Talk:Mount Cayley

message: Does anybody know the correct age of Mount Cayley's last eruption? near the bottom of this page they say Mount Cayley last erupted about 5000 years ago  and here they say it's 310,000 years ago . Black Tusk 03:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of last eruption

message: I just want to point out that oral history does count as a method of record keeping for history.  Skwxwu7mesh have been in and up around that mountain for thousands of years.  OldManRivers (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The First ascent, as linked in the infobox, is defined as "modern" though. --Qyd (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Europeans "discovered" America.  What about changing it to, The first recorded European ascent or The first recored non-indigenous ascent.  I didn't know it was a "climbing" term which I imagine most don't know that either.  OldManRivers (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I agree, and good idea.  I guess archaeological records would also be good.  I'll see what I can find.  OldManRivers (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a canoe/flood myth/oral history to do with Mount Garibaldi?  Mind you, again, that doesn't mean anyone set foot on the peak.  I know there's a peak or two up around the Ring Glacier/Compton Neve (head of Lillooet River) that was named in St'at'imc by a youths' climbing group/program from Mt Currie; can't remember the name right now; they were the first recorded ascent of it and so named it, I do know that, in the modern era.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's true about my people surviving the flood by latching onto Mount Garibaldi.  OldManRivers (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Cayley and Garibaldi articles are in need for much more expansion. How about more on history, climbing, first discovery, etc? The Mount Garibaldi and Mount Cayley articles could easily be built into a B, GA and eventually an FA. Thanks.  Black Tusk 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As with any article, many many many deserving expansion.  Mountaineering history's neither my thing nor OMR's (we know each other through aboriginal articles); suggest you go to WikiProject Mountains (look on Cayley's or Garibaldi's talkpages for a link/box) for help.Skookum1 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an idea, because if you look at other Cascade volcano articles (e.x. Mount Shasta, Mount Hood, Mount St. Helens) you will see that lots of Wikipedia users have expanded them, but not the Canadian Cascade volcanoes. Why is this? I have no idea. I have put lots of effort into the Canadian Cascade volcanoes since I first joined Wikipedia. Based on article history, it appears I'm mostly the one who expands them. Are these unknown volcanoes of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, or are they just useless and pointless? If that's what most people think, it's not actually true, as they are closely related. Black Tusk 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, it's a given that American wiki editors focus their energy on American articles; Americans, for all Canadian mythology likes to make dumb of them, do make a much more concerted effort on the national iconography/landscape, including hte passion of the Cascade Volcano pages and, if you look around, a lot of pages to do with Oregon and California hsitory and geography.  For one thing, there just aren't as many Canadians and, within Canadians, enough British Columbians, who are interested; some areas within BC are very well-covered, Vancouver-related articles particularly; but some are very "blank" and surprisingly so given the richness of some regions' and towns' histories (e.g. the Slocan); same with mountains, mountain ranges, parks, and more; if you go to the BC project page and shop around the various members and look at their talkpages you'll get an idea how busy everybody already is with their own interests, and how much t ime already put in; a BIG reason I took a wikibreak, and am hesitant to get involved fulltime again, is the amount of work out there to be done; what I'm basically saying/asking is that complaining nobody's helped won't get you any help.  I suggest you bring the Cayley or Garibaldi pages up for recommended feature article nomination at the BC Project page, and also on the Mountains project page; input from both groups would help; I'm not the one to do it, nor is OMR, although in his case there's Skwxwu7mesh content to be added and sensitivities to be observed.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first recorded ascent? 

message: Can someone find a reference for this? I did a google search and can't seem to find anything about it. Also, where does the name "Black Tusk" come from for Mount Cayley? What's its naming history? Black Tusk 22:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's from OldManRivers' Skwxwu7mesh resources; maybe there's a specific publication he can cite. Important to note he's not saying this is the Black Tusk, but what Cayley was called in the Skwxwu7mesh language translates that way; whether there's a connection to the name of today's Black Tusk I wouldn't know. I do know that something up in the Cayley-Powder area is called the Red Tusk around Whistler....Skookum1 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference for the Thunderbird here, but there's nothing about when Cayley was called Black Tusk. Could Red Tusk be Mount Fee? Black Tusk 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have sources.  I'll see if I can find any others.  Let me be as clear as possible:  Black Tusk and Mount Cayley are both called t'ak't'ak mu'yin tl'a in7in'a'xe7en.  t'ak't'ak mu'yin tl'a in7in'a'xe7en translates into "Landing Place of the Thunderbird".   To English speakers, the mountains are called Mount Cayley and Black Tusk.  I had a list names for other mountains in the area also.  OldManRivers (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference I found above says Cayley and Black Tusk are landing places of the Thunderbird. What I'm confused about is the name Black Tusk. On 4 February 2008 you added: Black Tusk Mountain, or t'ak't'ak mu'yin tl'a in7in'a'xe7en is a mountain considered "very sacred" by the local Indigenous Sḵwxwú7mesh. It is known to them as the "Landing Place of the Thunderbird", home of the legendary Thunderbird. to the Cayley article. Is Cayley called Black Tusk as well? Or is it just a mistake? If it has the same name as Black Tusk it should be reworded to make it sound less confusing. Black Tusk 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mistake. I wanted to copy the t'ak't'ak mu'yin tl'a in7in'a'xe7en part of the other article but added too much.  I think this is where the confusion came from. Sorry about that. OldManRivers (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landing Place of the Thunderbird 

