Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains

Hi. I found this project through Table Mountain, which is a mere 3,500 feet high or thereabouts. Thus I wondered if England's mountains are "admissible" ... see e.g. Scafell Pike, Helvellyn, Skiddaw... they are not much by world mountain standards... but are all England has got and thus are already have short articles. Is there a threshold for listing on list of mountains?

If not, what might a threshold be? Maybe "if the mountain is well-known in its own local area then it deserves an listing". This means that we could have different standards for inclusion in, say, Namibia (virtually no mountains) and Nepal (virtually no non-mountainous areas). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question; really haven't considered any lower bounds on what can be classified as a mountain for inclusion by the project. I know some what are basically landfills laughably called "mountains". 1,000 metres (3,280 ft) is getting rather small but of course, if you are living at sea level with a 1,000 metre high mountain beside you, it's a notable elevation for that area. In Nepal, there are a lot of "big hills" (that's what the Nepalese guides call them) in the Himalayas which are over 10,000 ft. In most other parts of the world, those would be notable mountains. Yet, for these types of mountains in Nepal, it might be questionable whether they deserve their own article, especially if they are not named. As for England, if they are significant in elevation in relation to the surrounding area, they probably deserve their own article. If you can find the mountain on http://www.peakware.com, it's probably worth an article. RedWolf 06:54, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly that site lists the same five english mountains as we have (except Great Gable which might not have been done yet) , so I think we are on the right lines. Elevation is about 2,500 above surroundings for each. I think they deserve articles but the infobox will have some non-useful information (e.g. first ascent - these mountains were climbed as soon as the Ice Age receded). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the infobox lines are optional like topo map, type of rock and age of rock. There are mountains where the first ascent would be quite difficult to ascertain, such as you have given. If you think there are mountains that fall into that category, then drop the first ascent line from the infobox. You can post a comment on the relevant talk page if you wish to document your decision. RedWolf 07:14, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Featured article

Hi all - Every WikiProject should have at least one article featured, IMO. I'm not sure if any WikiProject Mountains articles are featured yet but I would like to encourage project members to look at and improve Mount St. Helens so that it can go through the FA selection process. I've already greatly expanded the article but I've burned out on putting the last bit of shine on it. Specifically there is needless overlap between the ==Human history== and ===Goat Rocks Eruptive Period=== sections that should be resolved (the second section should just be a description of the what happened while the human accounts and human effects should go to the human history section). There are similar issues with the section titled ===The 1980 eruption=== (which was not written by me and contains some info that contradicts 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption). More images and better image placement should also be done. Cheers! --mav 04:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Helens is a good candidate, because it is both exciting (Mountain Blows Up!) and reasonably well-written and long. I looked around at some of the other articles in the project --- another possiblity is Mount Everest. --- hike395 17:51, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the Mt. St. Helens article is a good choice, given its recent geological activity and contains substantial content. I would like to see more of the red links go away too. Mt. Everest is good too, although I think it currently is slanted more towards mountaineers/climbers (not that I personally have a problem with that!) than general interest. Granted, most stories on Everest even by tv media concentrate on mountaineering than anything else it seems when it would be nice to see some Sherpa culture and lifestyle. When I wrote up the article on Anatoli Boukreev, I summarized what happened in the 1996 tragedy after I read his book (The Climb). It might be good to add a section on that event to Mt. Everest, as it was something reported on by various media as well as in books. RedWolf 06:44, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

MW 1.3 broke our template

It doesn't align right any more, for example, take a look at Mount Baker. It's really awful. What should we do? -- hike395 01:11, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked it down --- it doesn't seem to substitute msg:Mountain_box_start into the table anymore. I'll see if this has been reported. We can either wait for a bug fix, or try to manually change >100 articles :-(. -- hike395 01:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

mav and I discussed it, and came up with a simple solution, which has problems: manually substitute in the contents of MediaWiki:Mountain_box_start back into all of the tables (to fix the tables). Now, tracking is broken. If we place all the articles into Category:Mountain (which would be the ideal solution), there is a bug that breaks the infobox.. Mav was in favor of tracking simply through MediaWiki:Mountain on the Talk pages and making sure that the Talk pages were up-to-date. Comments? --- hike395 03:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]