terms are I don't know yet, some digging shoudl turn them up. This pattern, at least as far as BC/Yukon goes, will allow for better arrangement of the still-jumbled listing of components in the article. Definitions of ecozones, geologic regoins and other kinds of regions belong in teh respective articles/hierarchies/categories for those regions; they can be linked, or explained/compared here but they cannot be integrated because of NOR and NoSynth....Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Geology material needs its own article

I just gave a section-heading to a decidedly US-content/Lower 48-context section on geological history; all this and material like it does not belogn in a description of a physiographic object, except in very cursory form; it sholddl be in Geological history of the Western Cordillera of North America or, perhaps, Natural history of the Western Cordillera of North America, though the latter title also implies botany/zoology/ecology. For the same amount of detail you've inputted here re areas well-known to you, to make the article non-USPOV an equivalent amount of space re the geologic history of BC and Yukon should be included, as well as of Alaska; and that's not what this article should be about; there can be a {{main|Geological history of the Western Cordillera of North America}} link within the "Geologic history/origin" section (whatever title is suitable for that section, and "of North America" can conceivably be dropped from the target-article title). See my further comments about OR/synthesis of mixing geology and ecology with geography on Talk:Physiographic regions of the world and also on Talk:Arctic Cordillera and Talk:Intermontane Plateaus. Mixing terms and mixing references is not within the guidelines that Wikipedia is supposed to operate under. You're creating original material/synthesis; it's different trying to correlate American and Canadian (and Mexican!) classification systems but actually integrating material from other fields is haphazard and invariably fraught with difficulties and mistaken/confusing uses of terminologies.Skookum1 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily "reliable sources" can often be bad sources

Following up on my change of "Coastal Mountains" to he official "Coast Mountains", your inclusion of this badly-termed geological-paper description/terminology is a PERFECT example of why so-called "reliable sources" are not VALID sources, i.e. they're bad sources. The London Times is a reliable source, too, but when it calls the Coast Mountains the Rockies (as it often has...), it's just as much of a mistake as when your geological sources make the same kind of gaffe in terminology. Reliable sources are not always reliable and quite often they're just plain bad and not to be relied upon. If a paper can't even get official toponymy right, it should be used as a reference to make a geographic-area description (which is waht the paragraph in question is about). Stick to toponymic sources; those from fields that coin their own terms and defintions which are DIFFERENT from those usedd by geographers/toponymy are USELESS. they're useful only for their own matters related to their own specialties; which shoudl be in articles based around those specialties, not muddying the waters here...this article was already a mess before you started "improving it". Apparently my explanation about the OR/Synth problems just hasn't sunk in - but it remains the biggest obstacle to getting this article anywhere near GA status, or any higher status for that matter. Published sources VERY OFTEN aren't reliable at all.Skookum1 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A single example of a mistake in an article doesn't qualify for your test of what is and is not a "reliable source" - it is a mistake and shouldn't be used. I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that a place name be changed because a newspaper got a name wrong a couple of times. If multiple published articles within a field of research, however, or if multiple papers from different places all use the same name for reference - then it becomes a valid application according to the policies and procedures for Geographical Names Board of Canada. Is there a quantifiable amount for how many publications it takes to be a reliable source for a place name? Not really. I would say two or three probably isn't enough, but if I found eight or ten publications all referring to a place - for some justifiable reason, i.e. regional dialect, cultural reasons, or to point out some other significant feature that isn't fully captured in the official name - then this would start to look valid. This is why there is a review board - they have to consider and weigh the options. I realize this isn't a place for original research where we can arrive at new place names based on reviewing proposed naming conventions - however, this is a place where published accounts of notable mention are perfectly acceptable for inclusion. There are lot of loaded terms being used in your comments - VALID, RELIABLE, WRONG - all have a qualitative context leaving room for judgment, appraisal, and review. I disagree with your USELESS statement - it is NPOV - arguing that geographers/toponymy are given priority. Priority for one group isn't a neutral point of view - it is the opposite. Given equal opportunity to other voices (in plural) qualifies as approaching a more neutral viewpoint.Thompsma (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research/Citations

If I am not the person who did the research, but cite someone else who did the research and then published on the topic after a review process, then I am not conducting original research but referring the reader to the original source. If I cite a paper, for example:

D. S. Cowan. (1985). Structural styles in Mesozoic and Cenozoic melanges in the Western Cordillera of North America. Geological Society of America Bulletin 96, no. 4: 451-462.

