Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Categories relating to the Alps articles
I have tried to pull together a list of all the likely main Categories any Alps-related article of interest to this Project might be expected to be given. Would it be helpful to fill in any obvious gaps and to put a full list on the Project page as part of guidance on article creation? Sub-categories are shown indented Parkywiki (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Refuges of the Alps (soon to be renamed Category:Mountain huts in the Alps)
- Category:Alpine guides
- Category:Climate_of_the_Alps
- Category:Geology of the Alps
- Category:Ecology of the Alps
- Category:Protected areas of the Alps
- Category:Alpine flora (for any high altitude region in the world)
- Category:Flora of the Alps (just for the European Alps)
- Category:History of the Alps
- Category:Rivers of the Alps
- Category:Lakes of the Alps
- Category:Valleys of the Alps
- Category:Mountain passes of the Alps
- Category:Transport in the Alps
Thank you Parkywiki. You can display automatically the categories in a category tree (which I added to the project page). I can imagine many more categories for the Alps (like caves, dams, bridges, cable cars, castles). Just one point: almost every Alpine country has a large number of mountains outside the Alps, hence you cannot mix category:Alps with national categories (see WP:SUBCAT), unless you have categories like Lakes of the Swiss Alps (the only of the kind though), or maybe very vague topics. Note: That doesn't mean you cannot add on the top of the category page, see also these other related categories:..., but the categories in question should not be subcategories. See for example Category:Mountains of the Alps. ZachG (Talk) 17:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! I knew there must be a clever way of showing them all. Thank you for putting it on the Project Page. It was a useful exercise, manually pulling them all together - I probably need to read up a bit further in this area. Parkywiki (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Me too. Actually, I'm not sure what to do with some categories: Glaciers for instance: should we have country catagories within the Alps category (I think France and Italy have glaciers outside the Alps)? Personally, I'd tend to fully separate country categories from the Alps category. I had a look at the category tree and I found completely unrelated categories, such as Fountains in Bern (no joke). ZachG (Talk) 15:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's not worth expending effort refined category structure when there is still so little worthwhile content to put in them. I'm quite happy to see the Glacier category remain as it is. I think all that remains of the glaciers in the Pyrenees (down from 3,300 hectares to c 390 ha in 100 years) are on the Spanish side. If anything more than just a snowfield does remain in France, it's highly unlikely to ever get an article created about it (even though some of the smallest glaciers can still have a significant impact - just see Tête Rousse Glacier for example). I can't think where else Italy might have a glacier tucked away, other than the Alps unless someone has tried to sneak in another extension of the Graian Alps up into Norway, which wouldn't surprise me that much). By way of example of limited content: of the 38 most obvious glaciers on the French side of the Mont Blanc massif, only four have any articles at all about them in English, with about 29 on French wiki, though many are still stubs. French wiki has split the Alpine glaciers into both countries and massif, but I can't see it's worth worrying about right now, and the current classification does let one see the totality of the content, country by country, which ought to be an incentive to content creation. Anyone up for getting the Jungfrau or the Zugspitze articles ready for a GA nomination, instead? Parkywiki (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. For the GA nominations: I think the Zugspitze and the Matterhorn would be the best candidates. On the other hand, it certainly would be rude to leave a lady waiting for too long... ZachG (Talk) 14:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the Matterhorn looks a good candidate, too. You seem to have put a lot of work into that, and I'd be happy to look it over. I decided to put my plan to rework Mont Blanc on hold for now, having spent the last 3 months on the Mont Blanc massif, and have just nominated it for GA status. Bermicourt has done a lot with Zugspitze, though both it and the Matterhorn do need a bit of a clean up. The link-checker in the toolbox at WP:FAC is quite helpful for that. What's the concensus for the way forward? Elect one article to focus on en masse, or do them all piecemeal? Parkywiki (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. For the GA nominations: I think the Zugspitze and the Matterhorn would be the best candidates. On the other hand, it certainly would be rude to leave a lady waiting for too long... ZachG (Talk) 14:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's not worth expending effort refined category structure when there is still so little worthwhile content to put in them. I'm quite happy to see the Glacier category remain as it is. I think all that remains of the glaciers in the Pyrenees (down from 3,300 hectares to c 390 ha in 100 years) are on the Spanish side. If anything more than just a snowfield does remain in France, it's highly unlikely to ever get an