Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Featured Article Review

Rondane National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, I can see this article no longer being an FA. FA standards have been upped quite a bit since that article first became an FA. Inline citations seem to be the norm now for an article to remain FA and this article is sorely lacking these. RedWolf 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Date in caption of mountain photos?

Back in Sep 2006, RedWolf put in a guideline that mountain photo captions should have the month and year. I hadn't noticed this until Justin.Johnsen started to implement this guidance.

Shall we discuss? I'm not sure if this is a good idea: it's certainly generally not implemented. Comments? hike395 07:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I realize that this is not a general practice for photos on Wikipedia but I see a lot of photos that are generally quite old (20+ years), especially those from the USGS. The change of seasons can also sometimes make a mountain look remarkably different. In the case of active volcanoes, 20 years can alter the appearance significantly. The point I'm trying to make is that unlike animals, plants or man made structures which stay pretty much the same, mountains have many factors that affect their appearance over time. Adding a date informs the reader that in the case of old photos, the mountain may no longer appear exactly that way today. Snow cover changes on a mountain depending on the time of year so the month in the caption aids in showing how the mountain looks in summer versus winter. I try to stay away from using seasons as it can be confusing (and not npov) to readers from the southern hemisphere. RedWolf 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that makes a lot of sense. I think this is a good idea. hike395 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates and Google Earth

I was checking out the Sierra Nevada in Google Earth, and noticed that many of the major peaks didn't link to their Wikipedia articles. I thought I remembered some of the same peaks working not long ago.

It looks like pages created with an old version of the infobox template no longer feed into Google Earth. But those with the current template create working links. The difference seems to be the coordinate template; the current version {{coord}} with the display=inline,title tag works. Older coordinate templates ({{coor dms}}, {{coor ds}}, etc) do not. I've updated most of the Sierra Nevada articles, and a few Los Angeles are mountains. --Justin 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • If you view the talk page for {{coord}} you will see a lot of discussion about preferring this template over the older ones. I don't know the complete history of when the Google Earth support stuff was added so maybe it was originally in {{coor dms}} and pulled out, don't know for sure. I believe someone (a bot perhaps) a few months ago went through articles, converting over to coord. In any case, we should now be using coord. As an aside, in just the few articles I've looked at, it seems that the wiki coordinates are somewhat off on hitting the summit of mountains when you look at them in Google Earth. RedWolf 06:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I bet that the "somewhat off" problem is a WGS84 vs NAD27 issue: how far off were they? hike395 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Which conversion template to use?

Should we be using {{convert}} or {{unit ft}} in our infobox? I like the latter, because it is somewhat easier to use. Perhaps we should allow both? hike395 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct choice should be between {{Convert}} on the one hand and {{Unit ft}} or {{Unit m}} on the other hand depending on the units used in the source cited in a given article. -- Patleahy (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course: you are correct. hike395 06:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Either is fine with me although I prefer Convert because it allows me control for wiki linkage of the units while the other two do not. I don't see the point in have miles and km wiki-linked more than once in an article. RedWolf 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Point taken about the multiple wikilinks, although I still prefer the unit template: shall we just put both into guideline? hike395 07:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for a rule here specifying one of these options over the other. If people use either we get the result we want.
I am going to add the same ability to control the wikilinks to the {{Unit *}} templates. I was just waiting for some feedback at here before I did it. -- Patleahy (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
hike395 was suggesting a guideline not a rule. The bottom line is, we want people to use these conversion templates rather than doing the unit conversion themselves which is prone to human error and leads to inconsistencies in articles. Any of the templates are acceptable, the editor can choose which best suits them. I have added a comment to the above talk page supporting the "lk" flag. RedWolf 23:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You're correct. A guideline is appropriate. I'll add the lk flag to the {{Unit m}} and friends. -- Patleahy (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I'll definitely use the lk flag in those templates! hike395 03:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maps?

I notice that on many Italian wiki pages for the Alps they have put a map below the infobox, eg http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A4schhorn. This seems pretty useful. Anyone know whether it would be possible to put these below - or in - our template? Cheers. Ericoides 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the thought of adding support for a map to the infobox has crossed my mind a few times in the past while. Note that {{Geobox Mountain}} has support for a map but we decided not to use that infobox as it is just way too much work to convert the nearly 3,000 infoboxes over manually. We have gone through a number of conversions and I for one, do not wish to do another one manually. I will take a look at adding support for the map as there are also a number of volcano pages with locator maps that have awkward placements — putting them into the infobox would make it much cleaner. RedWolf 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
re. maps. Wouldn't a map make the infoboxes too long? That's my main concern. The use of {{Geolinks-US-mountain}} (or equivalent) would take a reader to a beautiful set of external maps with one click --- isn't that better? Shouldn't we just add geolinks to relevant articles, instead? hike395 23:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
re. {{Geobox Mountain}} --- The consensus seemed to prefer the look of {{Infobox Mountain}} anyway. hike395

