Just stumbled on this enormous page. Not sure exactly how this is encyclopedic in its current form, seeing as it contains hundreds of unnamed run-of-the-mill peaks. Many of these peaks (366 of them altogether) are cited to Caltopo, but all that does is establish the existence of said peak, whether it's a true mountain or simply a knob along a ridge. As is, it's a massive violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. It looks like some useful information can be gleaned from a massively stripped-down version of this. I certainly don't want to nominate it for deletion considering the massive amount of work that must have gone into it. But it certainly shouldn't stay in its current state and I'm not quite sure what to do with it TBH. CJK09 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@CJK09: The page name contains a slash which led me to believe it was a subpage where I believe the rules are less enforced. However, subpages were removed from the main namespace sometime in the past so the slash is now treated as part of the article title; confirmed by there being no article named "Geospatial summary of the High Peaks". I don't see much value in listing the unnamed peaks nor exactly most of the page's current content. In 2016, someone on the talk page asked the page creator to justify the value of the page but didn't get a response. The page creator's last Wikipedia edit was in 2017. Proposing it for deletion is one option which might bring out comments that can justify it's usefulness. I'd certainly be in favour of removing the unnamed peaks for starters. The page could also be moved to a subpage under the creator's user page but this should be a result of it being proposed for deletion rather than done outright. RedWolf (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Today I discovered that the content owner for peakware.com decided to pull the plug on the website in May 2020. He goes into great depth describing the sites history and what ultimately led to his decision (for one, Google started charging for tools that were initially free). It was one of the first web sites I ever found giving information on mountains and I did make some contributions over the years. Sad to see it go. All the peakware.com links have been redirected to his "Gone Climbing" page so archive links will need to be added to fix the references. RedWolf (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The project page claims WikiProject Mountains aims to expand and improve articles on mountains and hills and topics related to them, such as mountaineering and rock climbing. While it is my understanding that mountaineering and rock climbing are just examples of topics related to mountains, should there be more examples mentioned? Obviously mountains are about more than just mountaineering and rock climbing. For example, there's also mountain formation and the related orogeny. Volcanoguy21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
In theory, other topics could be included within the scope of this project, but we just need to clarify any duplication and overlap with other projects. For example, there's already a WikiProject Volcanoes, so maybe they should lead on articles about vulcanicity and let this project lead on individual volcano articles. Obviously editors from both can and should cooperate where that makes sense. Mountain formation and orogeny could be areas led by this project; presumably WikiProject Geography has an oversight role and plugs gaps not covered by individual sub-projects. Bermicourt (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Why would there need to be clarification for any duplication and overlap with other projects? It's not uncommon for projects to have overlap or duplication. This is especially true for WikiProject Volcanoes and WikiProject Mountains given the fact that lots of volcanoes are also mountains. You will see that both projects are tagged on their talk pages. Volcanoguy03:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Well supposing one project has a lengthy debate about how to rate their articles and comes up with criteria for doing so, they'd be a bit disappointed to discover the other project had just done the same and was already reassessing all their articles. Or one project comes up with a convention that contradicts what the other project has agreed. It just might make sense to cooperate... Bermicourt (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Proposal to rename the Wikipedia article An%C3%BB_Kath%C3%A2_%C3%8Epa to Bald Eagle Peak
First, sorry for all the percentage code in the Heading, but a little over a week ago I put a proposal in the Talk section of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:An%C3%BB_Kath%C3%A2_%C3%8Epa to rename this article title from Stoney to English, which would make it 'Bald Eagle Peak' or 'Bald Eagle's Peak' (I've seen both translations). Reasons are listed in my post. However, no one has responded so far and being a relative newbie, I'm not sure how to proceed. Can someone help me by suggesting an appropriate direction? And is posting here as I've done, appropriate?
If my link above doesn't work, Googling < wiki "Bald Eagle Peak" Alberta > yields it as the top hit for me. TIA. Cheers, Brett. BrettA343 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a good question, Dodger67. Over at WP:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps we have this Requested Articles section, which includes alpine climbers, alpine guides, alpine glaciers, mountain huts, alpine wildlife etc, but, sadly most WikiProjects take a very narrow view of what's relevant and try to avoid overlap. I see no reason for not encouraging collaboration on overlapping topics, but I fear editors will remove WikiProject templates if they don't fit the narrow interpretation of the Project's interests. But, by god, you can never separate the climbers or guides from the mountain environment that they love! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Scope: "This WikiProject aims to expand and improve articles on mountains and hills and topics related to them, such as mountaineering and rock climbing."
Apologies for the length of this post, but the majority of it is optional background information which you can feel free to ignore if it's tl;dr. I'm having unproductive talks with user MONGO, who has taken an autocratic/dictatorial approach at deleting and replacing my photos (he could have just added his own, but chose to delete mine, too... I almost never remove others' photos; maybe twice have done so. I want a broader consensus as to what I'm doing, as I gather that's what one should do when there's a difference in opinion as to what should go online. My single question for you is:
Can I keep / have my photos (at the right) in the Mountaineering article or is MONGO's word the be-all and end-all (I don't mind if his AND mine stay up - I think photos improve an article, especially in a topic like Mountaineering where both natural beauty and technical aspects can be shown). For a full understanding, you should read this whole thread, but I hope this summary of what I'm dealing with will do, and I'm suggesting that even that is optional. While I am trying to improve the Mountaineering article by adding relevant photos to what was a fairly barren page photographically; I added 4 photos without deleting any photos - MONGO first deleted 2 of mine and as we talked, he deleted 2 more and added 2 shots of his choice). My photos are on the right and the benefits for the photos are:
1: Shows rope, prusik and more in a summit shot; this was beside text describing ropes in large part (there was nothing about prusiks).
2: Shows a rope team of two on Banff Park's tallest mountain (of peaks wholly within the park - 4 higher ones exist on its borders).
3: Shows two climbers lunching at the summit (lunch is not visible in the shot but is noted in the description).
4: Shows tent camp with snow wall; I can see all these shots being of interest to readers (though this one has a watermark I'm trying to remove).
Please indicate whether you think these photos have a future (i.e. can be added) in the Mountaineering article, Yes or No. Or if only some of the photos should go up in your opinion, please identify which ones, by number. TIA. - Brett
BACKGROUD FOR THIS POST (Very Much Optional Reading, Summarizing the Whole Thread...)
Again, I want a broader consensus from editors and other experienced Wikipedians as to the applicability of these 4 shots, which to my mind improve the article with information largely not covered elsewhere. Right now, I have MONGO unilaterally saying 'No way' to my photos and even when I say I want then up temporarily, he deletes them. I added 4 photos without deleting any other photos - he first deleted 2 of mine and as we talked, he deleted 2 more and added 2 of his choice). MONGO bitches that my photos don't adhere to policy, but then he makes up "policy" with what seems to be fake rules, such as:
"avoid images of nonnotable recognizable persons"... (no such rule exists, as far as I can tell and I did look for it), and
"image is not clear enough for use as a descriptive"... (I think mine are as clear as other photos, and clearer than one MONGO used).
MONGO said of my first two photos that he deleted: "policy and my personal opinion is that the two I removed were not a benefit to that article", (later adding that it was mainly policy, but the photos he used to replace mine are of the same ilk, only less directed to the article text to their left, and one of his photos features even smaller climbers visually (a complaint MONGO had about mine). The article text talks about a lot about ropes and my photo features rope, prusik and other gear that the article notes, or sometimes doesn't note, like eyewear. MONGO also complains that my second photo is "very dated now", but as an encyclopedia I would think images that were dated by a couple of decades would be OK (and one really has to look at the 'date' field to know that it's dated to the mid-1980s). I say my first 2 photos are a benefit as thay overview climbing-related topics like glacier goggles, prusiks and rope.
MONGO seems to take pride in being ornery as his TalkPage boasts: "This is the talkpage of the notorious MONGO! Leave me a message if you dare!" I don't know many people - or really, anyone - who would be proud of being notorious and then follow it up with notoriously bad and off-topic text. He's anything but helpful and makes that known with his language, lack of friendliness and high degree of snark. My experience is that the longer one deals with him, the more he stretches the rules and ignores the other person's (valid) questions, even on comments that he initially raises questions on.
MONGO also constantly brings up the policy "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." And as I've noted each time he posts that, my photo realistically CANNOT "distract from the image topic" because it's an example of the image topic - it highlights the image topic - a mountaineer on the summit of a mountain. Since MONGO always ignores that point, I've even asked MONGO just what distracts him in my photo (no response to that either, though he did ridicule the mountaineer's smile), and I asked multiple times "How can a photo of a mountaineer in his element with his gear 'distract' from a mountaineering article?" That question either got more silence from MONGO, or a repeat of the initial question, like I didn't answer it multiple times already.
At one point, MONGO even informed me that readers were not psychic (like there is such a thing), and of course I wasn't suggesting that readers are psychic (this response from MONGO was as silly and off-topic as some of his other replies); I'm only suggesting that readers can actually read the caption and therefore determine that the photo is, in fact, a summit lunch and that lunch and drink are being consumed. This seems simple to me and I'm not sure why he has a big problem with it. It's the only place in the article that nutrition and hydration are noted and based on that, I think it's worthwhile keeping in the article, but if the consensus agrees with MONGO, I'll gladly keep it down.