article created about it (even though some of the smallest glaciers can still have a significant impact - just see Tête Rousse Glacier for example). I can't think where else Italy might have a glacier tucked away, other than the Alps unless someone has tried to sneak in another extension of the Graian Alps up into Norway, which wouldn't surprise me that much). By way of example of limited content: of the 38 most obvious glaciers on the French side of the Mont Blanc massif, only four have any articles at all about them in English, with about 29 on French wiki, though many are still stubs. French wiki has split the Alpine glaciers into both countries and massif, but I can't see it's worth worrying about right now, and the current classification does let one see the totality of the content, country by country, which ought to be an incentive to content creation. Anyone up for getting the Jungfrau or the Zugspitze articles ready for a GA nomination, instead? Parkywiki (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Me too. Actually, I'm not sure what to do with some categories: Glaciers for instance: should we have country catagories within the Alps category (I think France and Italy have glaciers outside the Alps)? Personally, I'd tend to fully separate country categories from the Alps category. I had a look at the category tree and I found completely unrelated categories, such as Fountains in Bern (no joke). ZachG (Talk) 15:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! I knew there must be a clever way of showing them all. Thank you for putting it on the Project Page. It was a useful exercise, manually pulling them all together - I probably need to read up a bit further in this area. Parkywiki (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Lyskamm listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lyskamm to be moved to Liskamm. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Monte Rosa listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Monte Rosa to be moved to Dufourspitze. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Monte Rosa Massif listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Monte Rosa Massif to be moved to Monte Rosa. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Mountain Hut article for deletion
As I suggested a month or so ago, I have now put forward the Refuge du Nid d'Aigle article for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refuge du Nid d'Aigle to contribute your thoughts on this matter. I am unsure whether this needs to be promoted elsewhere such as WP:Mountains? I hope you'll feel, like me, that its removal serves to support the work of this Project, rather than undermine it.Parkywiki (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Mont Blanc height Template (MB_altitude)
In an attempt to get unified heights stated across all articles referring Mont Blanc's current official altitude of 4,808.73 metres (15,776.7 ft), I have created this template. So far I have only used {{MB_altitude}} within the Mont Blanc massif article referred to above. But as this snow-capped summit seems set to be formally remeasured every two years, I think it might prove helpful. One change to the template will update every article about Mont Blanc that uses it.
I've set the template to convert into feet, too, but note that it doesn't work in Infoboxes with the 'elevation_m=' element, but that it does work if this is simply edited down to 'elevation='. I thought the Template's Talk page should be used to ensure that the current height, and references to it are listed, and to promote discussion over any disagreement on the official height before the template is edited.
I think others in the Alps Project with more technical experience than me ought to have some input to this idea before promoting it more widely. Alternatively, let's kill it stone dead, if you think it's not necessary. Parkywiki (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Good Article proposal: Mont Blanc massif
I have nominated the Mont Blanc massif article that I've recently been working on for WP:GA status. If it's successful I then plan to take it to Peer Review prior to a further nomination for WP:FA status, as I have done my best to edit it to meet the FA standards.
I would really welcome all suggestions or positive criticism anyone can add, either here or on the article's talk page. I think I've reached a point where I'm no longer able to see the wood for the trees (or is it can't see the mountains for the rocks?).Parkywiki (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update:
Done The article has just achieved GA status and has now been submitted for peer review to guide its passage up to Featured Article standard. Parkywiki (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This project
Hi I spend time tagging pages for projects, where it seems if talk page project tagging hasnt been the strength of a project, I try to augment the background work required to get a handle on exactly how many category pages have the correct project tag.
Today I was trying to improve european mountain tags, to find this project... white talk pages for a considerable amount of the categories related to the project. I ventured in with the mountains tag, only to find the existence of this project.
I am wondering if those who watch this page are aware of how the template/background structure remains incomplete. Is there anyone interested in getting help so that assessments can get beyond the importance into the quality part of assessment as well?
