Talk:Mission Peak

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Mountains B‑class Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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)[reply]

Does anyone know if dogs are allowed here? That might be relevant information for people looking to find a good hike with their dog. JeffL (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified material

Little known Mystery of Mission Peak

Lights use to be always seen shinning from on top the mountain. During some certain months this msterious lights would be seen many times. During the prohibition era, authorities thought that perhaps these lights were a signal to call moonshiners; due to the extremely brightness of it, it was clearly seen all the way to San Francisco. They then pinnpointed the exact location where the lights would be seen, and the following morning they set off to search for the source. It led them to a dense grove up top the mountain, no sign of fire, disturbance, or anything. Many of these mysterious lights have also been seen in various parts of California. Some people say that these lights are due to a mysterious race of ancient peoples called Lemurians, nobody has yet to reach a conclusion for these lights.

From 1920-1942 our family, who owned Mission Peak, had an 18 foot tall cone-shaped monument on top of Mission Peak with a bright electric light on the top that my great grandfather, Albert A. Moore, would turn on from the house on the back of Mission Peak. There was also a large American flag that flew from the top of the flag pole that went up through the middle of the monument. The pipe sticking out of the ground on top of the peak was the base of the flagpole. (signed Roan A. McClure, pmr@cave.com) You will be able to see in February 2007 a photo of the monument along with a history at www.omegafoundation.info/history.html.

Questionable Reference

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)[reply]

Diablo Range?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [1]. Tmangray (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not just for hiking

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)[reply]

Requested move 1 October 2021

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 (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 21:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Peak → Mission Peak Regional Preserve – 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) — Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strong oppose split, neutral-to-weak-oppose on the title. There are probably thousands of cases worldwide where a natural feature is surrounded by a protected area of the same name, and for the most part the narrative is inseparable ("geology" is about the mountain; "Park access controversy" is about the park; "depicted on the Freemont logo" is about the mountain; and so on). Splitting would not enhance the reader's experience and knowledge about the subject, on the contrary. In those cases, I'm leaning towards the simpler title ("Mission Peak") because it is the original meaning and is shorter. No such user (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Against both split and rename. There is no need for a separate article and the current title is by far WP:common name. A simple reference in the intro paragraph to the official name of the preserve surrounding the peak is sufficient enough. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the backpack-camping site be called Eagle Spring or Eagle Springs?

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)

Separating different ascents -- at what point are the ascents "different" per se?

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4100:10E2:3472:BA63:CF74:6741 (talk)

Golden Eagles nesting in southern ALA Co. relevant to Mission Peak?

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)[reply]