Interactive map icon in {{coord}} breaks layout in {{Infobox Mountain}}

Has anyone else noticed that the little globe icon that takes a reader to an interactive map causes bad line breaks in many instances of Infobox Mountain? Can this be fixed somehow? Ideas? hike395 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw the globe icon briefly a few days ago and haven't seen it since. I don't think it was the coord template that directly added it as I checked the history and it hasn't been modified since May. Are you still seeing it? RedWolf 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am, for example, at Mount Edgecumbe (Alaska). I wonder if it is a MediaWiki hack? I checked my preferences, and I don't see where I would ask for it. It's kind of mysterious. Does anyone else see it? hike395 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The subject is under discussion at Template talk:Coord#Globe icon, if you want to weigh in.
—wwoods 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, strange. I don't see the globe icon on that page. RedWolf 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm even more puzzled. I see the globe icon in Firefox on my Mac but not in Firefox on windoze. In any case, the coordinates are still on one line for me. What exactly are you seeing that the layout is broken? RedWolf 01:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As a followup, I resized Firefox on the Mac so it was less than the width of the infobox and the coordinates still wouldn't line break. RedWolf 01:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Under IE7 on Windows, I see globe icon 57°03′05″N 135°45′31″ following by a line break, with W on the next line. Ugh. hike395 13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists in Infobox

Right now the lists parameter in the infobox links to Hill lists in the British Isles (e.g. see Mount Whitney). I assume this was implemented by our mates at WP:British and Irish hills. However this would be useful as a universal category for all of WP:Mountains, as evidenced by Hike395's using it for the SPS Emblem Peaks. Your thoughts? --Justin 14:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch: I didn't notice that. I would suggest that that parameter link to Lists of mountains, which is a global list of mountain lists. Before I ask an admin to change the template --- what do other people think? hike395 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Another idea: should we just make a List of peak bagging lists? We could factor this list from the bottom of Peak bagging, and then point to it. Or, perhaps the simplest idea is to just have the infobox point to peak bagging. (I think I like this the best). hike395 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I second both ideas, unless WP:British hills protests.--Justin 01:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point --- we should alert them of this discussion, will do so. hike395 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, kudos on the eagle eye. Is the listing really about peak bagging or lists of mountains in general? My initial thought was the latter. I don't think I would consider every mountain in the world as being on a peak bagging list, in whatever form it may be. I have never heard of a peak bagging list for the top 10 mountains in Canada for example. I would vote for the first suggestion but I'm not totally opposed to the second option either if the consensus is to go that route. RedWolf 01:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh I should clarify. I meant I like the idea of linking the "list" parameter in the infobox to Lists of mountains, and I also like the idea of a new article named Lists of peak bagging lists. The former already contains a peak bagging section, where a link to the latter could be added. --Justin 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that RedWolf has it exactly right -- either the row in the infobox is about peak bagging, or it is about general mountain list membership. I think we should decide which one, and then clarify. If it is about peak bagging, then I suggest that it should be labeled "Peak bagging lists", which should point to Peak bagging (or similar). If it is about a general mountain list, I'm not sure what to call it ("list membership" ? "listing"? "similar mountains" ?), and it should point to Lists of mountains.
I would argue that this is really about peak bagging, 1) because that is what it is currently used for, and 2) there is an objective outside-of-WP criteria for whether to list it. (WP:NOR) For a peak that is not on a peak bagging list, the WP mountain list it belongs to may be arbitrarily defined (in the absurd limit, "Top 58 most prominent mountains named Stone").
On the other hand, I can see why RedWolf wants to open it up --- a compact link to a list of similar mountains can assist navigation (and is far better than a ugly navbox taking up space). I'm leaning towards peak bagging only, but it sounds like RedWolf and Justin are leaning towards general mountain list. (Perhaps we should have both, as 2 separate rows in the Infobox?)
More thoughts? Which one should we choose? hike395 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as a WP:BIhills member, I think generalising the field to a global one is no bad thing. Its current state is a leftover from merging the old UK-specific infobox into the more general infobox (as is "Grid_ref_UK", for instance), rather than some odd geographical chauvinism. I don't think it follows that any list of mountains is necessarily a bagging list — I may be interested in a list of the 8000-ers, but I'm unlikely ever to bag one. Despite that, I do agree that external criteria for the lists are needed — we shouldn't be inventing new sets of criteria. I would be content with linking to peak bagging (of which the current hill lists in the British Isles is effectively a subsection), although I imagine it could be made context specific, so that UK hills linked to a UK lists article, while US hills linked to a US-specific list. We can leave that for later, though; for now, peak bagging is fine. --Stemonitis 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand Stemonitis' point (also echoed by RedWolf): not all notable mountain lists are peak bagging lists. And Justin wants to split out the peak bagging lists from peak bagging. So, the following steps may make everyone happy:
Does this sound good? I can start work on the new Lists of mountains. hike395 11:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, I think. I certainly agree with Steomonitis' point that not all mountain lists are bagging lists for everyone (though if your name happens to be Messner, even the list of 8000-ers is). Perhaps a more relevant distinction is between lists that have a well-defined finite number of mountains (e.g. peaks with at least some prominence in particular area, or peaks in one person's subjective list such as Munros) compared to open-ended lists (e.g. mountains in some country, where what constitutes a separate mountain is ill-defined). I'm not entirely clear what RedWolf means by a "general mountain list": I'm not sure about using the Listing parameter for open-ended area lists as the Range parameter largely deals with that. — ras52 13:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not all mountain lists are peak-bagging lists. This is a general encyclopedia, not specifically a reference for hikers/climbers/peak-baggers. I agree with hike395 that it's important to adhere to Wikipedia's notability policy on mountain lists; assessing the notability of lists is a long-term project. -- Spireguy 14:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Did all of the steps I proposed above, except haven't added references to Lists of mountains. As Spireguy says, that's a long-term project: everyone is welcome to help. hike395 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "eminence" original research?