It seems maybe somebody dropped the bundle or left at some early stage, or was there something else that I have missed in the history of this project? JarrahTree 08:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jarrah Tree. Thank you very much for you interest in supporting project assessment for Mountains of the Alps. Whilst having an interest in certain individual mountains (I'm off to climb this one next week), I've not really been involved in article assessment, apart from making the odd change here and there. But I think looking at quality assessments is well worthwhile doing. (It is quite sad how little there is here on some really significant summits). I think Bermicourt probably has a better handle on how well project assessment has been done in the past, and what may need doing. I am happy to assist, but until the autumn I will have very little free time. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jarrah Tree. I joined this project because I'm a translator with an interest in this part of the world and have created a lot of mountain articles. To be honest, I tag all my mountain articles as Importance=Low and Quality=Start by default, unless there is a good reason not to e.g. it's clearly a Stub or C-Class, it's the highest mountain in a range. The criterion "Alps-importance" was added to the project tag by the parent project, WikiProject Mountains; I don't know how useful that is and I haven't always used it. But looking at the stats, clearly a lot of editors don't even do a basic assessment. The quality criteria are reasonably well established so that should be easy to assess. And there are guidelines here which could assist with importance assessment. This was discussed at above a while back. I don't mind working with others to drive down the number of unassessed / wrongly assessed articles. I also don't mind helping with destubbing, although that's a much bigger exercise. Bermicourt (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- G'day - I was initially concerned that most categories in the whole of wikipedia with the word 'mountain' in the title did not have any sign of a project tag on the talk page (and many still dont), then when I came to the alps, I didnt see any sign of project tagging in category talk pages at all - but then i uncovered a few:
- wikiproject mountains - alps taskforce
- G'day - I was initially concerned that most categories in the whole of wikipedia with the word 'mountain' in the title did not have any sign of a project tag on the talk page (and many still dont), then when I came to the alps, I didnt see any sign of project tagging in category talk pages at all - but then i uncovered a few:
- so my initial task if keep at it will be simply to correct project and category tags to wikiproject mountains of the alps, then I will seek advice from those who know better than I do about fixing up the articles by quality part of this project (which is more or less missing) - but I am a very scattered focused editor - it will happen over some time. patience please JarrahTree 14:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Don't worry; we could use some help and, over time, if we gnaw away at it, it will get better. Thanks for engaging. Bermicourt (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the positive response, all I have to do is get around a very dicey internet connection issue :( JarrahTree 08:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I am equally interested to help. As I read it, alpine huts and path would be also within the scope of this project, or do I see that wrong? Agathoclea (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Agathoclea: Yes, I would think that high alpine huts would fall within the scope of this project, but not the lower tourist hotels and general mountain restaurants. As for 'paths', I'm unsure quite what you're thinking of, but classic mountain trails like the TMB, Haute Route, parts of the GR5 etc would be deemed relevant to this project. See also Category:Hiking trails in Switzerland and other surrounding countries. However, I don't think many/any(?) have actually been assessed or tagged under our banner. I see no reason why not, though. (Our Portal:Alps introduces an even wider range of topics, including alpine biodiversity, glaciers, lakes etc.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
A flurry of new articles
The last few months have seen a veritable avalanche of new articles relevant to the Alps and this project. I thought I'd list those produced by myself or by fellow climber, User:GentleDjinn. I'd invite anyone to add other articles that have been created recently. Not all have been assessed - so your input is welcome.
- Aiguille de la Brenva
- Aiguille de Toule
- Aiguilles d'Entrèves
- Aiguilles Marbrées - unassessed
- Brenva Glacier - unassessed (DYK nominated)
- Charles François Exchaquet
- Col du Géant - unassessed
- Goûter Hut
- Goûter Route
- Géant Glacier - unassessed
- Grand Flambeau
- Jean-Marc Peillex - unassessed
- Marco e Rosa Hut (created from Redirect)
- Nid d'Aigle - unassessed
- Petite Bosse - unassessed
- Rocher de la Tournette - unassessed
plus (but only really Alps related):
- Andy Nisbet - unassessed (DYK nominated)
I reckon it would be nice to see one or two articles being written on some of the more famous alpine mountain guides, and not just the alpine peaks they first ascended. Any offers? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well done. I'm mainly working in other areas right now, but will probably create, translate or update articles this year in connexion with our visit to Austria. :) Bermicourt (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Great stuff. I went to climb Piz Bernina last summer, but failed (mainly through the combined age of the two of us, which totalled 132 years!) However, I guess I could update Piz Languard and Piz Corvatsch with some photos. Did the full traverse of the latter - sh*tty rock and scarily exposed, despite the easy guidebook grade. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Question
Can you please double check cause Monte Rosa is in Italy and not in Swiss. Additionally you forget in the list Monte Disgrazia, that is kind of an important mountain: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Disgrazia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.112.222 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi IP. Having climbed Monte Rosa and traversed all its summits, I can tell you that it lies in both Switzerland and Italy - just check a map. To which list about Monte Disgrazia are you referring? Nick Moyes (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)