This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Who is Sisson? Where was this published?
While the gallery is perhaps unnecessary, this article ought to have more than one photo. For instance, the view from Puget Sound gives a sense of its ubiquity in the area's landscapes. Stan 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
There are no references. slambo 17:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
How about including more information on the mudflow threat from Rainier to the greater Seattle area from a lahar, as detailed here?
There is a similar (if tiny) reference like this on the talk page for Glacier Mountain I believe. Something specific to Rainier that can wipe out lower King County might be worth a section. -- rootology 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I decided that this Wikipedia article on Mount Rainier deserved a geology section. I was a little surprised that, unlike most of the other Cascade volcanoes, Rainier's article didn't have one in the first place. It is indeed a potentially dangerous volcano because of the potential for large lahars, and it certainly *has* produced huge lahars in the not-so-distant past. NorthernFire 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Test edit.
I took out "Because of its scenic dominance, Seattle/Tacoma-area residents often refer to it simply as 'the Mountain.'"
I've never, ever heard anyone refer to it as just "the mountain." If I were to hear "the mountain," I would probably think of Mt. St. Helens, since Seattlites are excited about its recent activity.
I'm not sure that "the mountain" being Rainier is like "the city" being New York. What is the source of that info? It's true that people in Seattle (and Tacoma even more) say things like "the mountain is out today". But if you said that to someone in Portland, OR, I'd bet they would think you meant Mt Hood. My understanding of wikipedia is that it doesn't matter how tall or far away Rainier is from Seattle -- what matters is citing a reputable source, no? Pfly 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there was no mention of the U.F.O. sighting in the 1940's over Mt. Raineer. Does anyone have any specific facts to add. BiggKwell 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to vandalize this article, I would suggest you identify yourself in the future. BiggKwell 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Point taken about it being linked earlier in the section, but (i) the link was quite a way back, so I do not think the delinking case is clear cut, (ii) the reason for the delinking was not given by the previous editor, and (iii) I cannot find the relevant guideline about earlier linking in WP:MOS or WP:CONTEXT. Viewfinder 01:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
the last picture (View from the space needle) provides the best vista, but I wish you could get a sharper image. There are plenty available, even on postcards. Dunnhaupt 17:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Replaced the main image with a more life-sized version of the summit. Anybody unhappy with the new picture? Murali
May I suggest http://ragingsamster.googlepages.com/rainfinal.jpg as a photo to use - I took this February of 2006 at south 277th near SR 167 in Auburn. It does establish the prominence of the mountain in the Puget Sound area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragingsamster ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Would this site benefit from having information about local accommodations? I think a lot of people come here to research a trip to the area. Is it appropriate to add a link to our Mt. Rainier Cabins on this page?
I noticed that composite volcano links to stratovolcano, I propose changing the type to stratovolcano and replacing all references to composite volcano also. -- Withamk@usa.net 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
sorry forgot to link, stratovolcano -- Withamk@usa.net 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the Ascent records section for a number of reasons:
Lastly, I don't know what it means to say that these records are official. Who decides that a record is official?
-- Patleahy 06:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Over here The sources were given and then removed by you I believe -- the links to Rainier Mountaineering Inc (who timed Whittaker et al, and two links for the organizations/companies who timed Howitt. I'd like to add a wikipedia link to Whittaker as he was the first US citizen to summit Everest and one of the world's best Rainier climbers and co-founder of Rainier Mountaineering Inc back then. Do you have anything on him to link to?
Over here A $5000 offer was made in 2004 by D.Howitt to C.Kellogg, to have a Rainier speed climbed timed by independent timers. C.Kellogg claimed two record times both untimed and unverified, one in 1998, then 2004. Prior to 2004, D.Howitt offered $500 and then $1500, offer refused by C.Kellogg and instead he did a unverified 2004 climb and claimed a new record and publicized it widely and profited from it with sponsors etc. Then D.Howitt makes offer later in 2004 after this climb for $5000. Offer refused by C.Kellogg. Unprescedented offer as climbing is a kind of poor-man's discipline for most and this is huge amount of $ for such a thing. Offer made publically, to CK directly, and through two speed climbing resources [ [2]] Hans Florine, and Bill Wright [ [3]]
i'm surprised not to see mention of this on the talk page already; are there archives to the talk page i don't know about?
being somewhat anal retentive picky, it disturbes me that the elevation is given as both 14,410 and 14,411, in the text and in the info box. i understand that the accuracy of the measurement (what with snow and all) is probably only plus/minus a foot anyway, but i'd like to see some internal consistency.
14,410 is used on the National Park official website, and (noncredible source, i know) is what i've always been told. also, the metric equivalent is closer to this elevation.
14,411 is used in the U.S. Geological Survey official website (click on Washignton link), and is also used in the Mount Rainier National Park article (well, it was before i changed it).
I'm going to change it to 14,410, based on the theory that Mount Rainier National Park should match the official NPS website, and Mount Rainier should match Mount Rainier National Park.
i'm hoping/assuming this isn't going to start some lame edit war. if someone feels strongly about the 14,411, feel free to change it back, but for my peace of mind, please change it back everywhere, including the national park article. -- barneca ( talk) 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There are three issues (at least) here:
Given these issues, I would stick with the 14,410 figure. I have seen the 14,411 figure as well, and had it described to me as a slightly more accurate survey, but I don't see a compelling reason to use it. Internal consistency is of course very important as well. So my vote is to use 14,410 everywhere, unless someone can give a source that is better and clearly refers to the actual summit, with snow cover. -- Spireguy 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I just changed the elevation from 14,410 to 14,411. I regret not doing so before participating in this part of the discussion (I searched for "14411" without the comma so didn't see it). That said, I do think 14,411 is the more accurate number, according to http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/150291/mount-rainier.html. See the "A Word on the Height of the Mountain" section with the statement "National Park Service and all other official sources recognize the height as 14,411.05 feet. This is based on a recent survey of the mountain." In summary, the old 1956 triangulation survey can't compare to modern satellite results. Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a consensus as to the correct height? I see it has been changed back to 14,410 ft. -- Burntnickel ( talk) 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reverting the changes made to metricize this article. I am doing this because this article is about a location in the United States and most of the sources use U.S. customary units. I believe this is the correct thing to do according to WP:UNITS. Also some of the changes were actually wrong (e.g. 93 miles is not 102 km). Where the article does not contain a metric value I am putting one in as a secondly unit. -- Patleahy 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
To me, 6 photos of Mount Rainier in the article is too many: beyond ~3, they don't add any information. What do people think? I want to transwiki some of them to Commons, if they are not already there. hike395 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the page from the Category "Sacred mountains", not because I don't believe it, but because there is nothing about sacredness in the article. I know the mountain plays a role in native mythology, but am not aware of it being specifically sacred. To whom? A reference and something in the main text would be useful. Just adding a category only confuses me. Can we have some info about it? Thanks! Pfly 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Need "red dot on" map showing Mt. Rainier's location in the State of Washington. 24.93.190.134 03:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Volcanoevacuationroute.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the interesting (to me, anyway) facts about Rainier is that it's readily visible from major cities - people coming to Seattle or Tacoma are often startled by its omnipresence on the horizon. I thought the Tacoma picture was useful as an illustration of that, although there might be other better candidates. Right now none of the pictures even hint as how close it is to civilization. Stan 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following content should be moved to Rainier Brewing Company. A reader looking for this content would be more likely to look for it there. That article provides more background than this one. Any objections? Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
After Rainier Brewing Company resumed producing "Rainier Beer" after the end of Prohibition and its advertisements became ubiquitous in the Seattle-Tacoma area, a rumor began circulating that the brewery's owner, Emil Sick, had bribed a Washington state committee with free beer to promote the name "Rainier". This, however, is an urban legend and can still be heard today among Tacoma residents who preferred the alternate name. Sick did, however, purchase the local baseball team and named them the Seattle Rainiers for this purpose. [beer 1]
- ^ Star, Rick (August 1999). "Rainier Brewery: Rest in Peace". Northwest Beer Notes. Retrieved 2007-11-30.
I did a minor cleanup for reference. -- DRoll ( talk) 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm here because Tahoma redirects here, or the mountain redirect from the disambig page does anyway; I'd always thought that this word was for Rainier in particular, but in J.A. Costello's Indian History of the Northwest - Salish, p.82 it says in the original language (which?) it meant "a lofty mountain, but not to any peak in particular". Not saying Costello was right, just thought it might be mentioned here somewhere. Once etymology is established a comment on the original language/meaning should go on teh Tahoma disambiguation page. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Malonecr7 uploaded a new image and changed the one used in the infobox; but the original image showed more of the mountain and was more illustrative of the mountain itself. I agree that the newer image was of better overall quality, but it shows a very small portion of the mountain itself, so in my opinion it fails to adequately illustrate the size of the mountain. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
More editing back-n-forth for the infobox image. Which one do people this is better to illustrate Mount Rainier:
Let's discuss, please state your preference below, with reasons. Thanks!
Prefer right --- in general, WP photos of mountains should show the whole mountain unobstructed by clouds or other things. hike395 ( talk) 15:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Prefer right --- I think all three are OK, but I agree that the one on the right shows more of the mountain. In particular, I like that it shows a valley bottom, to get the full vertical scale. -- Spireguy ( talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Prefer right or center but I think it inappropriate to express a more specific preference because the right photograph is my work. My reasoning is similar to those above. I would add that the left photograph foreground is unappealing. If it is chosen, its color balance should be corrected (the rock is quite blue). Both the center and right image show the White River Valley, but the right image shows more. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
ADDED a new one to chose from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainman8664 ( talk • contribs) 06:47, August 22, 2008
The prominence I listed for the summit is from Peakbagger's Mount Rainier Page. I used the clear prominence. This is the value most often used in Wikipedia in my experience. If you wish to revise this entry again please offer your rational here. It is true that these calculations are not perfectly acurate but the values given at Peakbagger are well considered and this source is accepted as reliable. Note that he uses NAVD29 but this does not play a part in prominence in North America because the differences cancel out more or less. I'm always open to new information so if I have missed something let me know. DRoll ( talk) 19:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Excellent work, thanks very much. The review is now closed. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk)
04:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I added this image to the page, but it was reverted, because the page "Already has enough pictures." Personally, I feel that the image is more than valid to be on this page. This is the iconic view of Rainier, the one that everyone knows. It's what Seattlites wake up to every day, and I think that it should be documented. Bubsty ( talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Mount Rainier from Spray Park, 1908.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. This image is special mainly because it was taken by Asahel Curtis in 1908. Dcoetzee 03:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the following image be used in the article as illustrative of the crater?
Thanks-- 71.111.194.50 ( talk) 09:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC) (no I did not create the image nor am I associated with the creator in any way)
Is Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting not notable enough to be mentioned in the 'human history' section of the article? -- 98.232.181.201 ( talk) 06:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thought I would just mention this. The article cited as the authority for the elevation of 14,411 ft. states clearly that the result of the survey yielded a NAVD 88 elevation. That figure is not mentioned in the article. It says that the result was converted to a NGVD 29 value which was 14411.1 or 14411.0 feet. WikiProject Mountains states elevations "referencing NGVD 29 should be converted to NAVD 88". This yields and elevation of 14417.4 feet. I'm not advocating any change to the article. – droll [chat] 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a tough one. Ideally we should be consistent throughout and use NAVD 88 for everything, but I can imagine how much flak we would get---and how many reverts we would have to do---if we changed this to 14417. I would propose making it clear that the given elevation is NGVD29, and put somewhere in the article that the NAVD88 elevation would be different. -- Spireguy ( talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I disagree. I see it saying that they measured it in NAVD88 and then converted it back to NGVD29. Here's the confusing bit for me, though: they refer to the following table as a table of both 1988 and 1999 surveys in both NAVD88 and NGVD29, but the table has only two entries for each location, and the title of the table refers only to NGVD29. So I'm thinking that the 14411.0 and 14410.7 figures are NGVD29, as stated. If you put that into VERTCON it does give 14417 for NAVD88. (Note that given that 2 meter difference, it would be quite odd if the NAVD88 elevation were 14411, agreeing with the old NGVD29 elevation.)
-- Spireguy ( talk) 03:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Any thoughts on expanding this section to include analysis and predictions of what a potential eruption could do to Washington's Economy? We may want to consider eventually making it a separate article if we get enough contribution....-- Gniniv ( talk) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Article says mountain was originally named Tahoma or Tacoma. Why the change to Rainier? Certainly not to promote Rainier Beer, right? (Rainier was a local brand which at one time was by far the #1 selling beer in the seattle area. A national company bought it and dumbed down the formula, so it is no longer as prominent.)-- Measure 13:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
The word "Tahoma" is not a native American word for anything. It is an amalgamation of three towns in the area to the northwest of Mt. Rainer. TAylor, HObart, MAple Valley. TAHOMA. It was selected by a vote of school children 1926 as the name of the new Junior High School.
Jerome oneil (
talk)
22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Mt. Rainier is currently being prepared for FA review. Please assist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terra Novus ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded a number of images of the south-southeast side of Mount Rainier taken from near Paradise. Two are high resolution stitched images that may be useful illustrations of the article topic. The smaller, 70 megapixel image is cropped from the larger, 175 megapixel image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've recorded a little pronuciation file: File:En-us-Mount Rainier.ogg. I don't get how to hook this into the {{ IPA-en}} template, but if someone else does, please do so. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
While a nice sentiment to rename the mountain to support a local sports team the State legislature has neither the legal prerogative or the support of historical naming conventions to change the names of prominent geographic peaks. In addition Mount Rainier exists within a national park. The name is not to be changed in any official but merely as a sentiment of support for a single weekend. Leaving the name as Mount Rainier is appropriate for this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.165.1 ( talk) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm proposing replacing the current article lead image with a new photo I took: File:Mount Rainier from the Silver Queen Peak.jpg. Compared with the existing picture, when viewed at full resolution, my photo is technically superior in the following areas:
However, the existing photo is superior in the following areas:
Thoughts? See also: Commons:User_talk:Wsiegmund#New_Mount_Rainier_Photo. dllu (t, c) 21:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
NapoleonX has performed multiple edits where he/she has removed the native name(s) for Mount Rainier from the infobox. I believe that the geographic naming guidelines allow us to include the native names:
and
I would propose restoring Tahoma and Tacoma to the infobox. I think these names are relevant to WP, since they are the basis of names of nearby geographic entities, such as Little Tahoma Peak and Tacoma, Washington.
@ Wsiegmund, Myasuda, Vsmith, and Acroterion: What do other editors think? — hike395 ( talk) 08:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Who is Sisson? Where was this published?
While the gallery is perhaps unnecessary, this article ought to have more than one photo. For instance, the view from Puget Sound gives a sense of its ubiquity in the area's landscapes. Stan 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
There are no references. slambo 17:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
How about including more information on the mudflow threat from Rainier to the greater Seattle area from a lahar, as detailed here?
There is a similar (if tiny) reference like this on the talk page for Glacier Mountain I believe. Something specific to Rainier that can wipe out lower King County might be worth a section. -- rootology 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I decided that this Wikipedia article on Mount Rainier deserved a geology section. I was a little surprised that, unlike most of the other Cascade volcanoes, Rainier's article didn't have one in the first place. It is indeed a potentially dangerous volcano because of the potential for large lahars, and it certainly *has* produced huge lahars in the not-so-distant past. NorthernFire 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Test edit.
I took out "Because of its scenic dominance, Seattle/Tacoma-area residents often refer to it simply as 'the Mountain.'"
I've never, ever heard anyone refer to it as just "the mountain." If I were to hear "the mountain," I would probably think of Mt. St. Helens, since Seattlites are excited about its recent activity.
I'm not sure that "the mountain" being Rainier is like "the city" being New York. What is the source of that info? It's true that people in Seattle (and Tacoma even more) say things like "the mountain is out today". But if you said that to someone in Portland, OR, I'd bet they would think you meant Mt Hood. My understanding of wikipedia is that it doesn't matter how tall or far away Rainier is from Seattle -- what matters is citing a reputable source, no? Pfly 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there was no mention of the U.F.O. sighting in the 1940's over Mt. Raineer. Does anyone have any specific facts to add. BiggKwell 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to vandalize this article, I would suggest you identify yourself in the future. BiggKwell 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Point taken about it being linked earlier in the section, but (i) the link was quite a way back, so I do not think the delinking case is clear cut, (ii) the reason for the delinking was not given by the previous editor, and (iii) I cannot find the relevant guideline about earlier linking in WP:MOS or WP:CONTEXT. Viewfinder 01:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
the last picture (View from the space needle) provides the best vista, but I wish you could get a sharper image. There are plenty available, even on postcards. Dunnhaupt 17:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Replaced the main image with a more life-sized version of the summit. Anybody unhappy with the new picture? Murali
May I suggest http://ragingsamster.googlepages.com/rainfinal.jpg as a photo to use - I took this February of 2006 at south 277th near SR 167 in Auburn. It does establish the prominence of the mountain in the Puget Sound area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragingsamster ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Would this site benefit from having information about local accommodations? I think a lot of people come here to research a trip to the area. Is it appropriate to add a link to our Mt. Rainier Cabins on this page?