I want to bring up a related issue that has been bothering me for a while. User:Buaidh has been putting in a lot of good work on creating various mountain lists, such as Mountain peaks of North America and Mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains, among others. However I'm concerned about one of the statistics that Buaidh includes in the tables, namely the product of Topographic prominence and elevation, which Buaidh refers to as "summit eminence." In my opinion, both the inclusion of this statistic and the term "summit eminence" are original research. Note that WP:NOR excludes material if "it defines new terms" or if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor." The former covers the term "eminence" and the latter covers the concept itself and its inclusion in the tables, which implies an importance for the particular combination prom*elev which is not justified by any reliable source.

I've noted to Buaidh that I personally like ranking mountains by prom*elev, but that doesn't matter, since it isn't done in any source that I know of. Rather than being bold and deleting much of the info in Buaidh's tables, which I thought would be rather rude, I wanted to get some more input from this group on the issue. So it would be great if people took a look at the relevant lists and gave their opinion. Thanks -- Spireguy 14:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in similar dilemma. I too like using prom*elev (well, actually I like sqrt(prom*elev), the geometric mean of the two which is a measured in meters, not meters squared), but I'm certain I've never seen a printed source using it. I have a vague idea I've seen a German-language site on peaks in the Alps that discusses this way of ranking mountains, though I can't find it now. Has Buiadh given a source for it? (I'm struggling to follow the talk page comments as they're spread across multiple pages.) Reluctantly, I think we we can't find a reasonable precedent for it. — ras52 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I asked, and Buaidh did not have a source for it. Buaidh can perhaps speak to that more directly. The German-language info to which your refer might be Eberhard Jurgalski's work with "dominance", which he defines as Prom/Elev, not Prom*Elev (hence a rather different measure). Not sure. -- Spireguy 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that's the one. Sorry for the confusion. Now that I think about it, I remember deciding I didn't like Prom/Elev as I thought it overrated small coastal bumps and tiny islands; in fact, there's pretty much an infinite number of 100% dominance peaks. (Incidentally, the last sentence in my last message was supposed to read "Reluctantly, I think we should delete it if we can't find a reasonable precedent for it.") — ras52 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
At present, the topographic eminence links are being re-directed to topographic prominence, where I cannot find any mention of eminence. This is not a satisfactory situation. Regarding the division of prominence by elevation, Eberhard has been pushing this for a long time but I am yet to find anyone who shares his enthusiasm for it. The geometric mean metric is more interesting. I think that we should be careful about cluttering Wikipedia with tables containing new measures that are probably contrary to WP:OR, although I would not personally object if (properly linked) eminence were to remain in those tables where it has been included. We might create a new section at topographic prominence, listing alternative metrics with brief summaries; this should include spire measure, and external links to tables that use these measures. Any comments? Viewfinder 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as spire measure goes, I don't think that it is notable yet, by strict Wikipedia definitions. The creators (which includes me) have not yet got their act together to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, which would make it notable. Also, I certainly don't want to be in a position of saying that one measure (prom*elev) is OR, and my measure (spire measure) is not. That would be unfair and a conflict of interest on my part. -- Spireguy 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear: eminence is original research and don't belong in mountain list articles. hike395 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seamounts