Another MONGO post citing 'policy' was when he deleted a shot of mine with a watermark. Searching using a variety of seach criteria centred on "Watermark", I came across Watermark-related text that stated: "This page is a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." So if MONGO's "Policy" includes that text, I don't want my work deleted because of it - it's not Policy when it says it's not policy. I know I'm stretching here, so am willing to back off this image or see if my watermark can be removed (the website was shut down 8 or 9 years ago).
MONGO complains about the small size of the mountaineers in my shot, yet in a replacement shot of his, mountaineers "further up the slope" are noticably smaller... This seems a clear case of Do as MONGO says, not as MONGO does. I dismiss MONGO's argument as an unfair one. And please stop posting images that are worse in the way you complain about with my photos, while you delete mine (if my mountaineers are too tiny to see, MONGO's smaller ones are too).
Two of MONGOs other off-topic and useless response posts are:
"My game is not to get caught by any jealous husbands." and
"yes, I am soooo unfair. MONGO bad, BAD MONGO."...
... both of which failed to even attempt an answer to my points. Interestingly to me, I read the documentation for the upcoming Zoom Conference / Wishlist last might detailing Behaviours that would not be Tolerated and it seems to me that MONGO is a good example of people who exhibit such behaviour. Specifically, these points are from Wikipedia:
Posts content that has nothing to do with the current topic (as per the previous point).
Belittles others (or tries to, like proclaiming user's photos 'ridiculous' and not explaining why).---
Conscious Intimidation (read every post in this thread from MONGO).
MONGO deleted my Columbia Icefield / tent shot, yet replaced it with a much smaller hut shot that looks like it was taken with a disposable camera.
Mongo again cites 'Policy' as a reason but I've seen plenty of watermarks on WP and I can't find his 'findable' text with his "Please do not post images with watermarks" (I got 3 hits when searching with that text plus "wiki" - none being Wikipedia.) I have found text banning watermarks on text that states "References or links to this page should 'not' describe it as "policy"."If that's what MONGO is on about / referencing, so I (or someone else), can easily find the correct text. You've wasted my time by having me search for text that just doesn't exist. With all of MONGO's text (some made up, some unfairly cherry-picked), I find him not trustworthy (I end up searching for his complaints and invariably find that what he claims isn't true. And MONG has muddy the water rather than clarify anything.
MONGO definitely had problems answering my questions, his claims notwithstanding. He repeats himself 3-4 times without addressing my repeated point, which contains the crux of the issue. I've mentioned and highlighted "in a way that distracts from the image topic" several times and have noted that the mountaineer in my shot can hardly be viewed as a distraction - a mountaineer with rope, prusik, etc. visible certainly supports the topic of mountaineering; that is, it's an example of mountaineering. As to other questions you seem to have a problem answering, here are some examples:
My question is 'Where are these rules or guidelines, please?' This question was in response to MONGO's now-seemingly-bogus reasons for deleting 2 of my photos because they violated a policy that stated "
It's highlighting the image topic as far as I can see. What 'distracts' in this photo of a mountaineer, in your view?
MONGO asked me: "Do you see the difference (in MONGO's rendition to my alternative) from an encyclopedic standpoint?" As I said: 'No, I don't see the difference from that standpoint, but perhaps you can enlighten me as to the difference.' (That was a request for information from a newbie - did MONGO find that there was no valid or reasonable answer?)
Did'ja figure a little ad hominem would help your case?
The article has been there for a while without you adding photos, right? Why does he wait for another editor to add his photos?
What is it with you and my photos (Mongo)? You don't like newbies to Wikipedia?
Or does MONGO object to Canadian content?
MONGO writes: "Lastly....the beloved image of the man staring at that camera with "equipment". The answer is nope, not happening..."
Wow. When MONGO changes his tune about an image, he really goes all the way! So now it's your "beloved image", huh, MONGO? Well, whatever turns your crank, I guess. To me, it's just a mountaineering picture (with more descriptive text than I find other users normally using) displaying and explaining rope, prusik, eyewear (and 'biner) in a shot showing Banff area mountains from the highest peak in the confines of Banff National Park. I see nothing "ridiculous" in this image and ask Mongo what he finds rediculous. And maybe MONGO's right and it indeed is "not happening", but with his seeming biased and useless replies and non-replies, I think I'll put it out there to the WP community and see if there's a consensus that can agree with one of us.
