This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I still have to further cite and tidy up this page in various ways; including what to do about parallel citations from GNIS (for each name of the same peak; which sometimes vary in coordinates, though usually be 1 second of longitude only; plus how to fit in the BCGNIS and CGNBD citations and unofficial sites/links like bivouac and peakbagger links). But just to note there are other peaks named Boundary Peak, which seems to beg a disambiguation page because of others in NV and NM and elsewhere; but one is in the Yakutat region and is unnumbered - U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Boundary Peak, 5194' - and I'm not sure it's a "treaty peak" and may just have that name because it's near/on the boundary. Also I'm very curious where BP's No.s 1-14 and other gaps in the numbers are; maybe they're only Boundary Monuments or Boundary Points, I'll look into that later. I have to check over this page because it seems the GNIS catalogue search gave me the same thing a couple of times, and maybe I missed some that should be here. Skookum1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, why did you omit the boundary peaks in the Haines and Skagway area (Van Wagenen, Foster, Ashmun, Raymond, Seltat, Prinsep, etc.)?
I'm thinking that maybe the list can be broken into three setions for hte better functioning of GeoGroupTemplate; one that's just the Panhandle from Portland Canal to the White Pass or Chilkoot Pass or Chilkat Pass (Chilkat being the boundary of the Boundary Ranges, actually....), another for the Fairweather Range, another for St. Elias-Kluane.....the current "county" names are only a result of using GNIS to build the table; IMO the better thing to do is name the range/icefield and/or park that something's in. Skookum1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is the title of this article "... of the Alaska-British Columbia border"? Because the list includes AlaskaâYukon border peaks, shouldn't it be List of Boundary Peaks of the Canada â United States border or List of Boundary Peaks of the AlaskaâCanada border? Good Olâfactory (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
for now, though I did resize them smaller so they weren't so bukly, I've made the GNIS citations title-less; they'd have been too buiky to fit in the table; if they're all converted into refs their full titles can be displayed, though those would all ahve to be typed/copied in as I did with the name= fields in the coords. what I got thinking, also, is doing that there's no need for three separate primary-source columns; Peakbagger and Bivouac are secondary sources, though both are based in USGS/BCGNIS/CGNDB/BAsemap data; all five (or more) could just go in one column; many of these peaks have other citations or are otherwise notable; the comments field could include a brief description of who each individual named is; or a relative location to the nearest settlement. tag off because each and every item here is a citation; it's how I built the list....why there are blanks in teh numerical order is probably to do with peaks that were part of negotiations but which never reached the treaty itself; if they could be sourced that would be very interesting; i.e. to see where they were... Skookum1 ( talk) 05:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
{{ help}}I just tried formatting the gnis refs and coord labels and in the process somehow the coords format has broken; I don't see any code difference between those that work and those that do; the error begins at Boundary Peak 84/Mount Brundage and repeats from there.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that these will only be found for named, i.e. not numbered peaks; there are no "Boundary Peak" listings in either CGNDB or in the Atlas of Canada. Skookum1 ( talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably no need for a second table, as tables can be sorted by name or by boundary peak number. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.133.131 ( talk) 07:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It was titled that way not only because of the plethora of officially named "Border Peak X" items in it, some of which do have other names, but both names are official; many have no other name. "Border Peaks" is specified in the text of the treaty, as I recall; this was named that way because of that. The move was ill-advised and not following sources. and IMO should be reverted; it was not a legitimate move and was unresearched. An RM should have been held, and the sources read. Lower case-ing things on a knee-jerk basis is not acceptable. Skookum1 ( talk) 09:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I happened to come by here last night and found that the elevation sort function in the tables is not working right; there's half a dozen that sort from highest to the fifth/sixth-lowest, then it starts from the 4000' range and goes up from there, rather than down; doesn't appear to have anything to do with the humber of digits/integers in the number, which I thought maybe was the case. Has there been some change in table codes or some other change to a cite code or something that could cause this malfunction? (try it yourself, you'll see what I mean) Skookum1 ( talk) 05:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
{{convert|5151|ft|m|abbr=on|disp=br|sortable=on}}
, giving:I've resolved an issue with tables not sorting properly by elevation (see previous comment), but they could be improved further. I'm not myself sure of how the dual names (number + usual name) work, or what to do about peaks having separate references under each name. Things that I think would be an improvement:
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I still have to further cite and tidy up this page in various ways; including what to do about parallel citations from GNIS (for each name of the same peak; which sometimes vary in coordinates, though usually be 1 second of longitude only; plus how to fit in the BCGNIS and CGNBD citations and unofficial sites/links like bivouac and peakbagger links). But just to note there are other peaks named Boundary Peak, which seems to beg a disambiguation page because of others in NV and NM and elsewhere; but one is in the Yakutat region and is unnumbered - U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Boundary Peak, 5194' - and I'm not sure it's a "treaty peak" and may just have that name because it's near/on the boundary. Also I'm very curious where BP's No.s 1-14 and other gaps in the numbers are; maybe they're only Boundary Monuments or Boundary Points, I'll look into that later. I have to check over this page because it seems the GNIS catalogue search gave me the same thing a couple of times, and maybe I missed some that should be here. Skookum1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, why did you omit the boundary peaks in the Haines and Skagway area (Van Wagenen, Foster, Ashmun, Raymond, Seltat, Prinsep, etc.)?
