Talk:Santa Lucia Range

Mountains 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't it be lucía instead of lucia? Loren Rosen (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources in English that spell it that way? As far as I can see, most or all sources spell it without the accent. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely accepted name (and the section above, "Use English"). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ah. you're right that in English the accent is omitted, leaving it unclear whether it should be pronounced luc-ee-a or luc-ya. Loren Rosen (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard it as SAN-ta loo-SEE-ah (almost but not quite like the proper Spanish pronounciation, which should have a different first vowel in "Santa") but I suppose we need a source for that too. —David Eppstein (talk)

What constitutes a coastal mountain?

The description of Cone Peak as the largest coastal mountain is extremely vague. I changed it because of this. Unless there is a more specific definition of a coastal mountain (first large landform? Within X miles? Within a geologic upwelling?) there are many "coastal" mountains higher than Cone Peak. The steepness is unique. I used language from the text to alter the description. Getwood (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original wording for the caption was "View from summit of Cone Peak, the second-highest mountain in the Santa Lucia Range" (which is what I had used previously, although technically it's the third highest in the SLR) and the wordng "Cone Peak features the steepest coastal elevation in the continental United States" comes from 2006. Getwood (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit as the WP:BURDEN is in you to establish consensus for your version and demonstrate it is in compliance with sourcing. That you erroneously added a "second highest" to Cone Peak's article does not give me confidence that you are following WP:V.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Steepest coastal elevation" makes no sense. There are plenty of caves in the bluffs above California beaches, where the elevation goes beyond vertical to overhung. They are a lot smaller than a mountain but where in the phrase "steepest coastal elevation" does it say anything about mountains? Anyway I think the existing description is fine. King Peak (California) is another good candidate for a tall coastal mountain but not as tall. Mount Olympus (Washington) is significantly farther from the water. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Deng I apologize if you feel that I'm not following WP protocol. I concede that I added no new references to support the original change and that it was done sloppily. I do think your revision explanations could have been more tactfullly worded, but I'm probably overly sensitive. And it is people like you who help maintain the quality of Wikipedia by enforcing protocols. I will say that I am a bit disappointed that you appear to revert my edits without reading my explanations, or reading the text that I am using from within the article, or from related articles. And, although you suggested that I start a discussion, I haven't heard your opinion on "What constitutes a coastal mountain?" Your most recent accusation: "That you erroneously added a "second highest" to Cone Peak's article does not give me confidence that you are following WP:V.--Jasper Deng" is also disappointing. The history page for Cone Peak is brief, and, if you had visited it, you would have seen that Getwood isn't listed there at all: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Cone_Peak&action=history. It would appear that this horribly egregious phrase comes from a WP:RS. There are many references that suggest that Cone Peak is the second highest peak in the SLR. You are correct to say it is erroneous, since it is the third highest peak after Junipero Serra and Pinyon. But, don't worry: I'll properly source my edits when I make them, scout's honor.

David Eppstein, I don't love the "steepest coastal elevation" wording either, but was trying to stick with verbiage already present in the article, since that had been one of the criticisms of my earlier edit. The phrase was (I assume) modified from reference 17: https://web.archive.org/web/20100617070622/http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/wjf/m/NaturalHistoryOfBigSur.pdf "The sharp point of Cone Peak towers over the coast behind the terrace to the northeast. Its coastward side drops along the rocky spines of ridges above Limekiln Creek, and this jagged line is the steepest coastal slope in the lower forty-eight states." Reference 3 on the Cone Peak page says "Cone Peak is a spectacular summit along the rugged Big Sur coast. At 5,155 feet, it is the second highest mountain in the Santa Lucia Mountain range, but it’s the highest mountain to offer a view of the ocean. The mountain rises nearly a vertical mile in less than three miles from the coastline as the crow flies. This is one of the steepest gradients from ocean to summit in the contiguous United States, hence the name "Sea to Sky."

I feel strongly that the existing caption is misleading and overly vague unless we explain what a "coastal mountain" is. (Which is why I started this thread in the first place) As far as what defines a coastal mountain, Peakbagger (a source cited in this article) has a page where it lists Cone Peak as the 74th highest California coastal mountain: https://www.peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=5017.

I would not oppose the phrase "highest mountain to offer a view of the ocean" for the caption as a quote from the current reference. I am strongly opposed to the current wording of the caption. The phrase in the body of the text "steepest coastal elevation" should probably be modified as well. What about "mountain peak with one of the steepest gradients from ocean to summit in the contiguous United States"? Getwood (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect the ocean (or least salt water in the form of the Juan de Fuca Straight) can be seen from Mt Baker. Certainly one can see Mt Baker from the San Juan Islands. I'm also pretty sure you can see the ocean from San Jacinto Peak and San Gorgonio Mountain. Try again with a more convincing wording. View of the ocean is not specific enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Great point. How about: "Highest mountain in the Santa Lucia Range to offer a view of the ocean." I still haven't heard any discussion regarding what defines a "coastal mountain." Getwood (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about "highest mountain named Cone Peak with an altitude between 4000 and 6000 feet on the California coast" if you want to make this so specific as to be pointless and uninformative. No. There is no higher point as close to the ocean anywhere in the continental US. That is not specific to the range it is in. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]