So my bottom line is: Can I keep / have my photos in the Mountaineering article or is MONGO's word the end (I don't mind if his AND mine stay up - I think photos improve an article, especially one like Mountaineering). I appreciatex your time and consideration. Thanks muchly, Brett
P.S. I hope people can wade through the above without ending in tl;dr :-) or just read the opening paragraph and answer Yes (Use the photos, with or without Mongo's) or No (Don't use the photos). BrettA343 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: First, please note the important Wikipedia policy of WP:No personal attacks. The header of this section certainly violated that policy, so I've changed it.
You're doing the right thing by asking for opinions of other editors, but it's generally considered good form to simply neutrally state the nature of the dispute and not carry the argument into new pages. To attempt to lower the temperature, I've taken the liberty of "collapsing" your arguments about User:MONGO behind a "hide" button. You can, of course, revert this change, but I would recommend leaving it hidden in order to reach consensus and promote harmonious editing. — hike395 (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok, trying to streamline my responses to the four image shown at right.
First one of man at right of image appeared to me to be a violation of policy that states here that "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. Using such images on user pages is allowed."
Second image of climbers...no one can hardly see the lone climber at lower right. I removed it and replaced it with (at right): because in this image, one can actually see three climbers in the foreground and 8 more further up the slopes.
Third image of two climbers supposedly eating and hydrating? I cannot see any eating or hydration going on. I asked Brett if he had any images of someone eating where we can see they are eating, or someone using perhaps a water filtration device or actually drinking and I got crickets. The only way we "know" according to Brett that food and hydration are actually happening is, according to them, because it says so in the image caption. Notice closer person supposedly eating and or hydrating appears to be same individual as in image one. I even went so far as to say he could leave this image but change the caption to climbers on a break viewing (whatever mountain)...apparently that's not good enough...we MUST note they are eating and hydrating even though we cannot see that happening.
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Mountain pass, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team
Possible Duped Article: Brazil/Guyana
Hi all, I'm seeking some mountain-article-adept folks to take a look at Serra do Acari and Acarai Mountains. I think because it straddles the border of 2 countries with different languages, they might be referring to the same mountain. Searching for 'Acari' pulled up a confusing google-panel for Acarai, and when I checked out the peakbagger citation in the article, it's roughly the same spot as the map at the Acarai article. At first I thought to make a hatnote to avoid confusion, but then I thought maybe the articles ARE the confusion. 2nd opinion appreciated! Cheers, Estheim (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
I have nominated Mount St. Helens for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk04:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hike395: I wish I could, but sadly I'm studying for board exams this month. I would definitely be up to the job down the line, since I've been fairly inactive over the past year, and revamping Mount St. Helens would be a perfect way to resume my content writing activity. How long do FARs run these days? Is there any chance it could run for more than a month? ceranthor00:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand --- I'm very busy at work, also, so I don't think I can do this justice. We're about halfway through the FAR process -- I think it's going to be delisted in two weeks. — hike395 (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect data in List of Himalayan peaks and passes
I was browsing through this list when I noticed a large number of inconsistencies and issues, especially at the bottom of the list. Before my edits, the prominence, isolation, and first ascents were repeated from previous mountains rather than containing the correct information or no information at all. I would blame this on the convoluted way the list is put together in the source, making it very difficult to input exactly the right data. I suspect that the person who made the changes simply copied the previous line and filled out the global rank by increasing the last number by 1. This is obviously wrong as the 148th, 149th, 150th, 151st, 152nd, etc. world's tallest mountains are not all found in the Himalayas and there are mountains between, for example, 6,638m and 6,814m in the world.
I don't currently have the time or knowledge to fill out this list correctly or remove all the mistakes, but if someone has the needed resources, please could you pay it some attention if possible?
I've added Precordillera to the Wikiproject, under stubs requiring expansion. The term is for the hills that one encounters before they get to the Andes. Would someone be so kind as to rate its importance? Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Major discrepancies in sources' elevation of Adi Kailash. Is there a standard source used for elevation data?
I recently noticed some apparent vandalism on the Adi Kailash page, where a user had entered an elevation that directly contradicts the source cited for the elevation. I reverted it so that the elevation matches the source. However, the user was persistent in entering the other elevation (which goes against the provided source), so I decided to do a little research. I found that many sources online support the elevation that the user was entering, but many sources support other elevations, too.
The source currently used in the article says 5945 m. Also, when I look on the elevation map for Google Maps, it also looks like it's ~5,900 metres (19,400 ft) (I know this is probably original research, but I thought it was a useful "sanity check"). However, when I search online, some results say 6,191 metres (20,312 ft) (see [2], [3]), and some say 6,310 metres (20,700 ft) (see [4], [5], [6]).