message: I've added this particular page to the Disaster management WikiProject because the volcano has an eruption scenario and has the potential to effect southern British Columbia and Alberta. There have been shallow earthquakes near Mount Cayley since 1985, and seismic studies revealed a strong mid-crustal reflector beaneath it consistent with a large, solidifed, mafic, sill-like intrusion. The eruptive scenario used is approximately equivalent, in terms of magnitude and sequence of events, to its neighbour Mount Meager 2350 years ago. Black Tusk 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disaster management template inclusion

message: This article is of good quality, but could use some touching up:
*References
*Images
*Expanded information
I am going to promote this article to B-class, but it still needs some work before GAC.  Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For an FA... 

message: Why is this article called "Mount Cayley massif" if "Mount Cayley" redirects to it? I can understand wanting a disambiguation if there were two different articles. However, the article titling guideline states that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". With only a single article, "Mount Cayley" would seem to be precise enough. 
There are already a number of articles about ridges and massif named "Mount XXX". See, e.g., Backbone Mountain in Maryland, United States. If we're going to start to use "massif" or "ridge" disambiguators (against the titling guideline), I think we should at least have a discussion at WT:WikiProject Mountains. —hike395 (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I didn't see your comment until now. I don't have a problem with this article simply called "Mount Cayley" since that's what it's normally called. Therefore, it should probably use the original title per WP:COMMONNAME. But what should the dab be for the peak? Volcanoguy 02:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Back in 2018, I was reacting to the fact that there was an article titled Mount Cayley massif, but no article named Mount Cayley. But within an hour of my comment, you created Mount Cayley, which resolved the issue (as far as I'm concerned). I did a strikethrough of the comment. If you'd like, we can just delete this whole section. — hike395 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

text: ... or we could merge Mount Cayley into this article, since that one seems to be a perma-stub. The peak itself may not pass WP:GEOLAND, since there doesn't seem to be much information about the peak beyond "statistics and coordinates" — hike395 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually came to this talk page to discuss the current name of this article before I saw your comment from 2018. What I wanted to say is that I'm having second thoughts about myself moving this and the Meager articles to include "massif" in the name. I wasn't really paying attention to the naming guidelines when I moved both articles so I'm not sure if they're the best names to use. "Mount Cayley massif" and "Mount Meager massif" are not commonly used names for these features. In fact, none of the sources in both articles use that term. I'm currently working on bringing Mount Garibaldi to FA class (rewritten and expanded since July 28) and I will probably work on Cayley afterwards so I want to solve this issue before I start working on it. Volcanoguy 03:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, the stub could be merged or simply redirected since there's probably not much to merge; pretty much everything in the stub is already mentioned in the larger article. Volcanoguy 04:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming? 

message: Pinging  anda , as I see they requested and performed the moves seen here and here.  Can you tell me what the thinking was behind the subpage moves?  Since Mount Cayley massif is a redirect to Mount Cayley, I would like to move Talk:Mount Cayley/GA1 to Talk:Mount Cayley/GA2, which will make room to move Talk:Mount Cayley massif/GA1 to Talk:Mount Cayley/GA1.  Any objections? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mike Christie I was just processing the RM/TR queue back then. There's no objections from me with regards to what you have proposed. I should have caught on this back then. Thanks for following up. – robertsky (talk) 9:20 pm, Today (UTC+8)
 I wasn't sure what systems relied on keeping the GA discussion names constant, so I simply changed the Talk transclusions. I have no objections to your proposed moves. — hike395 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't think so -- Talk:Mount Cayley/GA1 was done in August 2018, but Talk:Mount Cayley massif/GA1 was done in August 2008. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right -- I got mixed up by the Talk transclusions (above). I have no objections at all. — hike395 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, great.  All done -- let me know if anything looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA subpage moves