![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I'd like to update the Template:Infobox hut to get some data from Wikidata in case no local value is provided. Is there anything I need to consider before doing this? Let me know in the talk section of the template. Thanks! -- Tkarcher ( talk) 15:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mount Hope (Eternity Range)#Image is wrong for a claim that the article is showing the wrong image. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Vertical metre into Metres above sea level. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Metres above sea level#Vertical metre merge. — hike395 ( talk) 13:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to include the prominence and/or isolation parents of mountains in lists where the prominence and/or isolation are given? Fridge Leprechaun ( talk) 17:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I am considering reviewing the importance of the top and high importance articles in Project Mountains . The primary criteria that seems to have been used is country high points, and then quite a number of volcanoes. This throws up some strange anomalies. For example, Town hill, Bermuda (79m high) is currently seen as more important a mountain than Mount Robson, high point of the Canadian Rockies at 3954m. There are also some significant omissions from top or high ratings - the Dolomites are not even rated. I will try to apply reasonably objective criteria as follows:
Top importance
Without setting hard limits I am thinking around 10-20 peaks from the main continents, a few more from Asia. Would like to bring the number down, ideally under 200.
High importance (probably roughly twice as many)
This should help focus priorities and give a clearer state of where we are. Any coments welcomed before I embark on this. Marqaz ( talk) 00:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Still keen to proceed with this as classifying articles correctly is a foundation for efficient project work. If articles are to be classified by importance that should be reasonably robust and sensible. Table below shows proposed revision of table on assessment pages (notably changing important of country summits). Marqaz ( talk) 18:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Status | Template | Meaning of Status |
---|---|---|
Top | {{ Top-importance}} | This article is of the utmost importance to this project. Globally important mountains such as the highest peaks of major ranges, or generally high or prominent in their continent (so all of the Seven Summits or Seven Second Summits) or otherwise internationally notable or renown peaks for climbing, cultural or historic reasons. Major ranges of the world (sub ranges only included when particularly noteworthy and usually only if parent is not included). |
High | {{ High-importance}} | This article is fairly important to this project. Mountains which are the high points of lesser ranges; additional major summits of major ranges or geographic areas; country high points (not listed as Top importance but that are proper mountains (roughly at least 1000m high,300m prominence)); other peaks notable for climbing, cultural or historic reasons for a more specialized or regional audience. Significant mountain ranges, sub ranges of major world ranges. |
Mid | {{ Mid-importance}} | This article is relatively important to this project. Significant peaks in a mountain range generally fall into this class. |
Low | {{ Low-importance}} | The mountain/peak is typically not well known even to most mountaineers and has no significant elevation within its mountain range (if contained in such). |
NA | {{ NA-importance}} | This article has no importance (as it pertains to article improvement) and is typically used for categories and disambiguation pages. |
None | None | This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed. |
Editors might be interested to see a discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 20:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, there's a deletion process tag at wikt:Nix Olympica on Wiktionary. -- 70.51.203.56 ( talk) 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
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.
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 07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on Meru Peak. It seems that mostly it is conceived of as one mountain, with three peaks. Inconveniently, the third-highest peak ("Meru Central") is of most interest to mountaineers, as it's the highest.
How should I handle this? It seems a bit much to have a separate article for each peak. Yet if there is just one article for the whole mountain, then many of the fields of the infobox don't quite fit ("first ascent" etc) because they would all be about the highest peak (I presume).
Suggestions for models to follow? (Please consider pinging my on my talk page so I see the reply.) Stevage 06:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, currently this article is at List of P600 mountains in the British Isles, moved from List of mountains in the British Isles by relative height. I suggested it would be better titled with the "prominence" term, but user:Britishfinance has replaced it (apparently) with a copy of a list by Alan Dawson, including some cryptic terminology (such as "P600", various height classes, and alphanumeric "region codes"). Of course, the actual list of mountains should be the same, but I think the previous version was more readable; and I do not think WP should be made up from copies of other people's work. Please join the discussion on the talk page. Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
After changes by An Errant Knight this page is broken due to the template include size being exceeded (scroll to the bottom and see the lack of references or navboxes). Frietjes ( talk) 14:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
|nor=1
for all 150 {{
cmt}}
templates which reduced post-expand include size to 1,810,420/2,097,152 bytes. But, because {{cmt}}
uses {{#tag:ref}}
parser functions, the WikiMedia bug described at phabricator
T205803 is revealed.The List of mountain peaks of Alaska, List of mountain peaks of California, List of mountain peaks of Colorado, List of mountain peaks of Nevada, and the List of mountain peaks of Utah are all involved. The List of mountain peaks of Arizona, List of mountain peaks of Central America, List of mountain peaks of Greenland, List of mountain peaks of Hawaii, List of mountain peaks of Idaho, List of mountain peaks of Mexico, List of mountain peaks of the Caribbean, List of mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains, List of mountain peaks of the United States, List of mountain peaks of Washington, List of mountain peaks of Wyoming, and Mountain peaks of Canada have Template:Cmt problems I don't yet understand. Template:Cmt was last revised in March 2016. I would hate to think these lists have been broken since 2016 without any reports.
There is a discussion on the reliability of an Argentine speleology publication from Carlos Benedetto of the Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones Espeleológicas (IN.A.E.) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Argentine speleology source. — Newslinger talk 09:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Big Slide Mountain#Does this article provide enough informational value?. It's a short mountain index article. Feel free to participate! — hike395 ( talk) 15:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that an an RFC has been opened to discuss what should be done with the stubs of Norwegian mountains. If any interested editors would like to chime in, please make your way to the RFC now. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, I have nominated Payún Matrú for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
As noted on Peakfinder's main page, the site is undergoing an extensive update. The existing template {{ cite peakfinder}} no longer works correctly and displays a PHP "NotFoundHttpException" error. It appears they have decided to go with an ID based system and the site is divided into peaks, passes, ranges and people areas denoted by the subject being part of the URL. So for example:
There's a number of ways we could code the template parameters to fit the new design. A couple off the top:
I'd probably vote #2 as it probably would be less prone to user error but feel free to suggest other alternatives. RedWolf ( talk) 03:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I've made a first cut at the revised template {{
Cite peakfinder/sandbox}} with updated test cases at {{
Cite peakfinder/testcases}}.
I will copy the sandbox changes to the live template sometime later this week unless there are issues identified with the sandbox changes I have made. Thanks. RedWolf ( talk) 17:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
As of a week ago whenever I try to search by name, it never finds anything. I've tried in FF and Safari with the same results. Existing links in articles still work though. Anyone else have this problem or just me? RedWolf ( talk) 17:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, I have nominated Coropuna for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
FYI: there is a category renaming discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_1#Category:Sierra_Pelona_Mountains for renaming of Category:Sierra Pelona Mountains to Category:Sierra Pelona Ridge to match the name which is actually supported by its USGS GNIS source. The category's main article was already renamed for the same correction to align with the name supported by its source. Ikluft ( talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Done
Nick Moyes (
talk)
22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Last month, over at the Teahouse, there was an
interesting discussion about
Mount Lyell (Canada) and the use of mountain images containing text, and which then expanded into other aspects of mountain articles. I am pasting the discussion in here, as I feel it might be of interest to Project members, who might wish to add their own thoughts. Feel free to add any observations below.
(Attribution of text is to to various editors at the Teahouse.)
Nick Moyes (
talk)
21:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Can someone with more experience provide Feedback on the text-over-image photo at top left of Mount Lyell (Canada) and its use in 3 other pages, like at the bottom of Walter Peak (Canada). There's confusion over Walter Peak especially - Google Earth has it as a major peak (it's on their site even if you go up 200 Kms) while the much larger and somewhat higher Mount Lyell isn't even noted (a search actually points to Walter Peak). I'm asking because it's my first attempt at something that isn't straight photo or straight text (I'd be willing to try again if it's deemed substandard... I'm used to Photoshop and could do a better job of it - this is done with the GIMP which is the only thing I have now). TIA. BrettA343 ( talk) 01:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
|
I'm concerned with {{
Mountain table cell}}. This template accepts three different parameters that it converts into references. Problem is, the parameters used most often are not proper references. Instead, they're really notes. What's the best way to fix this issue? We can remove the parameters in each place the template is invoked; that removes the bogus reference, and also removes text from the article that's often superfluous. Or, should the template be modified to create notes instead of references? This would work well, but it means that any article which uses the template needs to be sure to have a {{notelist}}
in it somewhere so the notes are displayed.