I'm thinking that maybe the list can be broken into three setions for hte better functioning of GeoGroupTemplate; one that's just the Panhandle from Portland Canal to the White Pass or Chilkoot Pass or Chilkat Pass (Chilkat being the boundary of the Boundary Ranges, actually....), another for the Fairweather Range, another for St. Elias-Kluane.....the current "county" names are only a result of using GNIS to build the table; IMO the better thing to do is name the range/icefield and/or park that something's in. Skookum1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is the title of this article "... of the Alaska-British Columbia border"? Because the list includes AlaskaâYukon border peaks, shouldn't it be List of Boundary Peaks of the Canada â United States border or List of Boundary Peaks of the AlaskaâCanada border? Good Olâfactory (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
for now, though I did resize them smaller so they weren't so bukly, I've made the GNIS citations title-less; they'd have been too buiky to fit in the table; if they're all converted into refs their full titles can be displayed, though those would all ahve to be typed/copied in as I did with the name= fields in the coords. what I got thinking, also, is doing that there's no need for three separate primary-source columns; Peakbagger and Bivouac are secondary sources, though both are based in USGS/BCGNIS/CGNDB/BAsemap data; all five (or more) could just go in one column; many of these peaks have other citations or are otherwise notable; the comments field could include a brief description of who each individual named is; or a relative location to the nearest settlement. tag off because each and every item here is a citation; it's how I built the list....why there are blanks in teh numerical order is probably to do with peaks that were part of negotiations but which never reached the treaty itself; if they could be sourced that would be very interesting; i.e. to see where they were... Skookum1 ( talk) 05:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
{{ help}}I just tried formatting the gnis refs and coord labels and in the process somehow the coords format has broken; I don't see any code difference between those that work and those that do; the error begins at Boundary Peak 84/Mount Brundage and repeats from there.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that these will only be found for named, i.e. not numbered peaks; there are no "Boundary Peak" listings in either CGNDB or in the Atlas of Canada. Skookum1 ( talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably no need for a second table, as tables can be sorted by name or by boundary peak number. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.133.131 ( talk) 07:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It was titled that way not only because of the plethora of officially named "Border Peak X" items in it, some of which do have other names, but both names are official; many have no other name. "Border Peaks" is specified in the text of the treaty, as I recall; this was named that way because of that. The move was ill-advised and not following sources. and IMO should be reverted; it was not a legitimate move and was unresearched. An RM should have been held, and the sources read. Lower case-ing things on a knee-jerk basis is not acceptable. Skookum1 ( talk) 09:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I happened to come by here last night and found that the elevation sort function in the tables is not working right; there's half a dozen that sort from highest to the fifth/sixth-lowest, then it starts from the 4000' range and goes up from there, rather than down; doesn't appear to have anything to do with the humber of digits/integers in the number, which I thought maybe was the case. Has there been some change in table codes or some other change to a cite code or something that could cause this malfunction? (try it yourself, you'll see what I mean) Skookum1 ( talk) 05:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
{{convert|5151|ft|m|abbr=on|disp=br|sortable=on}}
, giving:I've resolved an issue with tables not sorting properly by elevation (see previous comment), but they could be improved further. I'm not myself sure of how the dual names (number + usual name) work, or what to do about peaks having separate references under each name. Things that I think would be an improvement: