Talk:List of mountains and hills of Japan by height

message: Anxious to add a couple of mountains from Miyagi Prefecture to this list, I went to :ja:Category:宮城県の山 to see what some of the official names were.  Surprisingly, there were several "mountains" which I knew about, and knew were called ○○山, but didn't think that they would ever be classified as an actual mountain.  The most egregious example of this is :ja:日和山 (宮城県仙台市), which used to be Japan's shortest classified mountain at 6.05 meters.  But, apparently, the the Geographical Survey Institute of Japan also classifies :ja:天保山 as a man-made mountain at 4.53 meters.  I suppose that the GSI has some criteria that they have used to decide that these two areas (and many more) are actually mountains; but, I am a bit reluctant to add mountains to this list which are smaller than the bonfire we built my freshman year in college.  :-) Should we set a limit for inclusion in this list (500, 900 or 1000 meters?), while making special mention of 天保山 and 日和山 as well as the GSI classification system?  Or, is it ok to just copy over the mountains from the ja: categories?  (either way, I think it is good to add the Japanese names for these mountains; especially the ones without En: articles) Neier 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think mountains are mountains just because of their size. Geological features probably hold larger sway when it comes to determining whether or not something is actually a mountain. That's why there are some really short mountains out there. (Man-made mountains have their own rules, I'm assuming.) Douggers 06:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what is a mountain, anyway? 

message: Hi,
User:Alpsdake has been updating this list in a new format. I am not sure this is the best format. I have the following problems:
* The first column is an ordinal list that restarts at 1 for each subsection. This is a list by height, so a height ranking is of secondary importance. I would leave the numbering off for two reasons. a) I think the list should focus on the height and the name. b) Until we have a complete list of all mountains, adding new mountains to the list is a logistical nightmare. If I add an unlisted mountain, I must renumber all entries after it, nevermind the likelihood that I will make a mistake while doing so.
* The picture while pretty is not really of primary importance to the list. With the list I want a clean overview and not be distracted by the color image. Save the color image for the article.
* The referrence to the JA wiki for mountain that do not have articles is the wrong way to go. Instead of investing effort into linking to the JA wiki, create a stub article for the mountain and use the Interwiki link to link back to the JA:wiki.
* The old list is easier to maintain, having but a single line for every row in the table.
* The old list looks "cleaner", and is easier to scan, not having the cell borders.
Having said the bad things, I want to praise User:Alpsdake for the effort he put in, attempting to improve the list. I do think the notes section is a good idea.
Until we have a discussion on the topic, I am moving the content he created here and am reverting the list to its previous form.
-imars (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with imars about the ordinal numbering: it really has no point since the lists default to the highest at the top. It also (as imars pointed out) makes it more difficult to add in missing mountains (or new ones on the list, should a volcano or earthquake cause that to happen). I disagree regarding the pictures; I think having them is perfectly acceptable, though I think that column should be made non-sortable. The notes column should also be non-sortable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also thinking the new format of 100 Famous Japanese Mountains. There will be same opinion for it. For this I think it is better to describe the first column which is the original order of the book(from north to south). And this number will not be changed , because 100 mountains are finished. As for List of mountains and hills of Japan by height the list is not finished, so it is not easy to change the number. I think it is better to remove. This table is not easy to change , but I think it is better to add another important item. What is the important item? It will be discussed. My first idea is it. According to the opinion of the majority, the Japanese link  富士山 will be removed.　Is it necessary　Japanese　富士山　without link?  The column is sortable or non-sortable, to sort by mountain it should be sortable. I do not know the possibility of the setting for the each column. --Alpsdake (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alpsdake about the ordinal column which should be removed in my opinion. I do like the images but they should go to the last (rightmost) column and the first column should contain the name of the mountain. Wikilinks should not be made to Japanese language articles. Create a stub or just leave the red links to not-yet-created-articles. Don't agree with the easier maintenance (4th item of Alpsdake's arguments). Adding/removing mountains is as easy with the table and the sorting feature which is now available outweighs the more complicated source code. Cell borders (5th item) are better now as far as I can see. You might want to check out some of the featured lists which generally do use table syntax and images. Some other suggestions: make the "prefecture" column unsortable because there are sometimes more than one prefecture. Wikilink prefectures as per WP:MOS each row of the table should stand on its own. Use the same number of decimals for every mountain in the height column. Rename "Metres" and "Feet" columns to "Height in metres" and "Height in feet" or something like it. The word "hill" only appears in the article name and nowhere else in the article. Why? Personally I am not a big fan of such (dynamic) lists which include a gigantic number of items (all the mountains of Japan in this case). I'd rather see a complete List of mountains of Japan above N metres with "N"= 3000 or 2500 or whatever makes sense. bamse (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

text: A little more. The mountain range column and notes column are a good idea in my opinion. The images could be a bit bigger. To save space, the metres and feet columns could be combined in one height column. bamse (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another "Idea ver.2" of the format. Which is better? --Alpsdake (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I agreee with Bamse, especially the last three points. -imars (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the improved "Idea ver.3" of the format. Larger images sample are 85px(It seems to be too big?), 70px, 60px and 50px(It seems to be too small.) The width of vertical and horizontal lines are minimum setting(border=1). I do not know the way to set thinner line. --Alpsdake (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Better in my opinion. I left another version in my sandbox. Feel free to use this. I did the following changes compared to ver.3: use wikitable (makes lines thinner), made "Note" and "Image" columns unsortable, removed linebreaks in header (not essential), changed imagesize to 150px which actually allows to see something. The table still only fills about 80% of my (small laptop) screen width. Maybe with some more text in the note column it could fill all of the width or alternatively increase the image sizes. One more thing you might want to do is to change the cell colors of mountains that are part of the 100 Famous Mountains list. I did something like that in List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords) if you want to have a look. If you do that also add superscripts ("*", "^", "#" in my case) to make the people from WP:ACCESS happy. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. bamse (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning the image size, it also depends on how many entries you want to have in this list. In the Lists of National Treasures of Japan (many of which are featured), I used 150px even for lists of ca. 150 entries and it was not a problem. If you have a very long list (as this might become), you could go with smaller images or just have images for the top 100 mountains or so. bamse (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New table format (Idea ver.0) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of mountains and hills of Japan by height. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112073410/http://www.japangazetteer.com/index.php?item=100-list to http://www.japangazetteer.com/index.php?item=100-list
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified