Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains

Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Portal-puzzle.svg Portal  People icon.svg Project  Nuvola apps edu languages.svg Discussion
Silvretta panorama from the Ochsenkopf

couple of mountain ranges and mountains I can't find much about[edit]

I started looking for the Band-i-Turkistan and found this but that mentions a mount Khauzi-Kaud which I can't even find another mention for - how do you go about creating a stub for these? EdwardLane (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

lets rephrase that - how do you go about finding enough info about the mountain/range to put a stub together. any tips? EdwardLane (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @EdwardLane: You can look at the Resources section on the project page for some useful sites although there is a bias towards English content websites at present. It would be great if we could build up the list for other areas of the world. Probably the easiest to build stub/starting articles for mountains in Canada and the United States, not so much for peaks in Asia except for the more better known peaks of the Himalayas. So building stubs for mountains in Turkistan will not be easy generally speaking. You could check out the mountains in Turkistan that exist on the English Wikipedia and then look at the other language sites to see if they list some good reliable sources. If you come across any sites (especially government) that provides similar information as that of the Canadian Geographic Names Database or the USGS GNIS post them on this page. RedWolf (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@RedWolf: Thanks that's a good shout - I hadn't really considered government sites (should have been obvious) if I get time I will do so. EdwardLane (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Major discrepancies in sources' elevation of Adi Kailash. Is there a standard source used for elevation data?[edit]

I recently noticed some apparent vandalism on the Adi Kailash page, where a user had entered an elevation that directly contradicts the source cited for the elevation. I reverted it so that the elevation matches the source. However, the user was persistent in entering the other elevation (which goes against the provided source), so I decided to do a little research. I found that many sources online support the elevation that the user was entering, but many sources support other elevations, too.

The source currently used in the article says 5945 m. Also, when I look on the elevation map for Google Maps, it also looks like it's ~5,900 metres (19,400 ft) (I know this is probably original research, but I thought it was a useful "sanity check"). However, when I search online, some results say 6,191 metres (20,312 ft) (see [1], [2]), and some say 6,310 metres (20,700 ft) (see [3], [4], [5]).

Also, this source used later in the article says 5,925 metres (19,439 ft).

I have no idea which of these are reliable sources (and some appear to be tourism-oriented, so perhaps they have an interest in over-stating the elevation of the mountain??), so I don't really know how to reconcile the discrepancy in elevations of nearly 400 metres (1,300 ft). Is there a standard source used for elevation data that could readily answer the question of the mountain's elevation? Any advice on how to proceed? palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 17:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Level Mountain FAC[edit]

For those who may be interested, Level Mountain has been nominated for FAC. Volcanoguy 20:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Odd rankings[edit]

I am hoping that a Mountain Expert could review a couple of articles that use some odd ordinal numbers for ranking peaks:

From a purely numerical concept this doesn't make sense, but assuming good faith I wondered if this is in fact how some peaks are classified. Could someone review these articles and correct if necessary? Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't get the .5's either. If it was tied with another then perhaps but deciding the most prominent summits, like Hyndman Peak, seems subjective enough you wouldn't need to use half numbers to rank them and Lhotse Shar isn't even listed in the list they are referring too and isn't tied with any other height included in the list. --ARoseWolf 19:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Even if it were tied, then there would be two mountains "tied for 5th highest", and the next below it would be the "7th highest" (there wouldn't be a "6th highest"). "Fifth-and-a-half" makes no sense when using ordinal numerals. The rationale at Lhotse Shar was "lower than Makalu but higher than Cho Oyu so because of its low prominence 5.5 on the list of high peaks". However, careful reading of List of highest mountains on Earth#Considerations reveals that due to it being a prominence-based list it "may exclude well-known or spectacular mountains that are connected via a high ridge to a taller summit". I suspect that the editor didn't understand this methodology, but wasn't sure if it was my own misunderstanding. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hoof Hearted: Completely agree with your assessment. I think you probably have a better understanding of it than I do but I can recognize that it doesn't look right in its current state. --ARoseWolf 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy relevant to this project[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uturuncu/archive1 is a featured article candidacy relevant to this project. If someone has a review/comments/concerns about the article that are pertinent to this list, post about it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uturuncu/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

GAR of interest to this project[edit]

Guallatiri, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone reading this is interested...[edit]

...Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uturuncu/archive1 requires more comments/reviews/supports/opposes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Topographic information added by an user[edit]

MAXIMOKAUSCH has been adding topographic information to articles like Sillajhuay. I am a little concerned that some of these data are too close to WP:UNDUE/WP:PRIMARY/WP:OR, aside from being poorly formatted. Do/should we add this kind of information to articles? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm MAXIMOKAUSCH. I do have several corrections to do in many andean peak articles. I'm citing all sources. I have a sheet I can share with all my research on andean peaks. its taking 8 years so far. I'm also climbing some and bringing GPS info. Can anyone help me out to let me know if its OK to correct wikipedia information? I can guarantee there is a lot of wrong and missing information in the current pages. Not sure If I'm doing ir right — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXIMOKAUSCH (talkcontribs) 07:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MAXIMOKAUSCH. Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone however there are guidelines and policies. You can not use your personal research as a source unless it has been issued in peer review journals or been published by reliable independent sources (See WP:RS and WP:OR). --ARoseWolf 15:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources might apply here assuming that MAXIMOKAUSCH is Maximo Kausch. Have you been quoted in other books/government documents/whatever? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, yes, that's me. I have no idea how the wikipedia quotes work, maybe yes MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
OK. I think though that rather than copying the entire list of elevation estimates into Wikipedia articles, I would probably only write a short summary. Also, you probably shouldn't say that things like Acamarachi are within a city; perhaps they are within a city's administrative boundaries but definitively not within the city as an agglomeration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus! Thank you for your feedback. I've fixed the Pili Acamarachi article. The reason I'm adding all this DEM data is that most official measurements are wrong (Instituto Geografico Militar). Some measurements are from ground surveys in 1950. We now have digital elevation models, so in a way we need 'proof' of the elevation mentioned in each article. For instance Pucajirca has no evidence of its 6046 metres, Caraz too. Acamarachi has avidence from 5 DEMs. So I strongly believe we have to mention that. Let me know if you think the Acamarachi article works better now and I can use that as base for the other ones. thank you! MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the DEM altitudes are readings from each space mission, and I believe we have to mention it to avoid further elevation discussions. It took about 2 years to gather all DEM readings for all these peaks, some data is very hard to get. Also the data of communes, cities, provinces took about 4 months. I worked in every polygon provided by IGMsMAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The information being added needs to be sourced to independent reliable secondary sources. Anything resembling OR and not properly sourced according to guidelines can be refuted or even deleted. --ARoseWolf 15:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I say this because Wikipedia does not make the claim that the information here is 100% factual or correct, only that it is properly sourced. If independent secondary reliable sources get the information wrong then, most likely, Wikipedia will be wrong as well. Wikipedia is a slow progressing tertiary source. --ARoseWolf 15:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello ARoseWolf, thank you for explaining. No problem then. All information is sourced and linked (please check the example) from GeoTIFF files available from each mission's website (i.e. Nasa, DLR). Each city, national park, province comes from each polygon made available by each military geographical institute. All I did was the work of gathering all the information. thank youMAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
MAXIMOKAUSCH, one of the references you provided for Acamarachi has an error. You may want to review that and make the appropriate changes to correct it. --ARoseWolf 16:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
And on that page, It is shared by Argentinean province of Salta (city of Tolar Grande) and Chilean province of Antofagasta (Commune of Antofagasta). Socompa belongs to the argentine protected area of Provincial Fauna Reserve Los Andes. needs a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Good catch! I would look at including sources for most everything being added but especially where it may alter or change perception or what has been regarded as consensus in the article for any length of time. --ARoseWolf 16:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @MAXIMOKAUSCH:. Also, if I may recommend, if you run you should explain on these webpages where the elevation data come from. You added this information to Wikipedia, where it makes it difficult to read the page source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus thanks for your help! Good idea, I'm explaining every bit of data. There are 2 different things happening that I'm trying to explain in these wikipedia articles: first there is a long discussion regarding the altitude of each peak. sometimes there are 2 different 'oficial' versions of the altitude for the altitude of each peak as the mountain might be on the border. But we now have digital data from satellite topographic missions. So we have to show evidence of that altitude from these well documented topographic missions. This is why I believe we need a separate paragraph to explain all sources and show evidence of the elevation. Second problem: there is a big discussion of what 'mountain' means. I have mentioned all sources and did the corrections you suggested. thank you for your corrections and suggestionsMAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
See, I don't think we can host the discussion about what mountain means on Wikipedia. The sources give the topographic data and a common definition of "mountain" but we cannot extrapolate from these whether a given peak is a mountain or not - Wikipedia policy explicitly disallows this kind of extrapolation. Also, I am a little concerned that the sources you link like do not actually give the elevation numbers and I can't find a way to get them from there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thank for explaining. Fair enough I understand your concern now, let me explain: Sources cited, like the USGS data centre, allow you to access their data for free (SRTM data in this case). They come in the form o GeoTIFF images or HGT images. Each tile is HUGE and has thousands of datapoints. You then have to 'navigate' to the summit of the mountain in question and check the altitude given. This can be done with simple tools like Simple DEM Viewer. It takes a lot of work and I've already done that. Please let me know if I can continue doing these contributions to andean peaks?MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, by the way. Regarding the 'discussion' about what a mountain is. Please understand I do not discuss what a mountain is in any article. All I'm doing is saying if X or Y elevations are considered a mountain, range or complex, according to specific topographic criteria. That's all. There are many criteria to do so. I believe there would be a big discussion if I don't mention the criteria used.MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, by taking an elevation number (sourced) and an elevation definition (sourced) and using that to define a mountain (unsourced) you are in fact synthesizing a conclusion. Regarding the sources, I'd probably link to the viewer/file/page where you can access the file directly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@MAXIMOKAUSCH: regarding the above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the message. Unfortunately NASA's GeoTIFF files cannot be linked independently. Most datasources require registration and logging into their file directories. TanDEM-x, ALOS, ASTER and SRTM require similar procedures. Regarding topography definitions, that's a good point. Articles refer to different criteria to define the word 'mountain' (the current wikipedia article for 'mountain' mentions the 300m col rule, but mentions there are more (please check). The source given, for example, has 16 different meanings for elevations according to their topographic prominence ratio. This is exactly what the source given does in each article. I personally believe the criteria has to be mentioned in any statement. Let me know your thoughts and thanks for this productive discussion.MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@MAXIMOKAUSCH:See, I don't think that for most of the mountains discussed here (Andean volcanoes) the distinction between ridge, mountain and massif is irrelevant. And we still cannot use a definition page as a source per WP:SYNTH, unless that definition page explicitly mentions the mountain.