How did the project envision this template to be used? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 23:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Introducing
Template:The Mountainous Barnstar.
Jerm (
talk)
16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on removing the duplicate list of Alberta mountains.
After checking the United States list which has a similar duplication for some states, I want to go further on this and perhaps establish a convention where if there is a separate list article for mountains of a province or state that the country list page link to this province/state page and any mountains listed on the country list page be removed. One might consider listing the top 3 mountains on the country page for that subdivision in addition to the link to the subdivision page. RedWolf ( talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This peak does not appear on this list. /info/en/?search=List_of_mountain_peaks_of_Nevada At 11,060 feet, I think it should. I just don't edit pages hardly at all, and it redirected here to discuss first. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.36.61 ( talk) 03:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
"List of the highest major summits of Canada" should include Mount King George (British Columbia) as it should fit in right below Mount Joffre. Edit page requests that changes be discussed here. Ron Clausen ( talk) 04:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Mountains since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Trialpears: Please add this project's infobox requests to your bot. Thanks. RedWolf ( talk) 21:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello all. You are doing great work here! I have long found the articles on mountains and other related natural features to be very helpful. Personally I edit over at the Simple English Wikipedia most of the time. I've been making mountain articles there part of my focus, since many are lacking. I recently was able to start and improve Gangkhar Puensum to be featured as DYK on the main page. Anyway I wanted to invite all of you to visit Simple and help out from time to time, if you have any spare minutes. (Of course there is plenty to do here as well, so I understand if you can't). I've created WikiProject Mountains over on simple, and wanted to leave the link to it here. Desertborn ( talk) 08:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Please have a look at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Infobox cleanup (and related sections, if interested). Your feedback, and any further improvement suggestions, is essential for the next steps in upgrading this infobox. Thanks! Reh man 03:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Fellow mountain editors: There is a
discussion at
Template talk:Infobox mountain to remove numbered parameters from the infobox, such as |state1=
, |city1=
, |region1=
, |geology1=
, and asking that editors use unbulletted lists, instead. If you are interested in this topic, please feel free to voice your opinion there. —
hike395 (
talk)
16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal to remove parameters from the infobox that allow automatic conversion between metric and imperial. The proposal would remove parameters such as |elevation_m=
, |prominence_ft=
, and |isolation_mi=
. If you'd like to join the discussion, please join in at
Template talk:Infobox mountain#Automatic conversion and zoom (cont.). —
hike395 (
talk)
07:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
I want to bring your attention on the page
Gangotri Group because peaks mentioned in this article are not at all Gangotri group of peaks, they are on the Gangotri glacier for sure. The peaks falls under Gangotri groups are in the Rudragaira valley. "It is indeed intriguing, that while the Gangotri group towers above the Rudra valley, the Gangotri glacier is almost 20 kms east of the Rudra valley. Undoubtedly, the glacier at one time had its snout to the west of the Rudra valley, which has today receded beyond imagination."
[1]
The peaks mentioned in the page have no connection with Gangotri group like Chaukhamba, Kedarnath, Thalaysagar, Meru, shivling, and Bhagirathi group of peaks. They only situated around Gangotri glacier.
Gangotri group of peaks (Gangotri I, II, III) lies 20 km down the valley in Rudragaira valley.-- Goutam1962 ( talk) 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi, WikiProject Mountains,
I found that there are 2 duplicating articles: List of mountain peaks of Washington and List of mountain peaks of Washington (state). Can someone help to do a correct merge of these two articles? It is confusing that these two articles have different criteria of topographic prominence, and different lists.