I noticed that composite volcano links to stratovolcano, I propose changing the type to stratovolcano and replacing all references to composite volcano also. -- Withamk@usa.net 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
sorry forgot to link, stratovolcano -- Withamk@usa.net 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the Ascent records section for a number of reasons:
Lastly, I don't know what it means to say that these records are official. Who decides that a record is official?
-- Patleahy 06:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Over here The sources were given and then removed by you I believe -- the links to Rainier Mountaineering Inc (who timed Whittaker et al, and two links for the organizations/companies who timed Howitt. I'd like to add a wikipedia link to Whittaker as he was the first US citizen to summit Everest and one of the world's best Rainier climbers and co-founder of Rainier Mountaineering Inc back then. Do you have anything on him to link to?
Over here A $5000 offer was made in 2004 by D.Howitt to C.Kellogg, to have a Rainier speed climbed timed by independent timers. C.Kellogg claimed two record times both untimed and unverified, one in 1998, then 2004. Prior to 2004, D.Howitt offered $500 and then $1500, offer refused by C.Kellogg and instead he did a unverified 2004 climb and claimed a new record and publicized it widely and profited from it with sponsors etc. Then D.Howitt makes offer later in 2004 after this climb for $5000. Offer refused by C.Kellogg. Unprescedented offer as climbing is a kind of poor-man's discipline for most and this is huge amount of $ for such a thing. Offer made publically, to CK directly, and through two speed climbing resources [ [2]] Hans Florine, and Bill Wright [ [3]]
i'm surprised not to see mention of this on the talk page already; are there archives to the talk page i don't know about?
being somewhat anal retentive picky, it disturbes me that the elevation is given as both 14,410 and 14,411, in the text and in the info box. i understand that the accuracy of the measurement (what with snow and all) is probably only plus/minus a foot anyway, but i'd like to see some internal consistency.
14,410 is used on the National Park official website, and (noncredible source, i know) is what i've always been told. also, the metric equivalent is closer to this elevation.
14,411 is used in the U.S. Geological Survey official website (click on Washignton link), and is also used in the Mount Rainier National Park article (well, it was before i changed it).
I'm going to change it to 14,410, based on the theory that Mount Rainier National Park should match the official NPS website, and Mount Rainier should match Mount Rainier National Park.
i'm hoping/assuming this isn't going to start some lame edit war. if someone feels strongly about the 14,411, feel free to change it back, but for my peace of mind, please change it back everywhere, including the national park article. -- barneca ( talk) 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There are three issues (at least) here:
Given these issues, I would stick with the 14,410 figure. I have seen the 14,411 figure as well, and had it described to me as a slightly more accurate survey, but I don't see a compelling reason to use it. Internal consistency is of course very important as well. So my vote is to use 14,410 everywhere, unless someone can give a source that is better and clearly refers to the actual summit, with snow cover. -- Spireguy 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I just changed the elevation from 14,410 to 14,411. I regret not doing so before participating in this part of the discussion (I searched for "14411" without the comma so didn't see it). That said, I do think 14,411 is the more accurate number, according to http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/150291/mount-rainier.html. See the "A Word on the Height of the Mountain" section with the statement "National Park Service and all other official sources recognize the height as 14,411.05 feet. This is based on a recent survey of the mountain." In summary, the old 1956 triangulation survey can't compare to modern satellite results. Thanks, Cruiser1 ( talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a consensus as to the correct height? I see it has been changed back to 14,410 ft. -- Burntnickel ( talk) 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reverting the changes made to metricize this article. I am doing this because this article is about a location in the United States and most of the sources use U.S. customary units. I believe this is the correct thing to do according to WP:UNITS. Also some of the changes were actually wrong (e.g. 93 miles is not 102 km). Where the article does not contain a metric value I am putting one in as a secondly unit. -- Patleahy 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