Are seamounts part of this project? Black Tusk 13:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not so far, but it could be expanded (or perhaps a subproject). I think that the Infobox wouldn't be appropriate though ("first ascent" ?).. hike395 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, a normal mountain wouldn't have "type" and "volcanic arc/belt" in the infobox ether. Seamounts rise from the seabed to a height of up to 1,000 meters (3,300 feet), usually 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) to 2,000 meters (6,500 feet) below the surface of the sea, making it high enough for a mountain. However, some seamounts are higher than that elevation. The Bowie Seamount for example, rises from a depth of approximately 3,000 meters to within 24 meters of the sea surface. By comparison, if the Bowie Seamount were on land it would stand approximately 600 meters higher than the summit of Whistler Mountain in BC. Black Tusk 07:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It'd probably be simplest to make a variant copy of {{Infobox Mountain}}. Rather than Elevation, you'd want "Depth" for the summit depth below sealevel, and "Height" for height above the base; "Chain" rather than Range. ... Anything else?
—wwoods 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think "Chain" should probably be "Volcanic_Arc/Belt", since volcanic chains are a shrunken size of volcanic belt and seamounts are usually volcanoes. Or "Chain" could just redirect to volcanic belt. However, I'm not sure if there's a volcanic arc that's all seamounts..... Probably not, volcanic arc's are usually on the coast's of continents or islands, such as the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific Ocean. Black Tusk 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
But don't seamounts and islands come in 'chain's? E.g. Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain and New England Seamount chain. Volcanic arcs are formed where one tectonic plate is being overridden by another, but a lot of seamounts are formed by hotspots punching through plates moving over them.
—wwoods 00:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, seamounts and islands come in chains, and seamounts are usually formed by hotspots. However, there's seamounts near Japan that might be subduction-related, including Omachi Seamount, Kasuga Seamount and Kaitoku Seamount. Black Tusk 01:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, non-volcanic mountains can have types: see List of mountain types. I can support a variant copy of Infobox Mountain. Would you want to use brown, or perhaps some sort of ocean blue would make more sense to signal that it is an underwater mountain? hike395 14:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I know there's types for non-volcanic mountains, but most are volcanic. Ocean blue would make sense. There appears to be a lot more subduction-related submarine volcanoes then what I listed above (here). Would there be more than just "Chain", (or "Volcanic_Arc/Belt") "Depth", "Height"? Black Tusk 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[resetting indent] Well, let's see; here are the parameters of the mountain box:

{{Infobox Mountain}} | Name = | Photo = | Caption = | Elevation = | Location = | Range = | Prominence = | Coordinates = | Topographic map = | Type = | Volcanic_Arc/Belt= | Age = | Last eruption = | First ascent = | Easiest route = | Grid_ref_UK = | Grid_ref_Ireland = | Listing = | Translation = | Language = | Pronunciation = }}

I couldn't find a generic island infobox, but there's this to draw on:

{{Outlying Island}} |name = |map = |flag = |locate = |locale = |claimed = |island_type = |discovered = |claimed_by = |discovered_by = |area = |population = |transportation = |major_settlements = |island_group = |uses = |additional_claims = |location = |projection = |FIPS = |ccTLD = }}

Of the Mountain parameters, keep Name, Photo, Caption, Location, Coordinates, Type, Age, Last eruption. Replace Elevation with [summit] Depth and Height. Replace Range with Chain/Group/whatever. Keep Volcanic Arc? Keep Translation, Language, Pronunciation? Drop the mountaineering stuff: Prominence, First ascent, Easiest route, Listing. I don't suppose there are many seamounts within the ranges of the UK/Ireland grids, so drop those too.
"Location" is a body of water; add something for seamounts within a nation's territorial waters or EEZ — name of country and flag; note whether the claim is disputed. Making provision for a locator map would be good. Discovered when and by whom. First visited? Area of the summit?
—wwoods 18:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Maybe "Chain" and "Volcanic arc" should be "Volcanic_Arc/Chain"? Black Tusk 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Seamount

