Jump to content

Talk:Mount Diablo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMount Diablo was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Assessment

[edit]

this article probably qualifies as GA, but needs to go through the nom process. Anlace 04:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewshed

[edit]

On talk page I can loosen my tongue a bit. The claim that there is more viewable area from Diablo than anywhere else except Kilimanjaro is commercially motivated. Viewfinder 18:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to this link it states that "on a clear day, views from its 3849 foot summit stretch more than 200 miles, Mount Diablo has one of the largest viewsheds in the Western United States" and "Brewer estimated that the view embraced 80,000 square miles, 40,000 in tolerably plain view – over 300 miles from north to south, and 260 to 280 miles from east to west".

While it is true that the viewshed is impressive, and the longest views stretch to 200 miles, the view over the flat plains and the sea does not. This distance can be calculated, in kilometers, by multiplying the square root of the elevation, in meters, by 3.85. This converts 1172m (3845ft) to 132km (82 miles). Within 82 miles, the maximum viewshed is 21,000 square miles, and much of that is cut off by local features. Beyond that distance, only the tops of ridges are visible, and then only on the sides that face the viewpoint, so the surface area viewable is quite small and probably increases the total viewshed to about 22,000 square miles. So the above mentioned estimate that the "view embraced 80,000 square miles" was not scientific and was probably motivated by the desire to create a sensation. Unfortunately it has created a myth that is still widely believed, and even, I am told, taught in schools. Viewfinder 19:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to note that there is a phenomenon in which the view is extended because of the atmosphere bending light which allows a view of Mt. Shasta on the horison. Voodoom 4:31pm GMT, 19 January 2006

I am aware of atmospheric refraction and take it into account. Under normal atmospheric conditions Mount Shasta is not visible from Mount Diablo. But if there is a major atmospheric temperature inversion, the effect of refraction can increase, and this may, just possibly, allow Mount Shasta to be seen. But its distance is 242 miles, so the atmosphere would also have to be exceptionally clear. Viewfinder 05:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Offer no citation for anything. Do so or remove your claim. 76.21.84.191 04:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the links to the computer generated panoramas in the external links section. The claims were posted more than 12 months ago. By the way, I removed a sentence from your user page which breached WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Viewfinder 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

I have myself seem from the Farallon islands to Half Dome.  Those 2 are 305km away.  That's way past the "70 something" km the article claims

From personal experience: The viewshed from Newberry Caldera's Paulina Peak in Oregon must be substantially larger than Mount Diablo's as it stretches from Mt. Shasta, California in the south to Mt. Adams, Washington in the north, the Cascade range between them, and as well as the Oregon lands to the northeast, east and southeast. I have no proof for this other than having been there and verifying the points listed, nor do I have a computation, although the distance between Shasta and Adams is at least 400 miles. It could be interesting to determine this area. The Wikipedia article on this feature concentrates on the associated and interesting vulcanism.72.224.90.78 (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

The page needs a redirect from "Mount Diabolo" since many people believe that is how it is spelled. 169.230.94.22 00:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA

[edit]

I have failed the GA request. For one, there is a severe lack of inline citations, which is an absolute must. Second, there has to be significant cleanup regarding the links and prose, especially in the areas where it's just paragraphs of names and species. I suggest cleaning this article up significantly and attempting a peer review before nominating it again. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. It appears that the article is about the mountain, and that the park is part of the mountain's history and current situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Diablo State Park → Mount Diablo — I don't think this will be controversial, but just in case, I'm putting it here. The article is about all aspects of Mount Diablo, so article title should reflect the broader subject. The article even has a mountain infobox rather than a park infobox. I was ready to simply move it myself, but because "Mount Diablo" exists as a redirect page, its not allowing me to make the move. Peter G Werner 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[edit]
  1. Support, as per the reasons I gave in my proposal. Peter G Werner 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:
*No, the park doesn't cover more area – it pretty much exists entirely on Mount Diablo, though it covers most of the area of the mountain. And by "broader", I mean the article covers the broader historic and geographic aspects of Mount Diablo, predating its existance as a state park. Check out the articles on Mount Tamalpais and San Bruno Mountain versus the articles on their respecitve State Parks. The articles on the mountains themselves are clearly longer and more general. Mount Diablo should be consistant with these. Peter G Werner 03:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

High point

[edit]

The Peakbagger citation states that the summit of Mount Diablo is the highest point in Contra Costa County. It's late and I couldn't see and easy place to fit this in. --droll [chat] 07:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signage

[edit]

In the "Claims on viewable area" section, it says:

According to a sign at the summit, it is possible to view the second greatest surface area seen from any peak in the world.

I was at the visitor center earlier today and although unfortunately I didn't study all the signage carefully or take a photo of the main sign that discusses this, I am almost certain it did not make this claim. I can believe it once did, but given the thorough debunking this claim has been given, I can also believe that the sign would now be changed to soften this claim.