I am not conducting original research. Moreover, the title of the paper says Western Cordillera of North America. In my opinion the main topic of this paper belongs in this article, also containing the title Western Cordillera (North America)'. Does this sound reasonable?Thompsma (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Skookum1's comment (not to pick on you Skookum1, I like a lot of what you have to say in here!!) ->

"Coastal Mountains" -> "Coast Mountains" - if your sources used "Coastal Mountains" it's WHY they are NOT reliable sources"

Two parts - reliable and sources. Something reliable is trustworthy, it steers true, it makes it easier to navigate toward the correct, usable, or valid types of information we seek. For example, a cited reference to the original research that was peer-reviewed. If the source is unreliable we defer the debate to what is and what is not reliable to the purview of peers that are informed on the particular subject matter, i.e. the peer-reviewers of a publication. Hence, if the peer-reviewers of Geology, or other Wikipedia:Reliable sources talk about Western Cordillera (North America) and you cited this paper - I say thank you!! Thanks for letting me know where I need to go.Thompsma (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're just NOT getting it: there are existing wikipedia naming conventions concerning disambiguation of names such as this; THAT is the presmise of the "(North America)" dab in the title. If you had more experience with geographic/placename articles you would know this already. instead you have blundered in here willynilly, putting in gaffes like "Coastal Mountains" and ignoring contents of linked articles and the cites they contain, instead insisting on your right to draw in defintiions /and anlysis and terms from other fields. Taht you happen to ahve found a geology paper which does use the geographic term is incidental; the "of North America" part is purely a locational reference, not part of the name. Dabs are pretty straightforward; here you're quibbling about inanities and suggesting it would bear weight in a peer review; all by way of trying to justify your attempt to integrate all variant terms and defintions here, including mistaken/malapropistic and you've saig straight out it's your intent to integrate material from different fields into this article as part of your own research work outside of wikipedia i.e. your own original research. You're attemptint to combine/confuse defintions/terms from different fields THAT will not survive a peer review, no more than any attempt to combine Taiga Cordillera with Selwyn Range or Boreal Cordillera with Interior Mountains (the "Taiga" and "Boreal" Cordillera Ecozone articles I today renamed to match the Environment Canada source, which inclues the word "Ecozone" in the title, which those articles did not and presumed to appear as mountain-range articles, which they're properly not). Geology and geography are two different, albeit intertwined subjects, and it's time for you to reckon with that instead of continuing to equivocate. Read through WP:Name and have alook at the use of parenthese vs. comma formats vs. "of" formats. "Western Cordillera" in the quotation you've brought up is a stand-alone semantic unit, qualified by the prepositional/genetive phrse "of North America". "Of North America" is NOT part of this mountain system's name, it's purely a locational phrase. It's like saying "the Alps of Europe", for pity's sake.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"You're just NOT getting it..." I'm done with this thread. Thanks!Thompsma (talk)

Fine, if you don't care about NOR and NOSynth, then why don't you be "done" with this article, too??.13:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sign your post please. I'm responding because I'm assuming you are not Skookum1. The arguments I have made are taken directly and are absolutely supported by NOR and NOSynth. Skookum1 has been pushing his weight around in here to suggest that some references are not reliable. The references he finds unreliable are peer-reviewed and published articles on the topic. In contradistinction, the references he finds reliable come from his crystal ball that nobody else is allowed to look at speckled with a few of his favorites. This is not a neutral point of view - it is Sookum1's view. The following section is from the lead of NOR:

