Talk:List of glaciers

message: Can we move the page to maybe List of glaciers and icefields or List of glaciers and ice fields?Jarfingle 03:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure...by icefields I suppose we would mean also ice sheets as well...I'll have to look up the defs on ice sheets, ice field and glacier to see if there are any reasosn they aren't all one and the same, with glacier being the geology/glaciology accepted terminology.--MONGO 05:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still thinking about this.
*List of glaciated areas?
*List of glaciers, icefields and icesheets?
etc...--MONGO 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other related terms are "ice sheet", "ice cap" and "ice shelf". I'd be inclined to keep the existing title and add new titles as above as needed. These terms are not necessarily well-defined. For ice cap, I found "A dome shape mass of glacier ice that covers surrounding terrain and is greater than 19,300 miles" but I don't know if that is generally accepted.  Lists are intended to guide the user to content that may be of interest. As such, I think some overlap and ambiguity is acceptable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Do we list bodies of ice in two countries (e.g., Stikine Icecap) under both entires? Jarfingle 03:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would list the glacier under both countries. Another area that was confusing when I expanded this list were the glaciers in Kashmir, which is disputed, so I listed them under what appeared to be the currently controlled and most likely of either India or Pakistan.--MONGO 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-country bodies of ice? 

message: I'd prefer to see the top-level sections alphabetically arranged. Charles Matthews 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...I was meaning to get a hold of you since you started this page. I'll arrange the headings alphabetically.--MONGO 08:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: I've added the tag to this article because the number of references is far less than the number of names contained within it.
Rvwedd 12 Decemeber 2006 (UTC)
:I'm sure there are pages in greater need of the tag. Is your concern that the articles listed as about glaciers are not really about glaciers? This is pretty easy to check? Or that the red links are about non-existent glaciers? Or what?
:Charles Matthews 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: I think the recent improvements here look fine, but hope that too many subheadings under the U.S. section won't make this list seem too U.S.-centric. (I'm from the U.S. in case anyone was wondering). Maybe as more glacier articles from other areas of the world are created, this will sort itself out.--MONGO 04:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added  but I don't think it will help much. I don't really know if it is necessary to list all glaciers or if some WP:N criteria should be established. At one point, I thought an area greater than 2.5 km² might be a reasonable criterion for notability. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I want to limit articles based on a size of glacier crieria, though, there is some cutoff between what is glacier and what is a permanent ice/snowfiled that is partially based on size I believe. The USGS has stated that 0.10 km² is the minimal size for a glacier....but that is really small.--MONGO 13:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a problem with size being the only criterion is that a small glacier may be notable in an area where glaciers are rare and vice versa. Also, a small glacier may be notable because of its association with winter sports, dry season water supplies, because its anticipated or recent demise, or by its significance in history. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup...no disagreement here. Just to get back to where we were...any objections to moving the individual glaciers/mountains back into the states and simply detailing where they are in each state...or should we wait and see if more articles from outside the U.S. get created? There are a lot of red links now and that's fine, but not really best for a list outside of userspace.--MONGO 15:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I understand and the work you ha done to expand the list isxcellent, but rather than listing them by the mountain they are located on we should instead resume listing simply by the state and detail after that the more specific location. This should probably be the best way to do it so the article, regardless of a lack of info about glaciers that haven't been stuudied well.--MONGO 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. They appear to be listed by continent/country/. For the US, subdivisions are state/mountain or mountain group. For Canada, the only subdivision is mountain group. Provinces don't work well for Canada because the continental divide separated British Columbia from Alberta. Do you want to delete the headings below state in the US section? I'll concede that the eight subheadings for Washington may be excessive, but I'm not sure that I like deleting them all. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think having anything below the state level is too U.S. centric for an international list, especially since few of these articles exist yet and there is very little aside from topo quads that that can be googled to find out info on them. It really isn't a big deal one way or the other I suppose, but  I do feel that listing on a state level by subhaeding and detailing what peak or mountain complex they are on is the best way to go.--MONGO 04:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of uniformity, I wonder if it might be better to follow the example of Canada and eliminate the state headings in favor of range and subrange headings. What I don't like about the Canada example is the repetitive parenthetical Alberta or BC. What I don't like about no subheadings below the state level is the resulting list of 70 or 80 glaciers in an unbroken list for Washington. For Alaska, it potentially is much worse. My preference would be to rename this article "List of major glaciers" with areas greater than 2.5 km² or some similar criterion. That article would link to more detailed lists, as needed, that would be more inclusive. However, most readers would likely find the major glacier list most useful. This is a unwikipedia approach, however. List of mountains is a more likely paradigm, an incomplete and disorganized mishmash, but useful at some level. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I just thought of a good partial solution to the subheadngs issue.  I changed all the 5th level (=====) subheadings to bold headers (;).  This keeps them out of the contents.  I think it is important to retain the geographic subdivision of glaciers within each state, and not go back to a single list in each state.  I think 2-column formatting to reduce page length (and needless scrolling) is also the way to go, at least until the other issues voiced above are discussed and acted upon.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subheadings