Can someone say definitively that A) there used to be such a sign, and that B) there no longer is? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowfall

[edit]

The snowfall numbers are very confusing. Is the maximum snowfall on the mountain 3 (1972) or 6 (1975) or 18 (2009) inches? If one or more of these numbers is for the maximum depth on the ground (even though more may have fallen and melted) this should be stated more clearly. Much of the climage information could be deleted or at least summarized down to be smaller. Sanpitch (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Course Record

[edit]

To clarify, realizing it is outside of the MDC see Strava. While it shows Mr English at #5, it shows that the Tour of California had several riders besting that time. The fastest shown is by pro racer Marc de Maar on May 18 2013. The top 10 fastest shown are all from the Tour of California stage race.--Billymac00 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Painters

[edit]

Okay, so a lot of people go and paint Mount Diablo. But do we really need to include ALL these unknowns? "Early painters include Thomas Almond Ayres, Eugene Camerer, W. H. Dougal, Eduard Hildebrandt, Charles Hittell, Edward Jump, William Keith, John Ross Key, Charles Koppel, Edward Lehman, Pascal Loomis, Henry Miller, Joseph Warren Revere, through Clarkson Dye and others, to modern painters such as Robert Becker, Frank J. Bette, Ruth Breve, Betty Boggess Lathrap, Paul Carey, Bob Chapla, Mary Lou Correia, Ellen Curtis, Pam Della, Susan Dennis, Warren Dreher, John Finger, Pam Glover, JoAnn Hanna, Peg Humphreys, Don Irwin, Jeanne Kapp, Geri Keary, Chris Kent, Paul Kratter, Eunice Kritscher, Fred Martin, Cathy Moloney, Shirley Nootbaar, Charlotte Panton, Greg Piatt, Kenneth Potter, Robin Purcell, Ocean Quigley, Don Reich, Mary Silverwood, Barbara Stanton, Bruce Stangeland, Marty Stanley, and even the recognized comic book painter Dan Brereton. Photographers include Ansel Adams, Cleet Carlton, Alfred A. Hart, Scott Hein, Stephen Joseph, Don Paulson, Brad Perks, Robert Picker, Richard Rollins, David Sanger, Michael Sewell and Bob Walker."

Surely those who are actually 'known' can stay, the others must go. Or else I am going to also add my aunt's name. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09
44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Legends and Folklore

[edit]

I'm citing: http://cowellhistoricalsociety.org/html/devil.html

One of the more interesting legends about the mountain is that told by General Mariano Vallejo in his April 16, 1850 report to the California Legislature. He gave the following report on the origin of Mount Diablo’s name in its Spanish form:
In 1806 a military expedition from San Francisco marched against the tribe “Bolgones,” who were encamped at the foot of the mount; the Indians were prepared to receive the expedition, and a hot engagement ensued in the large hollow fronting the western side of the mount; as the victory was about to be decided in favor of the Indians, an unknown personages decorated with the most extraordinary plumage, and making divers movements, suddenly appeared near the combatants. The Indians were victorious, and the incognito (puy) departed toward the mount. The defeated soldiers, on ascertaining that the spirit went through the same ceremony daily and at all hours, named the mount “Diablo”, in allusion to its mysterious inhabitant, that continued thus to make his appearance until the tribe was subdued by troops in the command of Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga, in a second campaign of the same year. In the aboriginal tongue “puy” signifies “evil spirit,” in Spanish it means “diablo” and doubtless it signifies “devil” in the Anglo-American language.

Note that there is no report here of any "flying, spectral apparition" as mentioned in the current Wiki text. Kortoso (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An inselberg or monadnock ?

[edit]

Is this an inselberg or monadnock ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise/sunset?

[edit]
    The article states, "...more interesting than the sunset itself is the view of the progression of the mountain's shadow across the California Central Valley to the distant Sierra Nevada..."
    My recollection is that the sun sets in the west, hence the shadow of the mountain would be towards the east: San Francisco Bay, the Santa Cruz mountains, and the Pacific Ocean.  (Is the Pacific visible from the summit?)  The shadow of the mountain would fall to the west during sunrise; perhaps that's what the writer meant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8B82:FEB3:843F:157D:FAFE:4E06 (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The text as written is correct. The shadow falls in the opposite direction of the light source. The Sun sets in the west. Therefore the shadows fall to the east. Mount Diablo is east of the San Francisco Bay, the Santa Cruz mountains, and the Pacific Ocean, so the shadow cannot fall on them - as they are to the west. Anastrophe (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Diablo. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Diablo. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Diablo. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monte

[edit]

The sources for the claim that Monte del Diablo meant a 'thicket' some miles away are not available to confirm this. Therefore the claim in the article that there was a misidentification by English speakers is dubious imo. Especially because Monte primarily means mountain in Spanish, going directly back to the Latin. It does also mean uncultivated and difficult to navigate land, however this is not interchangeable with thicket and seems unlikely the actual mountain would be ignored in this Spanish naming. In any case, readable sources would be helpful, or perhaps a less definitive and more historically nuanced translation of Monte should be included in the article? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The existing text and reference seem reliable. Everything is not available on the internet. This account has been accepted and repeated by several newspaper writers and their editors. See the last two references under Renaming section of the article. Fettlemap (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But do you understand the problem with simply and definitively translating Monte del Diablo as 'thicket of the devil' and also then attributing it to a misunderstanding? It would at the least need some type of qualification, especially as thicket is not by a long shot the primary translation of Monte. Reading up on it and it looks to be a commonly accepted story, but not one with easily verifiable sources. Taking this all on board, suggesting a rewording of below. Will give it a think Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Whatever the story, the region north of the mountain came to be known as Monte del Diablo ("thicket of the devil") by 1824, appearing on maps near present-day Concord (Pacheco). Later, U.S. settlers misunderstood the name to refer to the mountain, and it was recorded with varying degrees of certainty until "Mount Diablo" became official in 1850."
Suggestion:
"By 1824, the region north of the mountain came to be known as Monte del Diablo ("devil's thicket", in this case monte should be translated as thicket or dense woods), appearing on maps near present-day Concord (Pacheco). Later, U.S. settlers understood "Monte" to refer directly to the mountain, and it was recorded with varying degrees of certainty until "Mount Diablo" became official in 1850."
Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History section has no sources

[edit]

Came for some further geological reading. Found that the whole "Natural History" section is without sources.——JavaRogers (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Diablo&oldid=1209341223"