I have no idea which of these are reliable sources (and some appear to be tourism-oriented, so perhaps they have an interest in over-stating the elevation of the mountain??), so I don't really know how to reconcile the discrepancy in elevations of nearly 400 metres (1,300 ft). Is there a standard source used for elevation data that could readily answer the question of the mountain's elevation? Any advice on how to proceed? palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd17:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
From a purely numerical concept this doesn't make sense, but assuming good faith I wondered if this is in fact how some peaks are classified. Could someone review these articles and correct if necessary? Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't get the .5's either. If it was tied with another then perhaps but deciding the most prominent summits, like Hyndman Peak, seems subjective enough you wouldn't need to use half numbers to rank them and Lhotse Shar isn't even listed in the list they are referring too and isn't tied with any other height included in the list. --ARoseWolf19:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Even if it were tied, then there would be two mountains "tied for 5th highest", and the next below it would be the "7th highest" (there wouldn't be a "6th highest"). "Fifth-and-a-half" makes no sense when using ordinal numerals. The rationale at Lhotse Shar was "lower than Makalu but higher than Cho Oyu so because of its low prominence 5.5 on the list of high peaks". However, careful reading of List of highest mountains on Earth#Considerations reveals that due to it being a prominence-based list it "may exclude well-known or spectacular mountains that are connected via a high ridge to a taller summit". I suspect that the editor didn't understand this methodology, but wasn't sure if it was my own misunderstanding. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hoof Hearted: Completely agree with your assessment. I think you probably have a better understanding of it than I do but I can recognize that it doesn't look right in its current state. --ARoseWolf14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy relevant to this project
Guallatiri, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I need a Mountain expert to weigh in on WP:NOTABILITY (for mountains/peaks); Getting people in WP:Idaho writing one line articles for the 1822nd tallest mountain?? (In Idaho)... Is there a top 100 type limit? (or if something MAJOR happened there?). Thanks in advance, Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." This is a form of WP:GNG. Hope this helps. — hike395 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm MAXIMOKAUSCH. I do have several corrections to do in many andean peak articles. I'm citing all sources. I have a sheet I can share with all my research on andean peaks. its taking 8 years so far. I'm also climbing some and bringing GPS info. Can anyone help me out to let me know if its OK to correct wikipedia information? I can guarantee there is a lot of wrong and missing information in the current pages. Not sure If I'm doing ir right — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk • contribs) 07:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, MAXIMOKAUSCH. Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone however there are guidelines and policies. You can not use your personal research as a source unless it has been issued in peer review journals or been published by reliable independent sources (See WP:RS and WP:OR). --ARoseWolf15:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
OK. I think though that rather than copying the entire list of elevation estimates into Wikipedia articles, I would probably only write a short summary. Also, you probably shouldn't say that things like Acamarachi are within a city; perhaps they are within a city's administrative boundaries but definitively not within the city as an agglomeration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus! Thank you for your feedback. I've fixed the Pili Acamarachi article. The reason I'm adding all this DEM data is that most official measurements are wrong (Instituto Geografico Militar). Some measurements are from ground surveys in 1950. We now have digital elevation models, so in a way we need 'proof' of the elevation mentioned in each article. For instance Pucajirca has no evidence of its 6046 metres, Caraz too. Acamarachi has avidence from 5 DEMs. So I strongly believe we have to mention that. Let me know if you think the Acamarachi article works better now and I can use that as base for the other ones. thank you! MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the DEM altitudes are readings from each space mission, and I believe we have to mention it to avoid further elevation discussions. It took about 2 years to gather all DEM readings for all these peaks, some data is very hard to get. Also the data of communes, cities, provinces took about 4 months. I worked in every polygon provided by IGMsMAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The information being added needs to be sourced to independent reliable secondary sources. Anything resembling OR and not properly sourced according to guidelines can be refuted or even deleted. --ARoseWolf15:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I say this because Wikipedia does not make the claim that the information here is 100% factual or correct, only that it is properly sourced. If independent secondary reliable sources get the information wrong then, most likely, Wikipedia will be wrong as well. Wikipedia is a slow progressing tertiary source. --ARoseWolf15:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello ARoseWolf, thank you for explaining. No problem then. All information is sourced and linked (please check the example) from GeoTIFF files available from each mission's website (i.e. Nasa, DLR). Each city, national park, province comes from each polygon made available by each military geographical institute. All I did was the work of gathering all the information. thank youMAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Good catch! I would look at including sources for most everything being added but especially where it may alter or change perception or what has been regarded as consensus in the article for any length of time. --ARoseWolf16:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus thanks for your help! Good idea, I'm explaining every bit of data. There are 2 different things happening that I'm trying to explain in these wikipedia articles: first there is a long discussion regarding the altitude of each peak. sometimes there are 2 different 'oficial' versions of the altitude for the altitude of each peak as the mountain might be on the border. But we now have digital data from satellite topographic missions. So we have to show evidence of that altitude from these well documented topographic missions. This is why I believe we need a separate paragraph to explain all sources and show evidence of the elevation. Second problem: there is a big discussion of what 'mountain' means. I have mentioned all sources and did the corrections you suggested. thank you for your corrections and suggestionsMAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thank for explaining. Fair enough I understand your concern now, let me explain: Sources cited, like the USGS data centre, allow you to access their data for free (SRTM data in this case). They come in the form o GeoTIFF images