message: Well, I went ahead and reformatted most sections of the list into multiple columns, either 2 or 3.  The page is now less than half as long as it was, so much less scrolling is needed to view it.  I hope this is OK with everyone here.  Thanks, Seattle Skier (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple columns 

message: Added Clarke Glacier, Antarctica.  See http://aadc-maps.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/display_name.cfm?gaz_id=123597
— ERcheck (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: I see from the edit history that India, Pakistan and Kashmir are in dispute. How has this been resolved elsewhere? Why isn't "Siachen Glacier is under Indian occupation, in territory disputed by India and Pakistan" sufficiently neutral? Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Unless there is a better way to do it, maybe just listing these glaciers under "Kashmir" is best.--MONGO 15:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  India, Pakistan and Kashmir 

message: There is an issue with these pages that if it has 'glacier' in the name it is put on the glacier page. If it has 'Ice Stream' in it's name it is put on the Ice Stream page. This is wrong, many of these 'glaciers' are every bit as much ice streams as those that are called ice streams. Separating based on name is not appropriate. JBTS (British Antarctic Survey)
Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaciers and Ice Streams 

message: This page is a bit "clunky".  I would like to see all the sections that have a large amount of links split out.  Articles would be List of glaciers in Antarctica, List of glaciers in the United States etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: Well really this isn't quite a disambiguation. The fact is that 'glacier' in its broadest sense does mean any ice mass on land (or that originated on land) and moves in some way, usually due to gravitational forces. It is a very broad word (can include ice sheets, ice streams, ice caps, ice fields, valley glaciers, mountain glaciers, outlet glaciers, ice tounges, ice shelves etc.). The unfortunate thing is that many Antarctic ice streams (which are a specific type of glacier) are given the title glacier in the name while many are called ice streams while there is no physical distinction between the two. In my experience most scientists would not refer to the Antarctic ice sheets or shelves as glaciers and tend to use the term 'glacier' only for more rapidly moving 'rivers' of ice such as valley glaciers or ice streams. When looking through the literature it doesn't help that most scientist are lazy and go for an easy life (including myself). If it has been called a glacier they use the word glacier in their article, if it has been called an ice stream they tend to refer to it as an ice stream. This is not technically wrong, just a case of scientists trying to simplify things for the mass public. "All carrots are vegetables but not all vegetables are carrots" as my teacher once said.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polargeo (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ice mass 

message: Yes this page is a bit clunky. A split would be helpful. Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Is there a List of glaciers by size ? I haven't found any. I think there should be one. --BIL (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of glaciers by size 

message: I'm looking for information on glaciers in Argentina but the page seems to contain information on only one South American country.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.28.84.123 (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at List of glaciers in South America. --evrik (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Glaciers in South America

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of glaciers. 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/20100417222017/http://nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/types.html to http://www.nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/types.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106032056/http://www.geography.osu.edu/faculty/bmark/2008%20ESR%20Vuille_etal.pdf to http://www.geography.osu.edu/faculty/bmark/2008%20ESR%20Vuille_etal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417222017/http://nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/types.html to http://www.nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/types.html
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) 16:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of glaciers. 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/20150923210108/http://www.conama.cl/portal/1301/articles-43721_recurso_1.pdf to http://www.conama.cl/portal/1301/articles-43721_recurso_1.pdf
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) 04:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)