I'd still link to the file page even if a login screen comes up or somesuch. It's clearer than the current format where you are sent on a wild goose chase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:Please check this article and let me know if you think it works better? Nevado_de_Famatina. please note I've removed any 'mountain' statements and sourced GeoTiff files in their raw format (2 datasources require registration, one can be downloaded directly). Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Slightly better, although I like the format on Acamarachi better. Also, "AAJ (American Alpine Journal)". AAJ (American Alpine Journal): 440. 1963. is a little skimpy on details of what it exactly entails. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I do like the way the elevation is mentioned in the notes on Acamarachi, but I simply don't know how to do it. Will try though. It is great we're talking about it now as I'm planning to update/create a total of 1178 pages. So about the AAJ, this is Echevarria's research. He took paper notes of each paper but did not mention the page. Unfortunately most of this information isn't on internet and Evelio died, so it might take a few years until we find the exact page and paper. The American Alpine Club is making an effort to publish their old papers though. This was Evelio and some of his great work: (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Aye, I am sure I've used Echevarria as a source in some articles. Perhaps the pages at Template:Sfn and Template:Efn might help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

NTS map sheet link[edit]

While I don't have any issue with this being a link, personally I don't see any value to the current map being shown. No features are identified on the map so what value does it serve? RedWolf (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