It appears that the "Washington (state)" article has older history. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I was unaware of the List of mountain peaks of Washington (state) when I created the List of mountain peaks of Washington. We could merge the List of mountain peaks of Washington into the List of mountain peaks of Washington (state). The List of mountain peaks of Washington and the 19 above lists use a prominence cutoff of 500 meters (1640.4 feet) rather than the 300 meters (984.3 feet) of the older list. We should probably use the greater cutoff. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 17:46, 19 May 2020 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I'd like to update the Template:Infobox hut to get some data from Wikidata in case no local value is provided. Is there anything I need to consider before doing this? Let me know in the talk section of the template. Thanks! -- Tkarcher ( talk) 15:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mount Hope (Eternity Range)#Image is wrong for a claim that the article is showing the wrong image. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Vertical metre into Metres above sea level. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Metres above sea level#Vertical metre merge. — hike395 ( talk) 13:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to include the prominence and/or isolation parents of mountains in lists where the prominence and/or isolation are given? Fridge Leprechaun ( talk) 17:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I am considering reviewing the importance of the top and high importance articles in Project Mountains . The primary criteria that seems to have been used is country high points, and then quite a number of volcanoes. This throws up some strange anomalies. For example, Town hill, Bermuda (79m high) is currently seen as more important a mountain than Mount Robson, high point of the Canadian Rockies at 3954m. There are also some significant omissions from top or high ratings - the Dolomites are not even rated. I will try to apply reasonably objective criteria as follows:
Top importance
Without setting hard limits I am thinking around 10-20 peaks from the main continents, a few more from Asia. Would like to bring the number down, ideally under 200.
High importance (probably roughly twice as many)
This should help focus priorities and give a clearer state of where we are. Any coments welcomed before I embark on this. Marqaz ( talk) 00:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Still keen to proceed with this as classifying articles correctly is a foundation for efficient project work. If articles are to be classified by importance that should be reasonably robust and sensible. Table below shows proposed revision of table on assessment pages (notably changing important of country summits). Marqaz ( talk) 18:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Status | Template | Meaning of Status |
---|---|---|
Top | {{ Top-importance}} | This article is of the utmost importance to this project. Globally important mountains such as the highest peaks of major ranges, or generally high or prominent in their continent (so all of the Seven Summits or Seven Second Summits) or otherwise internationally notable or renown peaks for climbing, cultural or historic reasons. Major ranges of the world (sub ranges only included when particularly noteworthy and usually only if parent is not included). |
High | {{ High-importance}} | This article is fairly important to this project. Mountains which are the high points of lesser ranges; additional major summits of major ranges or geographic areas; country high points (not listed as Top importance but that are proper mountains (roughly at least 1000m high,300m prominence)); other peaks notable for climbing, cultural or historic reasons for a more specialized or regional audience. Significant mountain ranges, sub ranges of major world ranges. |
Mid | {{ Mid-importance}} | This article is relatively important to this project. Significant peaks in a mountain range generally fall into this class. |
Low | {{ Low-importance}} | The mountain/peak is typically not well known even to most mountaineers and has no significant elevation within its mountain range (if contained in such). |
NA | {{ NA-importance}} | This article has no importance (as it pertains to article improvement) and is typically used for categories and disambiguation pages. |
None | None | This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed. |
Editors might be interested to see a discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 20:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, there's a deletion process tag at wikt:Nix Olympica on Wiktionary. -- 70.51.203.56 ( talk) 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
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.
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 07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on Meru Peak. It seems that mostly it is conceived of as one mountain, with three peaks. Inconveniently, the third-highest peak ("Meru Central") is of most interest to mountaineers, as it's the highest.
How should I handle this? It seems a bit much to have a separate article for each peak. Yet if there is just one article for the whole mountain, then many of the fields of the infobox don't quite fit ("first ascent" etc) because they would all be about the highest peak (I presume).