Okay, I did a version 1.0: {{Infobox Seamount}}. What need changing? (The color, I suppose.)
—wwoods 07:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions:
  • The color --- how about a muted cyan? and a darker cyan for the lines? (I put those into the title, just to be concrete, we can certainly change it).
  • I think "Summit Area" won't be well defined, nor will anyone find a reliable source for these: I would drop it.
  • {{Infobox Mountain}} combines "Discovered" and "Discovered by" in the same row. Do you want to do that, too? Also isn't "first visit" the same as "discovered" (for a seamount)?
  • Putting the photo on the bottom makes sense -- there are probably very few photos of seamounts.
  • You may wish to adopt the style changes that we settle on for the main Mountain Infobox (below). You're welcome to join in the discussion, of course!
Overall, looks good. Thanks! hike395 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That does look like a better color.
  • I don't know whether 'summit area' makes sense. I guessed there might be cases with a reasonably large plateau, but maybe not.
  • Putting discoverer and discovery date together would be fine; I guess I copied that division from the island template. But a seamount can be discovered from the surface — maybe even from space. I thought of 'Visit' as actually going down to it, or at least sending a robot.
  • Very few photos, yeah. There are some pictures of lava flows or interesting critters. I think there's film of an eruption on Loihi. Checking, I see someone used the the Mountain infobox, even filling in "Easiest route: submersible". :-)
  • I'm not sure what's the best way to do the map. In some templates you can supply the coordinates and the name of a blank map and the template automatically puts a dot in the right place.
  • I just copied the current Mountain infobox and modified it; changing the font size, etc. will be easy.
—wwoods 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems to work pretty good. But should "belt" be changed to "chain" in the infobox? I don't think there's any seamount groups called belts. I thought it would have been better to use "belt" in the infobox before, because seamount chains are a type of volcanic belt. But the term "chain" refers to islands and seamounts associated with hotspots, and hotspots and subduction are the main causes of volcanic islands and seamount chains. Black Tusk 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. —wwoods 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a Caption? There's some seamounts that have photos (i.e. Loihi Seamount and Bear Seamount). Black Tusk 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup. I made provisions for captions; I just forgot to include them in the documentation. —wwoods 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The captions don't seem to be working correctly. See Loihi Seamount for example. Black Tusk 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it. —wwoods 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, any thoughts on making the 'Depth' figures positive or negative? No real chance of misunderstanding either way, but consistency would be a good thing.
—wwoods 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bradshaw Mountains

Would anyone here care to give this article a rating? Cheers! Murderbike 07:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Everest et al

Hello, I have changed one of the pictures on Mount Everest from a jpeg to an imagemap (you will see the difference when you move your cursor overit - its the one taken from the ISStation). Obviously I think this is an improvement and plan to replace other instances of this popular picture - this will effect several articles that I imagine this project thinks of as "top" importance ... hence my note here.

  1. Can someone reassure me that this IS an improvement?
  2. Can anyone see ways of using this to illustrate say climbing routes?

Note - my interest is not in mountains so apologies for any errors. Victuallers 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What you have done is interesting in principle, but I don't think the manner in which you have done it at Mount Everest is helpful. The image appears in the article as a thumbnail, and I can no longer click on the image to generate higher resolution. But you might like to consider creating imagemaps from images which appear in articles in full resolution. Viewfinder 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First bit of feedback

Thanks for the feedback Viewfinder. Did you notice that the "enlarge image" button at the bottom right of the image still works? I too however would click on the main amage and expect it to expand. I am going to experiment to see if I can get this to happen when you are not on a hyperlink. Would that help? Victuallers 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Change in Infobox style

There's been a change in the Infobox style, by User:Duja, who says that the changes make the infobox look more modern. As an example of the change, the old infobox is on the left, while the new infobox is on the right: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 5/old infobox Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 5/new infobox

The infobox has changed in the following way:

  • Name of peak at 150% font size
  • Infobox material at 90% font size
  • Brown background for picture
  • Margins slightly tweaked
  • Table inherits from "infobox geography" now

What do other participants think? (I'll withhold my comments for a while) hike395 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In my humble opinion the smaller font size is not a good idea. I've made this comment in other forms and was shoot down but as some of us get older small gets harder to see. Using stronger reading glasses decreases depth of field. Also the bar under the title seems to be unnecessary in the new format. DRoll 06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's an improvement. In particular, the 90% font and tweaked margins seem to improve the layout. Perhaps the 150% font for the peak name is a little too large (see Buachaille Etive Beag for an example where the title seems a little crowded). — ras52 08:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Sorry, I meant to participate in the discussion but other jobs took me away. I reverted myself for the time being. DRoll's argument on accessibility is indeed a valid one — something I admittedly didn't think about. I tried to make a "compromise" by slightly adjusting the font sizes, trying to accomodate it. Duja► 12:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Duja's adjusted proposal (130% title font, 95% body font) is shown below and to the right: hike395 12:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 5/tweaked infobox