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

I'm sorry, but I trust the reviewers of a authoritative and professional journal over Skookum1 any day - or international guidelines on naming conventions, or any other published and reviewed official source. Am I synthesizing arguments? Not at all. I am synthesizing arguments here in the talk pages - because this is allowed - it is a discussion page. However, in the actual article I am not synthesizing material at all. I am referring to reliable sources and posting the conclusions that are reached in the papers themselves. I am aware of the rules, and in making these reasoned arguments I get responses such as "You're just NOT getting it..." We'll this is true, because I don't own a crystal ball and I don't believe in magic.Thompsma (talk)

I want to add that I am not suggesting that published citations are the place to go to find official place names. I am suggesting, however, that published citations are the place to go to learn about and to provide facts about the places they describe.Thompsma (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Coast Mountains addition

Look BT, even the number of subregions of this mountain system to yet be merely described, there just isn't room for geological additions except the briefest summaries any more than there is room for summaries from other fields - beyond ecology; consider, geology isn't the only part of geography that "could" be included in the same way; not just ecology/zoology/botany/climate and human history/ethnography/immigration and industry and economics but even literature. Geology of the Coast Mountains is a perfectly good subarticle to start, however...if we include your discipline in the "mix" then all the other disciplines fall into consideration, and for each set of ranges/regions in the system......this article would be too vast, and too much a mixing of differetn types of conteintn. Geography and geology are not the same field; they relate to each other but geology is not any more important than any other part of geography, be it cultural geography, economic geography, biogeography etc....this article woudl be too big if it starts expanding in that direction.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the article be titled Geography of Western Cordillera (North America)? I'm not seriously suggesting this - but submitting the idea to shine the light in another direction. I agree that this article could get very large very quickly, because it is a broad geographic area, but Wikipedia isn't an atlas, a GeoNames Database, or a map - it is an encyclopedia and as such it should give a brief overview on various topics that are of direct relation to the article title. Referenced examples of notable topics, events, or history that relate to major parts or history in the Western Cordillera (North America) seem perfectly acceptable in my opinion. If someone wrote about about annual rainfall within the Olympic Mountains, for example, this doesn't apply broadly to the region and shouldn't be included. However, if rainfall were a notable fact - such as annual rainfall within the Olympic Mountains exceeds that of any other location on the planet (a fictitious example) then this might be relevant. Things can be included within limits. A few specialist bits of information that might entice the reader to to learn more are acceptable in my opinion - it all depends on the context, style, development of the article, and amount of words used relative to other bits.Thompsma (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not including lots of geology in this article. What I'm doing is adding introductions to certain parts of the article. Anything being discussed in the article means that subject should be discussed as well (i.e. the Geologic origin section), especially if this is going to GA status according to User:Thompsma which needs a broad scope of the subject; that means more than geography. What's next, Geology of the Level Mountain Range or Geology of Mount Edziza? I highly doubt it. There's no need for Geology of the Coast Mountains because there's already somewhat subsections (e.g. Coast Range Arc, Garibaldi Volcanic Belt and Cascade Volcanoes). There was one time when I first created my account you wanted me to create standard mountain articles instead of volcano articles for some particular reason. In fact, if there were NO volcanic activity there would no Pacific Northwest. Western North America has grown at least over the past 200 million years as a result of volcanic activity and the collision of volcanic island arcs. IMO you your are sounding like an admin. Black Tusk (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Snake River Canyon, Lemhi, Clearwater, Bitteroot and Salmon River Mountains