or HGT images. Each tile is HUGE and has thousands of datapoints. You then have to 'navigate' to the summit of the mountain in question and check the altitude given. This can be done with simple tools like Simple DEM Viewer. It takes a lot of work and I've already done that. Please let me know if I can continue doing these contributions to andean peaks?MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, by the way. Regarding the 'discussion' about what a mountain is. Please understand I do not discuss what a mountain is in any article. All I'm doing is saying if X or Y elevations are considered a mountain, range or complex, according to specific topographic criteria. That's all. There are many criteria to do so. I believe there would be a big discussion if I don't mention the criteria used.MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, by taking an elevation number (sourced) and an elevation definition (sourced) and using that to define a mountain (unsourced) you are in fact synthesizing a conclusion. Regarding the sources, I'd probably link to the viewer/file/page where you can access the file directly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the message. Unfortunately NASA's GeoTIFF files cannot be linked independently. Most datasources require registration and logging into their file directories. TanDEM-x, ALOS, ASTER and SRTM require similar procedures. Regarding topography definitions, that's a good point. Articles refer to different criteria to define the word 'mountain' (the current wikipedia article for 'mountain' mentions the 300m col rule, but mentions there are more (please check). The source given, for example, has 16 different meanings for elevations according to their topographic prominence ratio. This is exactly what the source given does in each article. I personally believe the criteria has to be mentioned in any statement. Let me know your thoughts and thanks for this productive discussion.MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@MAXIMOKAUSCH:See, I don't think that for most of the mountains discussed here (Andean volcanoes) the distinction between ridge, mountain and massif is irrelevant. And we still cannot use a definition page as a source per WP:SYNTH, unless that definition page explicitly mentions the mountain.
I'd still link to the file page even if a login screen comes up or somesuch. It's clearer than the current format where you are sent on a wild goose chase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:Please check this article and let me know if you think it works better? Nevado_de_Famatina. please note I've removed any 'mountain' statements and sourced GeoTiff files in their raw format (2 datasources require registration, one can be downloaded directly). Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Slightly better, although I like the format on Acamarachi better. Also, "AAJ (American Alpine Journal)". AAJ (American Alpine Journal): 440. 1963. is a little skimpy on details of what it exactly entails. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I do like the way the elevation is mentioned in the notes on Acamarachi, but I simply don't know how to do it. Will try though. It is great we're talking about it now as I'm planning to update/create a total of 1178 pages. So about the AAJ, this is Echevarria's research. He took paper notes of each paper but did not mention the page. Unfortunately most of this information isn't on internet and Evelio died, so it might take a few years until we find the exact page and paper. The American Alpine Club is making an effort to publish their old papers though. This was Evelio and some of his great work: http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web21s/wfeature-evelio-echevarria-obituaryMAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
While I don't have any issue with this being a link, personally I don't see any value to the current map being shown. No features are identified on the map so what value does it serve? RedWolf (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
We want to link that template to an online image of the map sheet, not access it indirectly through a ZIP file download. What {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} does is the next best thing—to draw a box on a map showing the exact extent of the map sheet to which it refers; its latitude and longitude bounds. Also, if you notice in the upper-right corner of that linked map, there is a layer selection option. You can switch between Wikimedia's satellite imagery database or OpenStreetMap's Carto tiles. The problem with NRCan's Toporama app is it only allows you to see the extent of a map sheet through HTTP POST, not HTTP GET. -- Denelson8306:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yea, linking to a zip file would not be the best UI experience. OpenStreetMap is somewhat better but I think adding OpenTopoMap to the selection layer would be much better. RedWolf (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have been working on a newer version of this template, {{User:Denelson83/Canada NTS Map Link}}. It uses Wikimedia's own Kartographer extension to draw a box on a map corresponding to the NTS map sheet containing a given latitude and longitude, and for good measure, it also plots the given point within that box. I think this updated template could be more powerful and informative if the Kartographer extension included a topographic layer. -- Denelson8318:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if most people are going to submit a request to the government with their email address in order to get a topo map section that's already provided by opentopomap.org or even at CGNDB (w/o the elevation). Whether the gov't is using this method to track uses by email address or an attempt to circumvent bot uses, either way it's a clunky UI. RedWolf (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, this new link does not require an e-mail address to view just the extent of a map sheet. It simply draws the extent on the provided slippy map, which is all I want this template to do. Just ignore everything else on that page and you should be fine. -- Denelson8319:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@EdwardLane: You can look at the Resources section on the project page for some useful sites although there is a bias towards English content websites at present. It would be great if we could build up the list for other areas of the world. Probably the easiest to build stub/starting articles for mountains in Canada and the United States, not so much for peaks in Asia except for the more better known peaks of the Himalayas. So building stubs for mountains in Turkistan will not be easy generally speaking. You could check out the mountains in Turkistan that exist on the English Wikipedia and then look at the other language sites to see if they list some good reliable sources. If you come across any sites (especially government) that provides similar information as that of the Canadian Geographic Names Database or the USGS GNIS post them on this page. RedWolf (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
An offline notice appears if you try to access any of the GNIS links:
User Notice – September 2, 2021
The GNIS forms are currently offline. Users may access GNIS data by downloading one of the text files that will be made available prior to shutdown. GNIS will be down for a period of time as we transition to our new forms. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause our users.