Suggestions for models to follow? (Please consider pinging my on my talk page so I see the reply.) Stevage 06:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, currently this article is at List of P600 mountains in the British Isles, moved from List of mountains in the British Isles by relative height. I suggested it would be better titled with the "prominence" term, but user:Britishfinance has replaced it (apparently) with a copy of a list by Alan Dawson, including some cryptic terminology (such as "P600", various height classes, and alphanumeric "region codes"). Of course, the actual list of mountains should be the same, but I think the previous version was more readable; and I do not think WP should be made up from copies of other people's work. Please join the discussion on the talk page. Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
After changes by An Errant Knight this page is broken due to the template include size being exceeded (scroll to the bottom and see the lack of references or navboxes). Frietjes ( talk) 14:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
|nor=1
for all 150 {{
cmt}}
templates which reduced post-expand include size to 1,810,420/2,097,152 bytes. But, because {{cmt}}
uses {{#tag:ref}}
parser functions, the WikiMedia bug described at phabricator
T205803 is revealed.The List of mountain peaks of Alaska, List of mountain peaks of California, List of mountain peaks of Colorado, List of mountain peaks of Nevada, and the List of mountain peaks of Utah are all involved. The List of mountain peaks of Arizona, List of mountain peaks of Central America, List of mountain peaks of Greenland, List of mountain peaks of Hawaii, List of mountain peaks of Idaho, List of mountain peaks of Mexico, List of mountain peaks of the Caribbean, List of mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains, List of mountain peaks of the United States, List of mountain peaks of Washington, List of mountain peaks of Wyoming, and Mountain peaks of Canada have Template:Cmt problems I don't yet understand. Template:Cmt was last revised in March 2016. I would hate to think these lists have been broken since 2016 without any reports.
There is a discussion on the reliability of an Argentine speleology publication from Carlos Benedetto of the Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones Espeleológicas (IN.A.E.) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Argentine speleology source. — Newslinger talk 09:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Big Slide Mountain#Does this article provide enough informational value?. It's a short mountain index article. Feel free to participate! — hike395 ( talk) 15:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that an an RFC has been opened to discuss what should be done with the stubs of Norwegian mountains. If any interested editors would like to chime in, please make your way to the RFC now. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, I have nominated Payún Matrú for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
As noted on Peakfinder's main page, the site is undergoing an extensive update. The existing template {{ cite peakfinder}} no longer works correctly and displays a PHP "NotFoundHttpException" error. It appears they have decided to go with an ID based system and the site is divided into peaks, passes, ranges and people areas denoted by the subject being part of the URL. So for example:
There's a number of ways we could code the template parameters to fit the new design. A couple off the top:
I'd probably vote #2 as it probably would be less prone to user error but feel free to suggest other alternatives. RedWolf ( talk) 03:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I've made a first cut at the revised template {{
Cite peakfinder/sandbox}} with updated test cases at {{
Cite peakfinder/testcases}}.
I will copy the sandbox changes to the live template sometime later this week unless there are issues identified with the sandbox changes I have made. Thanks. RedWolf ( talk) 17:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
As of a week ago whenever I try to search by name, it never finds anything. I've tried in FF and Safari with the same results. Existing links in articles still work though. Anyone else have this problem or just me? RedWolf ( talk) 17:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, I have nominated Coropuna for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
FYI: there is a category renaming discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_1#Category:Sierra_Pelona_Mountains for renaming of Category:Sierra Pelona Mountains to Category:Sierra Pelona Ridge to match the name which is actually supported by its USGS GNIS source. The category's main article was already renamed for the same correction to align with the name supported by its source. Ikluft ( talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Done
Nick Moyes (
talk)
22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Last month, over at the Teahouse, there was an
interesting discussion about
Mount Lyell (Canada) and the use of mountain images containing text, and which then expanded into other aspects of mountain articles. I am pasting the discussion in here, as I feel it might be of interest to Project members, who might wish to add their own thoughts. Feel free to add any observations below.
(Attribution of text is to to various editors at the Teahouse.)
Nick Moyes (
talk)
21:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Can someone with more experience provide Feedback on the text-over-image photo at top left of Mount Lyell (Canada) and its use in 3 other pages, like at the bottom of Walter Peak (Canada). There's confusion over Walter Peak especially - Google Earth has it as a major peak (it's on their site even if you go up 200 Kms) while the much larger and somewhat higher Mount Lyell isn't even noted (a search actually points to Walter Peak). I'm asking because it's my first attempt at something that isn't straight photo or straight text (I'd be willing to try again if it's deemed substandard... I'm used to Photoshop and could do a better job of it - this is done with the GIMP which is the only thing I have now). TIA. BrettA343 ( talk) 01:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
|
I'm concerned with {{
Mountain table cell}}. This template accepts three different parameters that it converts into references. Problem is, the parameters used most often are not proper references. Instead, they're really notes. What's the best way to fix this issue? We can remove the parameters in each place the template is invoked; that removes the bogus reference, and also removes text from the article that's often superfluous. Or, should the template be modified to create notes instead of references? This would work well, but it means that any article which uses the template needs to be sure to have a {{notelist}}
in it somewhere so the notes are displayed.