...and, by the way, I think that full protection is an overkill. Far more prominent {{Infobox Settlement}} is just semi-protected to prevent vandalism, and that should be enough to stop the vandalism. I'll lower the protection level so to accomodate the regular editors. Duja► 12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! hike395 12:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The box on the right (130% title and 95% body) looks good to me. In fact, I think it's better than the two above. — ras52 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The new new box fits my needs and is attractive.DRoll 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty good in many respects, but could be improved:
  • I find the 130% font still too large and "shouty" --- perhaps 110%? or 120%?
  • I don't like brown background of the image. I believe it has a unwanted side effect of altering the perceived colors in the photo. I think a white border is neutral and doesn't affect the colors in the photo.
Other than that, I like the changes! hike395 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the box on the right and the new one above apart from the large titles. They are already in bold and are the only text at the top, why do they need emphasising any more? Overall I think I prefer the more condensed one above. JMiall₰ 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The box to the right here looks the best for me, except for the picture background (hike is right, it can alter color perception). --Qyd 12:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the box to the right is pretty good. Black Tusk 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a slightly different proposal (below and to the right), just like the box that everyone (mostly) likes, except with 110% title font and no brown background for photo. Thoughts? hike395 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 5/proposal 3

I prefer the one proposed by hike395. I don't like the brown background for the image (hike395 makes a good point on this) and I don't see the point of having such a large font size for the name. It's already in bold in both the infobox and opening paragraph of the text. I'm still trying to adjust to the smaller font size but I guess it's okay (I echo the concern of DRoll though). I do have one additional proposal: what about removing the dividing lines for the rows below the image? Similar to what {{Geobox Mountain Range}} does — see Canadian Rockies for an example. Hmm, then again maybe it won't look too great with the brown background on one side versus the white background used on both sides for the Geobox. I'll look into making a template of this proposal. RedWolf 01:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the new design, I always the thought the caption font was too big anyway. I am all for the change. Mick Knapton 19:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Updated : Discussion has died down somewhat, so I updated the Infobox with the version to the right. However, we still have some open issues --- RedWolf is still thinking about removing dividing lines, and perhaps there is still some residual unhappiness about the 95% font? We can continue working on the Infobox, if users have new ideas. hike395 08:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New row added: Parent_peak