How to format ascents to a peak when there are large amounts of possible ascents and connector trails?
I was trying to clean up the page for Mission Peak to hopefully make it more clear, but ran into a problem when talking about the possible ascents. While there are trails to Mission Peak from four different trailheads, only one trail actually goes through the peak. How should I separate the ascents; is there a standard for this WikiProject? Also there are two trails from one of the trailheads, which could easily make separate ascents to the peak (no shared ground after the beginning intersection). Do these deserve to be treated as separate ascents? If so, what percent needs to be separate in order for them to be as such? There are many connector trails between two of the trails up to the peak. Should stuff using them be treated as separate ascents from ones without them?
2601:647:4100:10E2:640C:3C4C:526C:D5C1 (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)— 2601:647:4100:10E2:640C:3C4C:526C:D5C1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I think the relevant guideline is WP:NOTGUIDE: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We shouldn't exhaustively describe an entire trail network or all possible ascents. I would just describe the alternatives in a very minimal way. — hike395 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Two days in and still nothing from WP Mountains. What happened to the activity of this WikiProject? It isn't hard to leave a comment or support ugh. Volcanoguy21:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Don't let this FAC fall. This is WikiProject, a group of contributors who are supposed to work together as a team to improve articles. Volcanoguy21:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I was not active on the Wiki that particular week. I must have missed this in my watchlist when I came back. I see it got promoted to FAC. Well done. RedWolf (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
opentopomap.org citation template
I have been adding the topographic maps from opentopomap.org (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenTopoMap) to mountains for a while now (since early 2021) and was using {{cite web}} to cite it as a reference. This map shows the elevation of the summit which is based on Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data that is in the public domain. I finally got around to creating a citation template: {{cite opentopomap}}. RedWolf (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion regarding GEONet Names Server (GNS) at RSN
See here. Site is used as a source in about 43,000 articles related to various geographical locations world-wide, including some mountain peaks. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the reliability of Peakbagger.com at RSN
Looks like it's someone named Greg Slayden. Going by Googling it seems like they are sometimes cited in the context of mountaineering (e.g here) but not as frequently as some others such as John Biggar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
As you might know I have edited hundreds of pages which use Peakbagger as a source. I have found the site to be very reliable. I don't use the site's coordinates because GNIS is available and is fairly accurate and "official". I have found that the editor is open to feedback. I know of nothing better. –droll[chat]23:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I've never really used Peakbagger so I'm not much help. I avoid using self-published sources as they are generally considered unreliable (even if the information is correct) and in doing so I avoid these kinds of debates. But I understand prominence and isolation are tough to come across in scholarship sources so I'm not really surprised websites such as Peakbagger are commonly used. Volcanoguy12:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that prominence and isolation are something that primarily interests mountaineers so it won't be discussed in scholarship. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Peakbagger has been flagged as an unreliable source?