We could modify {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} to retrieve the topo map directly from the Government of Canada, e.g., {{Canada NTS Map Sheet|82|J|14}} would retrieve ... would that be better?
Pinging Denelson83 to bring them into the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
We want to link that template to an online image of the map sheet, not access it indirectly through a ZIP file download. What {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} does is the next best thing—to draw a box on a map showing the exact extent of the map sheet to which it refers; its latitude and longitude bounds. Also, if you notice in the upper-right corner of that linked map, there is a layer selection option. You can switch between Wikimedia's satellite imagery database or OpenStreetMap's Carto tiles. The problem with NRCan's Toporama app is it only allows you to see the extent of a map sheet through HTTP POST, not HTTP GET. -- Denelson83 06:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yea, linking to a zip file would not be the best UI experience. OpenStreetMap is somewhat better but I think adding OpenTopoMap to the selection layer would be much better. RedWolf (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have been working on a newer version of this template, {{User:Denelson83/Canada NTS Map Link}}. It uses Wikimedia's own Kartographer extension to draw a box on a map corresponding to the NTS map sheet containing a given latitude and longitude, and for good measure, it also plots the given point within that box. I think this updated template could be more powerful and informative if the Kartographer extension included a topographic layer. -- Denelson83 18:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Denelson83 and RedWolf: Toporama has a mode where you can specify a bounding box and look at the map, see, e.g.,,50.75,-115,51 This gets the user at least one step closer to a Canadian topo map. Can we use that link? — hike395 (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll try that out. Thanks for finding this. -- Denelson83 06:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
And it is implemented. -- Denelson83 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if most people are going to submit a request to the government with their email address in order to get a topo map section that's already provided by or even at CGNDB (w/o the elevation). Whether the gov't is using this method to track uses by email address or an attempt to circumvent bot uses, either way it's a clunky UI. RedWolf (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, this new link does not require an e-mail address to view just the extent of a map sheet. It simply draws the extent on the provided slippy map, which is all I want this template to do. Just ignore everything else on that page and you should be fine. -- Denelson83 19:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I have now just implemented 1:250,000 scale map support in this template. -- Denelson83 02:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


I need a Mountain expert to weigh in on WP:NOTABILITY (for mountains/peaks); Getting people in WP:Idaho writing one line articles for the 1822nd tallest mountain?? (In Idaho)... Is there a top 100 type limit? (or if something MAJOR happened there?). Thanks in advance, Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." This is a form of WP:GNG. Hope this helps. — hike395 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

GNIS offline as of Sept 2, 2021[edit]

An offline notice appears if you try to access any of the GNIS links:

User Notice – September 2, 2021

The GNIS forms are currently offline. Users may access GNIS data by downloading one of the text files that will be made available prior to shutdown. GNIS will be down for a period of time as we transition to our new forms. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause our users.

Should we modify the GNIS template to display an offline notice in the reference section? RedWolf (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not having any difficulties getting into the GNIS. Volcanoguy 04:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Every GNIS link I've tried in articles takes me to the offline notice and not to the specific GNIS record. e.g. Denali. RedWolf (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure it was working when I last checked. That's unfortunate. Volcanoguy 00:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)some

Fixed for now --- I found a date where picked up the contents of the GNIS page, so at least there'll be something for verification. — hike395 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ( ) 09:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hoodoo Mountain FAC[edit]

Hoodoo Mountain has been nominated for FA. Comments are needed. Volcanoguy 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Two days in and still nothing from WP Mountains. What happened to the activity of this WikiProject? It isn't hard to leave a comment or support ugh. Volcanoguy 21:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Don't let this FAC fall. This is WikiProject, a group of contributors who are supposed to work together as a team to improve articles. Volcanoguy 21:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I was not active on the Wiki that particular week. I must have missed this in my watchlist when I came back. I see it got promoted to FAC. Well done. RedWolf (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How to format ascents to a peak when there are large amounts of possible ascents and connector trails?[edit]

I was trying to clean up the page for Mission Peak to hopefully make it more clear, but ran into a problem when talking about the possible ascents. While there are trails to Mission Peak from four different trailheads, only one trail actually goes through the peak. How should I separate the ascents; is there a standard for this WikiProject? Also there are two trails from one of the trailheads, which could easily make separate ascents to the peak (no shared ground after the beginning intersection). Do these deserve to be treated as separate ascents? If so, what percent needs to be separate in order for them to be as such? There are many connector trails between two of the trails up to the peak. Should stuff using them be treated as separate ascents from ones without them? 2601:647:4100:10E2:640C:3C4C:526C:D5C1 (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)2601:647:4100:10E2:640C:3C4C:526C:D5C1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think the relevant guideline is WP:NOTGUIDE: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We shouldn't exhaustively describe an entire trail network or all possible ascents. I would just describe the alternatives in a very minimal way. — hike395 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
But what determines which ascent to prioritise? Should all ascents be minimally described? (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 2601:647:4100:10E2:640C:3C4C:526C:D5C1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. citation template[edit]

I have been adding the topographic maps from (see to mountains for a while now (since early 2021) and was using {{cite web}} to cite it as a reference. This map shows the elevation of the summit which is based on Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data that is in the public domain. I finally got around to creating a citation template: {{cite opentopomap}}. RedWolf (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Handy dandy for sure. I will make use of it. Volcanoguy 11:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the reliability of at RSN[edit]