To me, 6 photos of Mount Rainier in the article is too many: beyond ~3, they don't add any information. What do people think? I want to transwiki some of them to Commons, if they are not already there. hike395 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the page from the Category "Sacred mountains", not because I don't believe it, but because there is nothing about sacredness in the article. I know the mountain plays a role in native mythology, but am not aware of it being specifically sacred. To whom? A reference and something in the main text would be useful. Just adding a category only confuses me. Can we have some info about it? Thanks! Pfly 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Need "red dot on" map showing Mt. Rainier's location in the State of Washington. 24.93.190.134 03:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Volcanoevacuationroute.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the interesting (to me, anyway) facts about Rainier is that it's readily visible from major cities - people coming to Seattle or Tacoma are often startled by its omnipresence on the horizon. I thought the Tacoma picture was useful as an illustration of that, although there might be other better candidates. Right now none of the pictures even hint as how close it is to civilization. Stan 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following content should be moved to Rainier Brewing Company. A reader looking for this content would be more likely to look for it there. That article provides more background than this one. Any objections? Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
After Rainier Brewing Company resumed producing "Rainier Beer" after the end of Prohibition and its advertisements became ubiquitous in the Seattle-Tacoma area, a rumor began circulating that the brewery's owner, Emil Sick, had bribed a Washington state committee with free beer to promote the name "Rainier". This, however, is an urban legend and can still be heard today among Tacoma residents who preferred the alternate name. Sick did, however, purchase the local baseball team and named them the Seattle Rainiers for this purpose. [beer 1]
- ^ Star, Rick (August 1999). "Rainier Brewery: Rest in Peace". Northwest Beer Notes. Retrieved 2007-11-30.
I did a minor cleanup for reference. -- DRoll ( talk) 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm here because Tahoma redirects here, or the mountain redirect from the disambig page does anyway; I'd always thought that this word was for Rainier in particular, but in J.A. Costello's Indian History of the Northwest - Salish, p.82 it says in the original language (which?) it meant "a lofty mountain, but not to any peak in particular". Not saying Costello was right, just thought it might be mentioned here somewhere. Once etymology is established a comment on the original language/meaning should go on teh Tahoma disambiguation page. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Malonecr7 uploaded a new image and changed the one used in the infobox; but the original image showed more of the mountain and was more illustrative of the mountain itself. I agree that the newer image was of better overall quality, but it shows a very small portion of the mountain itself, so in my opinion it fails to adequately illustrate the size of the mountain. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
More editing back-n-forth for the infobox image. Which one do people this is better to illustrate Mount Rainier:
Let's discuss, please state your preference below, with reasons. Thanks!
Prefer right --- in general, WP photos of mountains should show the whole mountain unobstructed by clouds or other things. hike395 ( talk) 15:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Prefer right --- I think all three are OK, but I agree that the one on the right shows more of the mountain. In particular, I like that it shows a valley bottom, to get the full vertical scale. -- Spireguy ( talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Prefer right or center but I think it inappropriate to express a more specific preference because the right photograph is my work. My reasoning is similar to those above. I would add that the left photograph foreground is unappealing. If it is chosen, its color balance should be corrected (the rock is quite blue). Both the center and right image show the White River Valley, but the right image shows more. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
ADDED a new one to chose from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainman8664 ( talk • contribs) 06:47, August 22, 2008
The prominence I listed for the summit is from Peakbagger's Mount Rainier Page. I used the clear prominence. This is the value most often used in Wikipedia in my experience. If you wish to revise this entry again please offer your rational here. It is true that these calculations are not perfectly acurate but the values given at Peakbagger are well considered and this source is accepted as reliable. Note that he uses NAVD29 but this does not play a part in prominence in North America because the differences cancel out more or less. I'm always open to new information so if I have missed something let me know. DRoll ( talk) 19:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Excellent work, thanks very much. The review is now closed. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk)
04:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I added this image to the page, but it was reverted, because the page "Already has enough pictures." Personally, I feel that the image is more than valid to be on this page. This is the iconic view of Rainier, the one that everyone knows. It's what Seattlites wake up to every day, and I think that it should be documented. Bubsty ( talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Mount Rainier from Spray Park, 1908.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. This image is special mainly because it was taken by Asahel Curtis in 1908. Dcoetzee 03:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the following image be used in the article as illustrative of the crater?