User:Mark J added a new row to the infobox: "Parent_peak" (the topographic prominence parent). Comments? Thoughts? hike395 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not an avid editor of mountains, but I don't recall any previous mentions of this subject in the context of the UK at least. I see that Ben Macdui's 'parent' is Ben Nevis. I understand the logic, but how is it to be calculated for lesser peaks (e.g. Clisham). It provides information, but is it useful information. Yours etc., (unintentional humour looming), Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Ben More Assynt's 'parent' is Sgurr Mor (Fannichs). I suspect this is news to both of them. I will drop User:Mark J a note about this dialogue. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have much rather had some discussion first before the row was added. How many people are going to find that of real value? Personally, I don't. I see the parent listed on summitpost.org and bivouac.com and I don't really give it much thought other than a piece of trivia. If you read the line parent page on bivouac.com you will see that determining the line parent is not always straightforward. What criteria is going to be used for determining the parent? RedWolf 08:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the lack of discussion first, I was only trying to be bold.
  1. Parent information has been around at the List of Marilyns and the List of peaks by prominence for some time, so the concept is certainly not new to Wikipedia (or original research, for that matter). All I am doing is copying the information from the List of Marilyns on the basis that every other parameter on the list is included in the infobox already.
  2. If you read the text at the Topographic prominence#Prominence parentage section you will see that there is an unambiguous way of finding the parent. So there won't need to be arguments over what a peak's parent is, it's a hard and fast piece of data.
  3. I am only planning to put this in the British Isles hill pages because that's the only region I have definitive data for (a recent conversation with Viewfinder makes me realise that some of the PP data on the List of peaks by prominence may be wrong).
  4. Starting from any hill in Britain, following the 'parent peak' links upward will take you up through the hierarchy to Ben Nevis. This will help users to better understand the concepts of topography and mountain hierarchy. Also, on many hill pages parent equates to 'nearest higher neighbour' which will help people understand where a hill fits into the general scheme of things.
  5. Prominence parentage is the only definition of parentage that really works in the British Isles.
Hope I'm making some sense... :-) Mark J 12:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making perfect sense, although I am by no means convinced that this idea is useful or that it is not OR. You are of course correct that these parent are listed in various places. However, List of Marilyns in the Northern Highlands does not seem to provide a specific citation. Can you point to the external source which verifies, for example, Ben More Assynt's 'parent' being Sgurr Mor (Fannichs) (which should probably be Sgurr Mor (Fannich), but that's another story). Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is OR, the concept of prominence parentage has been around for some time. I don't think the parentages need citations; parents are already listed on the List of peaks by prominence and the metric of prominence parent is unambiguously defined at topographic prominence. To my mind, it is down to whether this is of sufficient interest to justify the occupation of a line in the mountain boxes. Personally, I would say that this is a good measure of the most closely linked higher neighbour, which is of sufficient general interest. I would be interested to read the take of User:Spireguy on this issue. Viewfinder 13:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Mark J 14:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Re your sources question; the only source I know of is a spreadsheet by Alan Dawson, the author of the Marilyns list and therefore definitely a reputable source. It's available at the 'files' section of the Yahoo! Group rhb, although you have to be a member of the group to join. This inaccessibility to the general public is, I believe, a reason why the data was transferred to Wikipedia so everyone could view it. The URL is here by the way. Mark J 14:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the sources. The question of relevance remains and it's hard to evaluate for the Munro's (with which I am more familiar) without seeing a list. For example, I can see that listing Macdui as the parent of the Cairngorms, and Sgurr Mor for the Fannichs might have a meaningful purpose, as they are clearly the highest peaks in their districts. It is however hard to see how Sgurr Mor is any sense other than the logic of whatever arithmetic is involved, the 'parent' of Ben More Assynt. 'Ben', after all, tends to be a designation given to the highest peak in a given area. If there are lots of examples of the former kind I'd tend to support the idea. If however it is mostly a fairly artificial set of geometrical relationships, I can't see the point. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for asking! In increasing order of importance for me:
  • Re the sources issue, there are some sources for parents such as bivouac (The Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia) and Peakbagger. Both are reasonably reliable on this matter. So (a species of) parent info could be added for some peaks without OR. However in most parts of the world parent info is harder to come by than simple prominence info; e.g. Peaklist doesn't list parents (currently). (Disclaimer: both Viewfinder and I have an association with Peaklist.)
  • I disagree with Mark J's claim that there is an unambiguous way of finding "the" parent. If one reads the section on parents as he suggests, you will see that there are multiple definitions of "parent", which can often give very different answers. (The "prominence parent" is only one type of parent; and in fact, there are even more reasonable definitions of "parent" than listed on the topographic prominence page, such as variations on "nearest higher neighbor.") Putting in a "parent" line in the infobox would essentially endorse one definition or another. That is (IMO) definitely OR. So that is a very large problem if one wanted to use the "parent" line.
  • Ben MacDui brings up the common complaint about any definition of parent (although the complaint applies more strongly to some definitions than others), namely that fairly independent peaks have distant parents. In such cases, the direct relevance of the parent is less obvious, and the choice of one definition over another seems more arbitrary. One can look at two examples: (1) A person glancing at Mount Williamson may not have a good idea where that peak is, but may have a good idea of where Mount Whitney, Williamson's parent (by any reasonable definition), is. Since Williamson is close to Whitney, the parent helps the reader to quickly locate Williamson, in a vague but useful way. (It may be much more relevant to the reader that Will. is near Whitney than what its exact Lat/Long are.) (2) Similarly, a person glancing at Dhaulagiri would see that its parent is K2. An incorrect conclusion to draw would be that these peaks are neighbors; a correct but not very informative conclusion is that they are both in South Asia; a correct and interesting, but specialized conclusion is that there is a low saddle preventing the parent path from going to Mount Everest, which is a lot closer than K2. Unfortunately the first conclusion is the most likely one to be drawn by the average reader; if they know that the peaks are not neighbors, they will most likely just be confused.
Overall, I think that in the specific context of the List of peaks by prominence or the topographic prominence page, parents, as defined by prominence concepts, are interesting and useful. But as a proposed universal feature of a mountain, parents are nonunique, too closely tied to the specific concerns of prominence, and too confusing in too many instances. So I don't think that there should be a "parent" line in the infobox. -- Spireguy 03:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Spireguy. I get your point about the different definitions of parent, but I must maintain that (especially in the light of what you and others have said about the issue) that I am only planning to do this for the British Isles. This eliminates the sources question, as there is a reliable source for the data (as listed above). This also eliminates the question of different types of parent, since prominence parentage is the only definition which has ever been used in Britain. I'll just go into this briefly.
'Encirclement' parents, as I keep saying, break down when the key col approaches sea level. Using this definition, the parent of any low-lying bump next to the sea would be Ben Nevis - and that is certainly irrelevant and confusing by any meaning of the word.
Similarly 'height' parentage doesn't work in Britain because of the wide range in height difference. For example, if a cutoff of 2000ft is used, the parent of every hill in S England would be somewhere in the Pennines! Again this is confusing and unhelpful.
Thirdly, in Britain parent does almost always refer to nearest higher neighbour - so the confusion that Spireguy mentioned in his post is not likely to occur. If there is a confusing situation, then I suggest that a note be made in the 'Topography' section explaining why the parent is different. Such a note would also help users to understand the topography of the region.
To Ben MacDui; I'm glad you agree that the parent line is useful when referred to in the context of a small group (such as your Cairngorms or the Fannaichs). However, if you're going to define 'parent' for some peaks, there isn't a lot of point not defining it for other peaks, and referred to in the context of larger 'groups' such as the NW Highlands, the parent still has a lot of meaning, directing you up through still larger 'groups' such as the entire Grampians, until you reach the whole of BN. Start small, end large.