Just wondering if people think this article should include sub-sections on the Bitteroot and Salmon River mountains? There is minimal information on these places in wiki, eg. Salmon River Range, Sawtooth Range (Idaho), Bitterroot Range, Sawtooth Range (Idaho), Snake River Canyon (Idaho), Hells Canyon - some more informative than others. Thoughts?Thompsma (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All lower-tier ranges; if this article is to be NPOV/balanced and not favouring one country over the other, then the rank of ranges you're naming runs into the several dozens. Focussing on adding subranges in Idaho is a red herring and a bloat-up to this article; if you're so interested in those ranges, those articles do need work; there is only room here for their boundary and basic terrain descriptions, VERY basic geology/climatology/biogeography and that's it. There are at least a hundred subranges of that rank and giving weight to any one group of them is only going to imblance the article; giving the same weight to them all to the degree you intend with the Idaho bunch is an exercise in pumping up this article towards a full megabyte. There simply is no room in this article for what you're proposing, not if it's applied NPOV and across the board, and without emphasis on any one discipline (which is clearly your intent).Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fraser Canyon, Great Canyon of the Homathko, Grand Canyon of the Stikine...Bute Inlet, Knight Inlet, Gardner Canal, Dean Channel...Lillooet Ranges, Pacific Ranges, Okanagan Range, Garibaldi Ranges, Chilcotin Ranges, Park Ranges, Kootenay Ranges, the Selkirks' many subranges, the Sangre de Cristos, the Wasatch..), the Bighorns, the Gallatins and so on and so on and so on....this is what I meant by "out of your depth".......the list is endless, the scope is vast. And you want to focus on adding Idaho (not that I have anything against Idaho itself). There's simply no room for minutiae, even if the minutiae is hundreds of square miles in area (or more). To follow your agenda for this article will wind up with something too vast for a single article. There's simply no room to deel with anything but outlines of the largest groupings (in the case of the groups you mention, it's a particular bunch of the American Rockies, albeit one without a collective name-grouping, and "Idaho Rockies" won't do because some flank also Montana, and then list the names and give a general account of theirterrain (NOT their geology, ecology, cultural history, climatography etc etc) and boundaries and position in relation to each other. Once that is done for all subranges of the Westenr Cordillera, THEN start looking for what can be safely added in. "Article bloat" is a big problem even on articles covering smaller regions (see Columbia River and its talkpages for how much has had to be trimmed in the course of that article's long - and very collaborative - expansion).Skookum1 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these are sub-ranges and should not be included - this would lead to an over-bloated article. However, in my mind I was thinking of a nested category sub-tree of this region, e.g. Wikipedia:Category tree - or something similar. I realize this would take a lot of work, but it seems feasible. I'm not trying to be difficult in here - trying to learn. I'm reading and learning about the history of this region and trying to mentally link everything together. The information you gave is helpful, but stop being so rude and repeating that I'm out of my league. You know nothing about me and obviously have much to learn yourself. I have met many people in my life who were wise because of their kindness and understanding, in contrast you lack this wisdom and have to resort to verbal force rather than reason and knowledge to get your points across. This is a sure sign that you have a problem with your ego which you so often like to puff up in here. Unlike yourself, I'm here to think, read, write, and learn and have respect for everyone's freedom to do so - this is public domain. I make my contributions where appropriate and abide by the rules of wiki. You are obviously lacking insight into the philosophy and spirit of wiki community.Thompsma (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Skookum does have a point: a particular article on a mountain range or system probably should only mention the subranges one level down in a hierarchy of ranges. The problem is: I don't know of a canonical source of a hierarchy of ranges --- there's peakbagger.com, but that's by no means generally accepted.

The tree of life project must run into something similar for taxonomy of species: it's hard to believe that there is only one gold standard taxonomy --- whose taxonomy do you adopt? hike395 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will go back to "the official line", at least in British Columbia's case - which is Holland, and which is the government's own system and commissioned to be exactly such a hierarchy. This map is part of the Landforms of British Columbia publication, and summarizes the top-level hierarchy and in some areas the next level down; e.g. in the case of the Nechako Plateau it shows what is meant by "Fraser Basin" and "Nechako Plain" etc and illuminates the two-part nature of the Dease Plateau. His hierarchy, which can be discerned both from his table of contents as well as by a close reading of his chapters, is the basis of the British �Columbia range hierarchies given in Category:Mountain ranges of British Columbia and each of the main subdiviion articles; some components like Nahwitti Lowland and such are missing from the articles at present, largely for reasons of time and "where to put them", though they remain needed. Such names and subdivisions are referred to in mineralogy reports by private and government consultants connected to teh Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources andalso by the Ministry of Forests and "even" the Ministry of Environment (the BC one, not Environment Canada, which has the Ecozone system - NB provincial-level governments in Canada are "official" as far as resources/landscape goes, it's not like hte US where such powers are at the federal level as I've explained before). The "trees" in Selkirk Mountains, Cassiar Mountains, Omineca Mountains, Hazelton Mountains etc are directly derived from the official system, although in the case of Coast Mountains and Canadian Cascades the additional groupings not in Holland are from climbers' manuals and reflect what's in http://bivouac.com, which other than those groups is also based on Holland. Only in the case of the plateau articles aer there some problems which I'm still trying to iron out ("Cariboo Plateau", for instance, which is a very common usage, is not an official toponymy and is only part of teh Fraser Plateau. The official Cariboo Plateau is a small albeit flat ridgetop to the east/southeast of Sicamous. I don't currently have access to the rest of Bivouac's range hierarchy - Iv'e been thinking of getting a temporary account in order to view the Idaho/Montana/Colorado etc areas but I don't recall a range hierarchy thhere, although other bivouac editors did come up with various indicators of what might be a subrange of wahtever else; in some cases USGS maps are very obvious about it. In Bivouac also, as with peaknames, the designation "official" or "unofficial" is in editor-view boxes and in the case of peaks displays on the page even for casual visitors (not members); not sure about the ranges, don't think so. In the case of things like the St. Joe Mountains and Lemhi Mountains if you look at their bivouac pages the range hierarchy, if there is one, is underneath the title, as is also the prominence-region hierarchy. Some hierarchies states-side are official, and I recall there being official/semi-official sources re Alaska and Yukon in Holland's bibliography and references. I repeat - Landforms of BC and its map ARE official and WP:NAME calls for official use, unless there is a prevalent "most common usage" (as with Cariboo Plateau, which can be defined as the Fraser Plateau east of the Fraser, although I'm unclear as to wether the Pavilion Range (Marble+Clear/Scarped Ranges+Cornwall Hills) is to be included or not, and likewise the Camelsfoot Range re the Chilcotin Plateau (it's plateau, he says, not Chilcotin Mountains, which begin to their west. I have a guest arriving for a number of days, a house to clean, coffee to drink and a shower to have before he gets here.....PLEASE reference the Holland map, and bear in mind that http://bivouac.com is as officially reflective as what I could find about US toponymic systems as I could make it (and I spent nearly three years at it....). The Canadian Rockies article I've partly rearranged to reflect Holland's system, but the Continental Ranges/Park Ranges/Front Ranges/Kootenay Ranges breakout, still has components of "climbers' groups" (or "travelogue names") and still needs some rearrangement to conform with Holland. Holland is official enough for the jurisdiction it covers to consider it an official reference. Apparently UNBC and U.Calg don't, but they're not official....Skookum1 (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked up the Clearwaters on bivouac - they're a subrange of the Bitterroot Range, as are the St Joes and others, and it looks like the only division we made was the one concerning the border i.e. US Rockies vs. Canadian Rockies. See Clearwater Mountains' CME page, though by clickign on "Bitterroot" we can't see the range hierarchy within it as non-members (I refuse to pay for a system I built on a volunteer basis for too much of my own lifetime and something of a slave-driver environment otherwise I'd give the full "tree" of US Rockies by copy-paste). Please note there's a "Region" system in Bivouac too, based on prominence zones/parents as in this one titled "Purcell" which happens to be a near-match for the Purcell Mountains but those subdivisions are based on the prominence tree/"parent cols" etc. (see [[Prominence topography). http://www.peakbagger.com were colleagues in this effort, although his names sometimes vary and he admits to artificial creations such as his Alaska-Yukon Ranges (search that on his site, I don't have time to go there right now). As for the Bighorns and others it appears that state-divisions were used e.g. Wyoming Rockies (RT, the site-owner has retitled this an "Area"; the layout used to say "range hierarchy" but he's ben trying to supplant hte concept of "range" with the prominenced-based "region", which is his own coinage and also highly OR, and among hte reasons I left). In the case of there NOT being an official USGS system smilar to Holland's the "most common usage" of terms like "Wyoming Rockies" and "Colorado Rockies" would seem to apply; there is some cross-state-boundary spillover with many ranges, as I recall; in the case of Montana it's a bit dicier because the Front Ranges extend southwards as far as the Big Hole or Triple Divide Peak etc. I don't have time to look it up right now; also, the Rocky Mountain Trench ends at Tobacco Plains (which needs an article and is a place as well as a landform) and/or Flathead Lake. Oddly (to me) the bit of the Selkirks adjacent to Spokane is considred in the US to be "Rockies"; the term "Columbia Mountains" is Canada-only, such that hte Montana part of the Purcells, the Percell Mountains, are considred Rockies in American terms; and a recent BC Government tourism rebranding effort to combine the Selkirks, Purcells adn southern Monashees with the southern Cdn Rockies as the "Kootenay Rockies" has recently, it esems, been revised to "Kootenays Rockies" with the syntax of that prhase apparenlty implying "Kootenays and Rockies" (and probably to avoid confusion with the officially-named Kootenay Ranges. I've got to go. Perhasp in the US only state groupings can apply at hte macro level, though in case like the Bitterroots and Cascades there are official subranges as can be determined form a sstudy of USGS maps, likewise Alaska; the terminus of the Pacific Coast Ranges is described in Holland somewhere in reference to Alaskan sources; I do recall that the Alaska Range and Aleutian Range are not part of it....Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Further quick notes: the Wrangells are part of the Yukon Ranges [11], must have defined that from Holland; the Alaska Ranges and the Alaska Range are different, the Alaska Ranges are the Chugach, Talkeetnas, and the Kenais; so the break between the Pacific Coast Ranges (which Robin has annoyingly retitled Pacific Cordillera....which is a synonym-manque for Western Cordillera and Canadian Cordillera normally) is between the Chugach and the Saint Elias see here and I don't know what he's done with the Oregon Coast Range]....oh, he's assinged it to the Cascades for convenience's sake, which again is one of the reasons I left....aaargh he's done the same by assigning the Selwyn Range to the Canadian Rockies, which ofrficially they're NOT, so bivouac's one-time near-authoritative content is now no more....(and they're not part of the official Yukon Ranges either, which is what peakbagger has). I'll be back later this week, or when my friend's out, with further comments about such matters; within BC anyway Holland is authoritative, it's a pity that CME is on its own precedent-making campaign (one of too many going on at present, it seems...).Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Terminus in Mexico

I see the Spanish-language paper that's a ref for where the WC is described as ending in Mexico; which begs the question what lies to the south, i.e. beyond the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; because Central America in techincal terms is part of North America; whatever the "range" through Guatemala, Costa Rica etc is should mabe be mentioned as 'what lies beyond"....Skookum1 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, I looked in Category:Mountains of Panama and discovered Cordillera de Talamanca which straddles teh border with Costa Rica, maybe there's further mountain ranges towards the Isthmus of Panama, which is the technical boundary of North America, though perhaps not of the Western Cordillera system. The citation given for the southward limit at the Sierra Madre del Sur is a Mexican paper and may reflect Mexican definitions/biases only; I just downloaded it and will try to read it; the geographic definition of Central America begins at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (the cultural one begins at the Rio Grande/Gulf of California), so perhaps that's also the limit on this system; it would help to have a Mexican geographer, and maybe a Costa Rican one, on board here, needless to say.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sections need expanding

Everything with a bare {{main}} should have a summary with them. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

DuhSkookum1 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)