So find something more reliable? It is certainly not GNIS. The site might not be perfect but, in my humble opinion, it is the best that is available. I'd like to know who is responsible for cite being flagged. I'd like some examples of inaccuracy and information on a source that is a better alternative. –droll[chat]19:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you, Droll. The current consensus at RSN forced me to do this edit, but it makes me very unhappy. I don't know what we should do. I really don't want to substitute prominence data that is less accurate because it is more "reliable". I'd almost rather delete prominence and isolation from the infobox, and just link to peakbagger (or peaklist) in the External Links section than use Kirmse's data. Don't get me wrong: I like Kirmse's efforts in finding the prominence of every peak on Earth. But Kirmse recognizes that his system is less accurate than Peakbagger. — hike395 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Perfaps you should mark ListOfJohn as unreliable as well as even GNIS although it is better than it used to be. I think that peak bagging and the climbing sports in general do not require the same accuracy as nuclear physics. The sites we use are reliable enough most of the time. Even the NGS datasheets can be questioned. Many clearly state that approximations are used. I don't think that the sites I've mentioned should be held to the same standards as scientific publications. Certainly the National Elevation Dataset is not very accurate in determining the elevation of peaks especially if they have a summit block. Maybe It should be flagged as inaccurate. Perhaps Wikipedia should reject as inaccurate books of athletic data because there might be inaccuracies. So perhaps every source that is not rigorously refereed should be flagged or is that going to far. Maybe flagging peakbagger is going to far. –droll[chat]20:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I've thought about it, and Volcanoguy is correct (above): accuracy is not the same as Wikipedia reliability. A self-published source can be correct and still considered to be unreliable (by the WP rules), if we cannot prove that the editors of the self-published source are domain experts. I tried to explain the prominence community to the editors at WP:RSN, and got a huge pushback: they characterize the community as "hobbyists" and "amateurs", because they did not subject their data to the scrutiny of peer review. And we know from WP itself that peer review is a powerful tool. According to WP:RS, Peakbagger isn't a reliable source :-(.
There's a strong local consensus in this project to provide prominence and isolation in WP mountain articles. I agree with this consensus. But local consensus cannot overrule the core policies of WP. And when it comes to prominence and isolation, we do not appear to be following WP:RS.
It seems we cannot both provide accurate prominence and isolation data and follow WP:RS. If this is right, then maybe we should take prominence and isolation out of the infoboxes, and simply link to Peakbagger/Peaklist/ListOfJohn in External Links. To be clear, I do not want to do this. I think this is a terrible idea. But I don't know how else to follow WP:RS. Does anyone have any better ideas? I don't think we can simply ignoreWP:RS, can we? — hike395 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Later: at WP:RSN, I'm making an argument for the reliability of Peakbagger via usage by others, even of Peakbagger doesn't "look like" a usual reliable source. Let's see if this sways the skeptics at all. — hike395 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If we can't prove Peakbagger is a reliable source then we should probably use Kirmse's data for prominence and isolation. It may not be as accurate as Peakbagger but using that instead of nothing at all would be better IMO. At least it still gives an idea of how prominent/isolated a mountain is. Volcanoguy03:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. You're right. It's just aggravating to give up on a source that Kirmse says is more accurate (for prominence at least). And it's going to be a lot of work to change over.
I was just looking at Kirmse's page on isolation, and it turns out that Peakbagger overestimates isolation in 80% of the cases by using the distance to the next highest peak, not by looking for the closest point that is higher. — hike395 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought I had commented on this site in the previous section (but didn't). I find peakbagger reliable although for mountains in Canada, I tend to rely more on bivouac.com for prominence (which is probably in the same "reliable source?" boat as peakbagger). I find prominence useful but isolation not so much (I rarely add it to articles; I'm not advocating we remove isolation). It's probably pretty rare that a guide book is going to show isolation (mostly likely due to not finding any reliable sources and probably not being of much interest to hikers/mountaineers in general). Guide books will usually give an indication of elevation gain from the "official" trail head but it's probably fairly rare that it can be considered the prominence value. Is there any gov't source in the world that provides prominence and isolation (especially prominence) and if so, do it consistently and not just for better known mountains? I think it fair to say that the general public doesn't care about prominence, isolation and to a much less extent elevation (except for well know or local mountains perhaps). However, that doesn't mean we should remove prominence/isolation values from the infobox. Is summitpost.org a reliable source? If so, what makes it different from peakbagger? Surprising tidbit about peakbagger's isolation determination critera, I didn't expect that. I am quite reluctant to remove sourced information from peakbagger, bivouac, summitpost and peakfinder and yes, it would definitely be a lot of work to do that. No easy answer here. RedWolf (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
If there comes a time when sourced information from peakbagger has to be removed I will likely be able to help. I just finished rating 2,000+ mountain articles. Volcanoguy22:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Prominence is used a lot in the UK to categorise mountains and isolation is also of interest to 'peak baggers'. However the usual source is the Database of British and Irish Hills which appears to be highly accurate. I don't know if other sites draw on them for their data on the British Isles. Bermicourt (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed for now --- I found a date where web.archive.org picked up the contents of the GNIS page, so at least there'll be something for verification. — hike395 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)