(joke) (I can understand that you're a little surprised and shocked to discover, after all this time, that Ben Nevis is actually your dad. I suggest a little family reconciliation is in order. Maybe you should invite his other children Carn Eige, Ben Alder, Snowdon etc.)

Whew. Mark J 08:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not so much surprising as absurd. If I told you that Peter Crouch was your grandfather you'd feel much the same - especially if you were older than he! Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Although he may be higher and more prominent than me! Mark J 09:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark J: please note that the same infobox is used for mountains all across the globe: the row in the infobox can be used by any editor for any peak. In my Wiki-experience, if there is a parameter or feature available in a template, it will get used in ways that the template editor did not intend. I predict this row will be used for peaks outside Britain.

I think we're trying to figure out whether the row is of value to many readers. In fact, this corresponds to the advice given in the manual of style, which cautions against infoboxes that have a large number of optional fields and asks whether an infobox field is of value, and will it be used in a large number of articles.

I, for one, have never worried about prominence parent of a WP peak --- I mentally situate a peak based on its Location and Range rows, and if I am confused, I click through the Coordinates link and look at a topo map. But, if enough editors think that prominence parent is useful for readers, I can see leaving it in.

hike395 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if people are sufficiently taken with the idea to want to start using it for peaks in other countries, I think we should let them, as long as they cite sources. I know I've said this already, but IMO one of the most useful features of the row is the ability to navigate up through the hierarchy of peaks, thus placing each peak carefully within the system. I think that some people will find this option appealing.

I suggest a trial period - maybe a week or two. If by the end of that period we are overwhelmed by confused readers, alarmed editors, bitter internal disputes over the meaning of parent, and rampant use of the row in other countries, then I'll certainly rethink. But so far as I can see, none of the four above have happened yet. Mark J 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-relevant point: Spireguy said, "there are some sources for parents such as bivouac (The Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia) and Peakbagger. Both are reasonably reliable on this matter."
I'm not real familiar with the CME, but what I've seen on peakbagger pages is 'Nearest Higher Neigbor', not any kind of prominence parent. Indeed, its glossary page says,
"The [Nearest Topographic Higher Peak] is not to be confused with the "Prominence Parent", which is the generally defined as the peak that will be the high point of a theoretical island if the ocean were to rise to just below the key col for a given peak. So, for example, for Mount McKinley (Denali), the [NTHP] is Chimborazo, the first higher peak you encounter as you move south along the continental divide. The Prominence Parent would be Aconcagua, since that would be the high point of an island with narrow isthmus at the key col. The Peakbagger.com database does not store Prominence Parent information."
(Which is of course the definition of 'Island Parent', but never mind.)
But if we do want a general location, to say that <obscure peak> is in the vicinity of <less obscure peak>, putting in the NHN the way peakbagger does it, with distance, direction, and linked name might not be a bad idea.
I should add that I have no objection to parentage being listed, provided of course that there's a reliable source.
—wwoods 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That's good to know.
I think you're right about the peakbagger data, thanks for bringing that up. Fortunately, there is a reliable source for British Isles information here. Mark J 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait: hold on. I think it would be quite confusing if North American peaks used NHN, while British peaks used Prominence Parent. I think we should stick with one or the other (assuming that there are reliable sources for enough peaks around the globe). hike395 06:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Double-column tables

Would someone who knows more than me tell me how to add peaks to double-column tables such as Mont Blanc Massif and Pennine Alps? There are lots of mountains that need adding, but I can't see how to do it without reordering every single pair of entries, which can't be right. Thanks. Ericoides 11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I'd say you have a problem. My suggestion would be to undertake a one-off exercise of disentangling the pairs and replace the table with an independent set of double columns that can be manipulated more easily. There is an example at List of islands of Scotland#Smaller offshore islands, which is subject to fairly regular adjustment. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion and the example, Ben MacDui. They are now both sorted. Ericoides 07:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mountains/Archive_5&oldid=1137373511"