Talk:Mission Peak

message: The other day I went up to Mission Peak with my GPS.  After placing it next to the "monument" at the apex, I let it settle in for about 5 minutes and got the coordinates 37°30′46″N, 121°52′54″W. --Thalakan 07:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We were reading reference 6, "Fossils of Fremont", and page 2 contains serious errors.  Neanderthals are listed as living 7M years ago, but they actually lived only 200K years ago.  The "first hominids" entry is wrong, as well.  Given these errors, I question whether this is really citable material, because who knows what other errors are contained in the slides.  98.234.187.151 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Reference 

message: The Diablo Range lies east of the Calaveras Fault.  Mission Peak is not part of that range.  The inset should be corrected. Tmangray (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference to support that Mission Peak is part of the Diablo Range. Conversely, I can't find a reference to say otherwise. Do you have a WP:RS to support your definition? —hike395 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

text: After some more poking around, I'm fairly confident that Mission Peak is part of the Diablo Range. GNIS [ defines the Diablo Range] to be bounded by the Santa Clara Valley (not the Calaveras Fault). If you go to that page and look the the list of coordinates for the range, coordinate pair 25 refers to a point close to Mission Peak. —hike395 (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even a close question.  In fact, it's the common understanding among geologists.  The USGS has never considered the range along the east shore of the Bay to be part of the Diablo Range.  Mission Peak is part of the same ridge trend corresponding with the Berkeley Hills and the San Leandro Hills, essentially the first ridge east of the Hayward Fault.  The Diablo Range is the ridge trend which lies immediately west of the Central Valley.  Here's a USGS cite which states it pretty clearly: "The Diablo Range, the east-central Coast Ranges between the Calaveras fault and the Great Valley, is underlain chiefly by Franciscan assemblage. These rocks constitute at least three thrust sheets or nappes that are folded into an antiform (fig. 8.4; Blake, 1981; Saleeby, 1986). The youngest thrust sheet...etc." . Tmangray (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a geography vs. geology conflict in definition. [Note that GNIS is part of USGS.] I think removing the range entry entirely is not helpful to our readers. Is there an official name for the ridge(s) between the Calaveras Fault and Fremont/Milpitas? I was unable to find such a name. —hike395 (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  I think it may be more a matter of multigenerational familiarity with this part of California.  Longtime residents just know that the Diablo Range is the range which fronts the valley well inland of the Bay.  I think that leaving it in does a greater disservice of misinformation.  It's simply false.  The Diablo Range lies some 20 miles east of the ridge which includes Mission Peak and has an entirely different character.  Now you hit on a problem of local toponyms.  The range used to have a name: the Sierra de la Contra Costa, a name appropriately applied to the entire ridgeline fronting the eastshore of the Bay.  I recall oldtimers referring to the Mission Peak Ridge or Mission Hills or even Fremont Hills, but I don't think any of those were officially recognized.  There seems to be a new unofficial name which might one day become official: East Bay Hills.  But for now, it's a bit ambiguous as to what it includes.  Perhaps rather than try to shoehorn something into that box there should be instead something like this discussion in the text of the article. Tmangray (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peakbagger is a great site and I rely on it for elevations and prominences and other stuff, but I've noted instances where information about ranges has been a bit unusual. –droll [chat] 06:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I think the USGS and other geo professionals trump an enthusiasts' website in any case, with all due respect to them. Tmangray (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Diablo Range?

message: The article only writes about the use of the trails by hikers.  The trails are also used by runners, bicyclists, and equestrians.  It would be nice if the article was more balanced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.164.83 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just for hiking

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved   -- Calidum 21:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Mission Peak →  – The article discusses a lot about the park itself as opposed to discussing purely about Mission Peak. This also makes it more consistent with other EBRPD parks' names. We could use a redirect at "Mission Peak" to Mission Peak Regional Preserve to accomodate for people who refer to it as "Mission Peak" 206.213.190.64 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I think it would be better to WP:SPLIT this current page so that the park and the mountain are covered in separate articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the park covers mostly just the mountain/foothill for most part. 2601:647:4100:10E2:EC42:F19E:F93E:C442 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Split into Mission Peak and Mission Peak Regional Preserve, per WP:CONTENTSPLIT. There is a similar issue with Cougar Mountain and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park up in Seattle, and the split seems to work well there. — hike395 (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If this page were to be split, then what would be the difference between the information of the two pages? Mission Peak Regional Preserve doesn't contain much else other than the hill. If this should be WP:SPLIT, then why was Mt. Diablo page merged with Mt. Diablo State Park?206.213.190.64 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 October 2021 

message: This map (https://www.ebparks.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24382) and the Mission Peak section of the EBRPD website (https://www.ebparks.org/parks/mission/) call it "Eagle Spring Backpack Camp," but EBRPD's page on Backpacking (https://www.ebparks.org/activities/camping/backpacking.htm) refers to it as "Eagle Springs Backpack Camp." 18:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the backpack-camping site be called Eagle Spring or Eagle Springs? 

message: Looking at the Mission Peak trail-map, there are only two paths leading out from the peak proper; the Peak trail towards the north, and the Peak Trail towards the South. The ascents to the area near the peak lead from four separate areas: Ed Levin, Sunol, Ohlone College, and Stanford Avenue. However, until their intersection with the Peak Trail the two paths from Stanford Avenue are relatively independent from one another (except for the presence of connector trails between them). The precedent for lots of wikiproject:mountains pages involves splitting the hiking section into parts for separate ascents. However, at what point does something become a separate ascent? 17:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating different ascents -- at what point are the ascents "different" per se? 

message: Is the presence of nesting Golden Eagles in southern Alameda County relevant to Mission Peak in particular if we don't have a source which corroborates that there's also nesting Golden Eagles in the Mission Peak area? 206.213.190.64 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Eagles nesting in southern ALA Co. relevant to Mission Peak?