How did the project envision this template to be used? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 23:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Introducing
Template:The Mountainous Barnstar.
Jerm (
talk)
16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on removing the duplicate list of Alberta mountains.
After checking the United States list which has a similar duplication for some states, I want to go further on this and perhaps establish a convention where if there is a separate list article for mountains of a province or state that the country list page link to this province/state page and any mountains listed on the country list page be removed. One might consider listing the top 3 mountains on the country page for that subdivision in addition to the link to the subdivision page. RedWolf ( talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This peak does not appear on this list. /info/en/?search=List_of_mountain_peaks_of_Nevada At 11,060 feet, I think it should. I just don't edit pages hardly at all, and it redirected here to discuss first. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.36.61 ( talk) 03:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
"List of the highest major summits of Canada" should include Mount King George (British Columbia) as it should fit in right below Mount Joffre. Edit page requests that changes be discussed here. Ron Clausen ( talk) 04:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Mountains since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Trialpears: Please add this project's infobox requests to your bot. Thanks. RedWolf ( talk) 21:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello all. You are doing great work here! I have long found the articles on mountains and other related natural features to be very helpful. Personally I edit over at the Simple English Wikipedia most of the time. I've been making mountain articles there part of my focus, since many are lacking. I recently was able to start and improve Gangkhar Puensum to be featured as DYK on the main page. Anyway I wanted to invite all of you to visit Simple and help out from time to time, if you have any spare minutes. (Of course there is plenty to do here as well, so I understand if you can't). I've created WikiProject Mountains over on simple, and wanted to leave the link to it here. Desertborn ( talk) 08:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Please have a look at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Infobox cleanup (and related sections, if interested). Your feedback, and any further improvement suggestions, is essential for the next steps in upgrading this infobox. Thanks! Reh man 03:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Fellow mountain editors: There is a
discussion at
Template talk:Infobox mountain to remove numbered parameters from the infobox, such as |state1=
, |city1=
, |region1=
, |geology1=
, and asking that editors use unbulletted lists, instead. If you are interested in this topic, please feel free to voice your opinion there. —
hike395 (
talk)
16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal to remove parameters from the infobox that allow automatic conversion between metric and imperial. The proposal would remove parameters such as |elevation_m=
, |prominence_ft=
, and |isolation_mi=
. If you'd like to join the discussion, please join in at
Template talk:Infobox mountain#Automatic conversion and zoom (cont.). —
hike395 (
talk)
07:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
I want to bring your attention on the page
Gangotri Group because peaks mentioned in this article are not at all Gangotri group of peaks, they are on the Gangotri glacier for sure. The peaks falls under Gangotri groups are in the Rudragaira valley. "It is indeed intriguing, that while the Gangotri group towers above the Rudra valley, the Gangotri glacier is almost 20 kms east of the Rudra valley. Undoubtedly, the glacier at one time had its snout to the west of the Rudra valley, which has today receded beyond imagination."
[1]
The peaks mentioned in the page have no connection with Gangotri group like Chaukhamba, Kedarnath, Thalaysagar, Meru, shivling, and Bhagirathi group of peaks. They only situated around Gangotri glacier.
Gangotri group of peaks (Gangotri I, II, III) lies 20 km down the valley in Rudragaira valley.-- Goutam1962 ( talk) 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi, WikiProject Mountains,
I found that there are 2 duplicating articles: List of mountain peaks of Washington and List of mountain peaks of Washington (state). Can someone help to do a correct merge of these two articles? It is confusing that these two articles have different criteria of topographic prominence, and different lists.
It appears that the "Washington (state)" article has older history. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I was unaware of the List of mountain peaks of Washington (state) when I created the List of mountain peaks of Washington. We could merge the List of mountain peaks of Washington into the List of mountain peaks of Washington (state). The List of mountain peaks of Washington and the 19 above lists use a prominence cutoff of 500 meters (1640.4 feet) rather than the 300 meters (984.3 feet) of the older list. We should probably use the greater cutoff. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)