Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 5

message: Rondane National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Review

message: Back in Sep 2006, RedWolf put in a guideline that mountain photo captions should have the month and year. I hadn't noticed this until Justin.Johnsen started to implement this guidance.
Shall we discuss? I'm not sure if this is a good idea: it's certainly generally not implemented. Comments? hike395 07:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that makes a lot of sense. I think this is a good idea. hike395 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date in caption of mountain photos? 

message: I was checking out the Sierra Nevada in Google Earth, and noticed that many of the major peaks didn't link to their Wikipedia articles. I thought I remembered some of the same peaks working not long ago.
It looks like pages created with an old version of the infobox template no longer feed into Google Earth. But those with the current template create working links. The difference seems to be the coordinate template; the current version  with the display=inline,title tag works. Older coordinate templates (, , etc) do not. I've updated most of the Sierra Nevada articles, and a few Los Angeles are mountains. --Justin 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet that the "somewhat off" problem is a WGS84 vs NAD27 issue: how far off were they? hike395 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates and Google Earth

message: I want to bring up a related issue that has been bothering me for a while. User:Buaidh has been putting in a lot of good work on creating various mountain lists, such as Mountain peaks of North America and Mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains, among others. However I'm concerned about one of the statistics that Buaidh includes in the tables, namely the product of Topographic prominence and elevation, which Buaidh refers to as "summit eminence." In my opinion, both the inclusion of this statistic and the term "summit eminence" are original research. Note that WP:NOR excludes material if "it defines new terms" or if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor." The former covers the term "eminence" and the latter covers the concept itself and its inclusion in the tables, which implies an importance for the particular combination prom*elev which is not justified by any reliable source. 
I've noted to Buaidh that I personally like ranking mountains by prom*elev, but that doesn't matter, since it isn't done in any source that I know of. Rather than being bold and deleting much of the info in Buaidh's tables, which I thought would be rather rude, I wanted to get some more input from this group on the issue. So it would be great if people took a look at the relevant lists and gave their opinion. Thanks -- Spireguy 14:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in similar dilemma.  I too like using prom*elev (well, actually I like sqrt(prom*elev), the geometric mean of the two which is a measured in meters, not meters squared), but I'm certain I've never seen a printed source using it.  I have a vague idea I've seen a German-language site on peaks in the Alps that discusses this way of ranking mountains, though I can't find it now.  Has Buiadh given a source for it?  (I'm struggling to follow the talk page comments as they're spread across multiple pages.)  Reluctantly, I think we we can't find a reasonable precedent for it.  — ras52 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked, and Buaidh did not have a source for it. Buaidh can perhaps speak to that more directly. The German-language info to which your refer might be Eberhard Jurgalski's work with "dominance", which he defines as Prom/Elev, not Prom*Elev (hence a rather different measure). Not sure. -- Spireguy 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, that's the one.  Sorry for the confusion.  Now that I think about it, I remember deciding I didn't like Prom/Elev as I thought it overrated small coastal bumps and tiny islands; in fact, there's pretty much an infinite number of 100% dominance peaks.  (Incidentally, the last sentence in my last message was supposed to read "Reluctantly, I think we should delete it if we can't find a reasonable precedent for it.")  — ras52 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At present, the topographic eminence links are being re-directed to topographic prominence, where I cannot find any mention of eminence. This is not a satisfactory situation. Regarding the division of prominence by elevation, Eberhard has been pushing this for a long time but I am yet to find anyone who shares his enthusiasm for it. The geometric mean metric is more interesting. I think that we should be careful about cluttering Wikipedia with tables containing new measures that are probably contrary to WP:OR, although I would not personally object if (properly linked) eminence were to remain in those tables where it has been included. We might create a new section at topographic prominence, listing alternative metrics with brief summaries; this should include spire measure, and external links to tables that use these measures. Any comments? Viewfinder 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as spire measure goes, I don't think that it is notable yet, by strict Wikipedia definitions. The creators (which includes me) have not yet got their act together to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, which would make it notable. Also, I certainly don't want to be in a position of saying that one measure (prom*elev) is OR, and my measure (spire measure) is not. That would be unfair and a conflict of interest on my part. -- Spireguy 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear: eminence is original research and don't belong in mountain list articles. hike395 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "eminence" original research?

message: Would anyone here care to give this article a rating? Cheers! Murderbike 07:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bradshaw Mountains]] 

message: Hello, I have changed one of the pictures on Mount Everest from a jpeg to an imagemap (you will see the difference when you move your cursor overit - its the one taken from the ISStation). Obviously I think this is an improvement and plan to replace other instances of this popular picture - this will effect several articles that I imagine this project thinks of as "top" importance ... hence my note here.
#Can someone reassure me that this IS an improvement?
#Can anyone see ways of using this to illustrate say climbing routes?
Note - my interest is not in mountains so apologies for any errors. Victuallers 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have done is interesting in principle, but I don't think the manner in which you have done it at Mount Everest is helpful. The image appears in the article as a thumbnail, and I can no longer click on the image to generate higher resolution. But you might like to consider creating imagemaps from images which appear in articles in full resolution. Viewfinder 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Everest et al

message: Thanks for the feedback Viewfinder. Did you notice that the "enlarge image" button at the bottom right of the image still works? I too however would click on the main amage and expect it to expand. I am going to experiment to see if I can get this to happen when you are not on a hyperlink. Would that help? Victuallers 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First bit of feedback

message: Would someone who knows more than me tell me how to add peaks to double-column tables such as Mont Blanc Massif and Pennine Alps? There are lots of mountains that need adding, but I can't see how to do it without reordering every single pair of entries, which can't be right. Thanks. Ericoides 11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no expert, but I'd say you have a problem. My suggestion would be to undertake a one-off exercise of disentangling the pairs and replace the table with an independent set of double columns that can be manipulated more easily. There is an example at List of islands of Scotland#Smaller offshore islands, which is subject to fairly regular adjustment. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the suggestion and the example, Ben MacDui. They are now both sorted. Ericoides 07:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Double-column tables