Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Is the solution user javscript?

As eminence can be computed simply from prominence and elevation, we can safely remove that column and people can calculate the eminence for themselves. If this is an inconvenience (as I'm sure it would be), with some very trivial changes to the pages, we could make it possible for logged-in users to generate this themselves using javascript in their monobook.js (or similar for other skins). As an example, I've knocked together a small hill list in my sandbox; the only unusual things about it are a few additional class attributes on the table headings.

By doing this, a user can create User:XXX/monobook.js with a few lines like:

importScript('User:Ras52/mountainlist.js'); 
mountainlist_display_eminence = true;

and suddenly an eminence column will appear. (See my monobook.js file for example.) You can also add the line

mountainlist_convert_metres_to_feet = true;

if you prefer working in feet to metres.

This works by loading a javascript library, User:Ras52/mountainlist.js from my user space which does all the work. Important note: whenever you add custom javascript in Wikipedia, you need to make sure you trust the source it came from, as it is easy to write javascript to do something malicious. Wikipedia protects you to some extent by only allowing me to edit mountainlist.js, but you still have to trust me not to do anything evil.

To make this work on some existing table, the following is needed:

1. add "mountainlist" to the table's class list (i.e. the bit on the {| line);
2. add "feet" or "metres" as applicable to the classes of any headings for columns containing values in feet or metres respectively; and
3. add "height" and "prominence" to the classes of the headings of the height and prominence columns, respectively.

Anyway, what do you think? A useful idea or an unnecessary gimmick? — ras52 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: this would get around the WP:NOR restriction, because a user would be manipulating the WP data by his/her choice, rather than it being part of the encyclopedia itself. So, "useful idea" says I. hike395 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting option, although only applicable to the very small percentage of readers who know how to do user javascript.

In any case I'd like to declare a consensus that the eminence info, as presented currently, is OR. However I would really like to hear from Buaidh on this; I don't want anyone feeling railroaded. -- Spireguy 03:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion above, all of us (Spireguy, ras52, Viewfinder, hike395) thought that eminence either is "probably" or "definitely" original research. I agree: we need to involve Buaidh. hike395 05:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave another note for Buaidh about this. I do want to start removing the eminence info, however, since it will eventually propagate outside WP. (I just saw a mention of it on the prominence yahoogroup, for example.) That's exactly what is not supposed to happen---a concept originating in Wikipedia. -- Spireguy 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! This is not good. Has Buaidh not responded to notes? Instead of waiting, should we just go ahead and yank eminence? hike395 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I just drop by once in a while and am not really a member of the project but here is my two cents anyway. We don't even have an article about eminence. It seems to me that the reason for this is that there just isn't much in the way of published sources for such an article. If eminence doesn't rate an article then why reference it in mountain articles. Its an interesting idea and all but maybe we could wait until the idea has more 'prominence' in the world outside Wikipedia. So my answer to hike395 is yes. DRoll 07:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the term "eminence" was coined by Buaidh. There are no published sources at all for the term or for the concept. That's why it's clearly OR. I agree with Hike395 that we should start editing it out. -- Spireguy 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed now most of the uses (all in peak list tables) that I could find. The summit eminence redirect page and a link from the eminence disambiguation page are the only two main-namespace references remaining of which I'm aware. — ras52 19:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good/featured article envy

So, I made a list of mountain articles that are good/features. I could only find those by looking at sister WikiProjects. Should we (collectively) spend some time bringing some mountain articles up to Good status? (I hope we can avoid a large evaluation effort by using other wikiprojects to find B-class mountain articles to improve). I was thinking that enlarging our set of Good articles would be more effective than trying to get a small handful to be FA. Thoughts? Does anyone else feel Good Article envy? :-) hike395 14:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help in bringing a mountain or 2 up to good/featured status. One to consider is Hesselberg, a featured article in de: which I've recently been helping out on proofreading the en: translation. The main problem would be getting the referencing right which would require a German speaker with the right set of books.

I should go to the library tomorrow and see if I can find any good books on specific mountains for some suggestions of ones to work on. JMiall₰ 15:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a book on Hekla so I will attempt to improve this article as much as I can, probably starting tomorrow. Anyone want to join in? JMiall₰ 15:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I'm doing a major re-write I'm keeping the working version here for now. JMiall₰ 14:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it. I've been neglecting my mountain articles lately. --Justin 15:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have created the Assessment infrastructure as used on other WikiProjects in assessing the quality and importance of articles. Refer to the Assessment subpage for details. I had begun adding the start parameter to the mountain template a while back but never got around to getting the infrastructure in place until now. We should probably do some coordinatation with Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes and perhaps defer assessments on volcanoes to that project rather than having what would no doubt be duplication of effort if we had our own separate assessment as well. The statistics are automatically updated by a bot every few days although it is possible to manually re-generate them (which I did for a starting point). RedWolf 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RedWolf: I had no idea how to do this. How were the Importances determined? Automatically? Or did you fill them in manually?

A suggestion of what to do next -- let's choose a handful of B-class articles and make them Good. Any suggestions? hike395 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't know exactly how to do it either but was able to find a good help page to get things going. There's also a tool you can run to create most of the categories automatically. As to the importance, they are not done automatically (except for the unknown when it has not been specified). I have been using a rather loose set of rules for determining importance at present but had planned to raise it formally. I'll write something up on this talk page when I have a bit more time. As to what to do next, I also was thinking that starting probably with some of the B articles and raising them to Good would probably a good next step. I was planning to assess a few more articles to get a bigger pool to choose from but of course, in the end we would want all B articles upgraded to Good (and beyond of course). Out of the current B articles, if I were to pick three they would be Himalayas, Mount Everest or K2; however others are also good candidates. I guess just that I would find these three a bit more of interest at present. RedWolf 04:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For various reasons, I'm on a wikibreak --- but I think the three articles you've picked are great places to start: Perhaps the next step is to make a to-do list at Himalayas ? hike395 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New article Mount Tarumae, Hokkaido, Japan

I am new to Wikipedia but have created a stub on Mount Tarumae in Japan. It does not follow the project guidelines (yet) but I would like to link it into the project somehow - how do I go about doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunchan (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you already seem to have put templates on the talkpage of Mount Tarumae, how about putting Template:Infobox Mountain on the article as a next step? JMiall₰ 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have added an Infobox but the coordinates are really needed. Rated Mid-importance Stub. See the comments for improvement suggestions. RedWolf 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

4000 articles

WikiProject Mountains/List of mountains has been updated. More than 4,000 articles are now using the Infobox Mountain. Congratulations!

This is slightly more than WikiProject Lakes (3,940 articles with infobox). - October 21, 2007 -- User:Docu

What about that {{Geobox Mountain}} horror? Circeus (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mount Thor

The page on Mount Thor has become, over time, an exact replica of the Answers.com article.[[User:Franky210|Turtopotamus]] 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• They are copying Wikipedia, not the other way around. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Answers.com. RedWolf 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)