Thanks-- 71.111.194.50 ( talk) 09:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC) (no I did not create the image nor am I associated with the creator in any way)
Is Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting not notable enough to be mentioned in the 'human history' section of the article? -- 98.232.181.201 ( talk) 06:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thought I would just mention this. The article cited as the authority for the elevation of 14,411 ft. states clearly that the result of the survey yielded a NAVD 88 elevation. That figure is not mentioned in the article. It says that the result was converted to a NGVD 29 value which was 14411.1 or 14411.0 feet. WikiProject Mountains states elevations "referencing NGVD 29 should be converted to NAVD 88". This yields and elevation of 14417.4 feet. I'm not advocating any change to the article. – droll [chat] 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a tough one. Ideally we should be consistent throughout and use NAVD 88 for everything, but I can imagine how much flak we would get---and how many reverts we would have to do---if we changed this to 14417. I would propose making it clear that the given elevation is NGVD29, and put somewhere in the article that the NAVD88 elevation would be different. -- Spireguy ( talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I disagree. I see it saying that they measured it in NAVD88 and then converted it back to NGVD29. Here's the confusing bit for me, though: they refer to the following table as a table of both 1988 and 1999 surveys in both NAVD88 and NGVD29, but the table has only two entries for each location, and the title of the table refers only to NGVD29. So I'm thinking that the 14411.0 and 14410.7 figures are NGVD29, as stated. If you put that into VERTCON it does give 14417 for NAVD88. (Note that given that 2 meter difference, it would be quite odd if the NAVD88 elevation were 14411, agreeing with the old NGVD29 elevation.)
-- Spireguy ( talk) 03:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Any thoughts on expanding this section to include analysis and predictions of what a potential eruption could do to Washington's Economy? We may want to consider eventually making it a separate article if we get enough contribution....-- Gniniv ( talk) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Article says mountain was originally named Tahoma or Tacoma. Why the change to Rainier? Certainly not to promote Rainier Beer, right? (Rainier was a local brand which at one time was by far the #1 selling beer in the seattle area. A national company bought it and dumbed down the formula, so it is no longer as prominent.)-- Measure 13:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
The word "Tahoma" is not a native American word for anything. It is an amalgamation of three towns in the area to the northwest of Mt. Rainer. TAylor, HObart, MAple Valley. TAHOMA. It was selected by a vote of school children 1926 as the name of the new Junior High School.
Jerome oneil (
talk)
22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Mt. Rainier is currently being prepared for FA review. Please assist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terra Novus ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded a number of images of the south-southeast side of Mount Rainier taken from near Paradise. Two are high resolution stitched images that may be useful illustrations of the article topic. The smaller, 70 megapixel image is cropped from the larger, 175 megapixel image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've recorded a little pronuciation file: File:En-us-Mount Rainier.ogg. I don't get how to hook this into the {{ IPA-en}} template, but if someone else does, please do so. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
While a nice sentiment to rename the mountain to support a local sports team the State legislature has neither the legal prerogative or the support of historical naming conventions to change the names of prominent geographic peaks. In addition Mount Rainier exists within a national park. The name is not to be changed in any official but merely as a sentiment of support for a single weekend. Leaving the name as Mount Rainier is appropriate for this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.165.1 ( talk) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm proposing replacing the current article lead image with a new photo I took: File:Mount Rainier from the Silver Queen Peak.jpg. Compared with the existing picture, when viewed at full resolution, my photo is technically superior in the following areas:
However, the existing photo is superior in the following areas:
Thoughts? See also: Commons:User_talk:Wsiegmund#New_Mount_Rainier_Photo. dllu (t, c) 21:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
NapoleonX has performed multiple edits where he/she has removed the native name(s) for Mount Rainier from the infobox. I believe that the geographic naming guidelines allow us to include the native names:
and
I would propose restoring Tahoma and Tacoma to the infobox. I think these names are relevant to WP, since they are the basis of names of nearby geographic entities, such as Little Tahoma Peak and Tacoma, Washington.
@ Wsiegmund, Myasuda, Vsmith, and Acroterion: What do other editors think? — hike395 ( talk) 08:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)