Talk:List of mountain ranges of Nevada

Opening comment

Hi whoever entered this list (or anyone else who knows). Where did you get your info? Some "ranges" are not included, and there are other errors--for example, you list "Irish Mountain." There is a "Mt. Irish" and a "Mt. Irish Range" in the USGS index and on the USGS 30 x 60 quad. Nit-picking? You bet, but with 3 Antelope Ranges (which you note--good) and many Bald Mt., Black Mt., and so on, it would be nice to have an authoritative list. And yours is a great start. It is reproduced and/or linked to elsewhere on the web. But back to question #1, where did you get it? Best, Songdog88 (White Pine County, Nevada resident and secretary of the Talus Cowboys Mountaineering Club, Ely)

Changes

I'm a little skeptical about the recent changes - are they sourced from somewhere, or original research? The original list of 314 is assumed by various researchers such as Charlet, who is recording conifer ranges. [1] Stan (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They're the official names from USGS's Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). See http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/ to download a copy of the database or perform individual queries. As I've been going through adding script-generated stub articles for Nevada mountain ranges based on GNIS data, the article name needs to match the reference. I've been making corrections to the article names as needed based on mountains which are not ranges, range names that are slightly different in GNIS (i.e. "Range" vs "Mountains" vs "Hills"), and ranges that aren't in GNIS at all. After enough of those, I can recognize the patterns now so I pre-updated the names for the rest of the table based on GNIS. Ikluft (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to denigrate GNIS, I use it myself, but it would be a little awkward to have ranges that are mentioned in McLane and Charlet's books but somehow managed not to be in GNIS. It would be handy to get a copy of Charlet's base map and then make images highlighting each range, so we can all be sure we're talking about the same places. (BTW I do appreciate you bashing on this, Nevada does have a lot! Now back to uploading pictures of all the ranges...) Stan (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that GNIS doesn't have everything - I notified them of 43 wilderness areas in Nevada created by Congress since 2002 that aren't listed. They thanked me and accepted the input, but couldn't predict a publication date for them yet. Anyway, there were relatively few changes in the update. We can always add verifiable ranges back to the list if there are other reliable sources. For accessibility, let's try not to rely solely on sources that we can't look up online because they can't easily be verified. Those could be challenged by anyone who doesn't have the printed source. Remember that on Wikipedia it doesn't matter if something is simply true - it also has to be verifiable. Some ranges may have to wait for online source info of some kind. Ikluft (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Online is nice, but there is no way that it can be a requirement! One of my big WP activities of several years ago was to go get books out of the UNLV library and add info that was not previously online *anywhere*. There's a huge mass of information that is not online. Try it yourself; go to the university library, pick the 20th volume on the top shelf of each of several random shelving units, and see how much of the book's content is a) in WP and/or b) online at any web site. I think you'll find quite a lot missing. "Info not online" is simply not a valid excuse when there is interlibrary loan. Stan (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does say that reliable sources can be online or in print. But I still want to caution that it isn't always as practical to verify a print-only source. If print-only was the only source available for something, some editors may at some point decide it's easier to just remove it than verify it. Wikipedia culture is picky about that. For example, it isn't a simple matter for me to go visit the UNLV library, since that would involve an airline flight or a 10-hour drive coming from San Jose. Try telling an editor from Europe to visit the library there. :-) So having GNIS works in our favor to avoid that scenario in most cases. Ikluft (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the "interlibrary loan" part? Nobody has to make an airline flight, that's a totally red herring. Plus you've got a bit of nerve lecturing somebody who's been active here since 2003 about "Wikipedia culture". If an editor removes material because they don't have the competence to acquire a copy of a print source, I'm going to be on them like a ton of bricks, and I would be one of many. Stan (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? You may have to do that. The interlibrary loan is just as ridiculous an expectation in an online encyclopedia. You're going uphill all the way trying to get people to do that when library usage is on such a decline. Suffice it to say the GNIS refs will work regardless. I'll proceed with adding NV mountain range articles from GNIS data until the redlinks on the list that can be filled from GNIS are gone. Then on to the next project... Ikluft (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-read WP:V in case my memory was faulty, and there is nothing permitting the unmotivated to pretend that referenced print publications don't exist. On the contrary, there are multiple precautions against using online sources. So you're representing an idiosyncratic point of view here. Stan (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying and I'm not even going to respond when you go off in that direction. I was already done with this conversation. As I said, I will continue adding NV mountain ranges from GNIS data. Have a nice day. Ikluft (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Got the red out

OK, with 213 mountain range stub articles added, the redlinks are gone. These are just the ones that were supported by GNIS as a source. Of course, it isn't the only source in use so we may see other articles show up from other sources as volunteers have time. No problem. But this big step with GNIS is now done. Ikluft (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work! I have photos of a couple dozen of these not yet uploaded, hope to be getting them up soon. :-) Stan (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, you've got a virtual playground to post photos in now. :-) You're in a good position to do that since you live in southern Nevada. I can help a bit with photos for northern Nevada since I visit regularly. A week and a half ago while I was there I got some afternoon shots of the Black Rock Range and Calico Mountains which I'm thinking of uploading to WP. Though it may have been too late in the afternoon (light was too low) so I may look through other photos I already have of them. Ikluft (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hidden note removed

I have removed a hidden note after *Deep Creek Range, which said: "Jan27,2012-Mmcannis,Just put a Ref on Article-16% in NV, White Pine Co.". BD2412 T 04:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)