See here. Site is used as a source in about 5,100 articles related to mountain peaks. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors in the discussion, above, are pointing out that Peakbagger is a self-published source. Do we know who is the main editor of Peakbagger? Is he/she considered a subject-matter expert? @Droll, Ron Clausen, and Buaidh: do you know? — hike395 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Looks like it's someone named Greg Slayden. Going by Googling it seems like they are sometimes cited in the context of mountaineering (e.g here) but not as frequently as some others such as John Biggar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
As you might know I have edited hundreds of pages which use Peakbagger as a source. I have found the site to be very reliable. I don't use the site's coordinates because GNIS is available and is fairly accurate and "official". I have found that the editor is open to feedback. I know of nothing better. –droll [chat] 23:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I've never really used Peakbagger so I'm not much help. I avoid using self-published sources as they are generally considered unreliable (even if the information is correct) and in doing so I avoid these kinds of debates. But I understand prominence and isolation are tough to come across in scholarship sources so I'm not really surprised websites such as Peakbagger are commonly used. Volcanoguy 12:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that prominence and isolation are something that primarily interests mountaineers so it won't be discussed in scholarship. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I have come across a few books that mention both the elevation and the relative height of volcanoes. Volcanoguy 10:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding GEONet Names Server (GNS) at RSN[edit]

See here. Site is used as a source in about 43,000 articles related to various geographical locations world-wide, including some mountain peaks. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Peakbagger has been flagged as an unreliable source?[edit]

So find something more reliable? It is certainly not GNIS. The site might not be perfect but, in my humble opinion, it is the best that is available. I'd like to know who is responsible for cite being flagged. I'd like some examples of inaccuracy and information on a source that is a better alternative. –droll [chat] 19:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, Droll. The current consensus at RSN forced me to do this edit, but it makes me very unhappy. I don't know what we should do. I really don't want to substitute prominence data that is less accurate because it is more "reliable". I'd almost rather delete prominence and isolation from the infobox, and just link to peakbagger (or peaklist) in the External Links section than use Kirmse's data. Don't get me wrong: I like Kirmse's efforts in finding the prominence of every peak on Earth. But Kirmse recognizes that his system is less accurate than Peakbagger. — hike395 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Perfaps you should mark ListOfJohn as unreliable as well as even GNIS although it is better than it used to be. I think that peak bagging and the climbing sports in general do not require the same accuracy as nuclear physics. The sites we use are reliable enough most of the time. Even the NGS datasheets can be questioned. Many clearly state that approximations are used. I don't think that the sites I've mentioned should be held to the same standards as scientific publications. Certainly the National Elevation Dataset is not very accurate in determining the elevation of peaks especially if they have a summit block. Maybe It should be flagged as inaccurate. Perhaps Wikipedia should reject as inaccurate books of athletic data because there might be inaccuracies. So perhaps every source that is not rigorously refereed should be flagged or is that going to far. Maybe flagging peakbagger is going to far. –droll [chat] 20:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I've thought about it, and Volcanoguy is correct (above): accuracy is not the same as Wikipedia reliability. A self-published source can be correct and still considered to be unreliable (by the WP rules), if we cannot prove that the editors of the self-published source are domain experts. I tried to explain the prominence community to the editors at WP:RSN, and got a huge pushback: they characterize the community as "hobbyists" and "amateurs", because they did not subject their data to the scrutiny of peer review. And we know from WP itself that peer review is a powerful tool. According to WP:RS, Peakbagger isn't a reliable source :-(.
There's a strong local consensus in this project to provide prominence and isolation in WP mountain articles. I agree with this consensus. But local consensus cannot overrule the core policies of WP. And when it comes to prominence and isolation, we do not appear to be following WP:RS.
It seems we cannot both provide accurate prominence and isolation data and follow WP:RS. If this is right, then maybe we should take prominence and isolation out of the infoboxes, and simply link to Peakbagger/Peaklist/ListOfJohn in External Links. To be clear, I do not want to do this. I think this is a terrible idea. But I don't know how else to follow WP:RS. Does anyone have any better ideas? I don't think we can simply ignore WP:RS, can we? — hike395 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Later: at WP:RSN, I'm making an argument for the reliability of Peakbagger via usage by others, even of Peakbagger doesn't "look like" a usual reliable source. Let's see if this sways the skeptics at all. — hike395 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If we can't prove Peakbagger is a reliable source then we should probably use Kirmse's data for prominence and isolation. It may not be as accurate as Peakbagger but using that instead of nothing at all would be better IMO. At least it still gives an idea of how prominent/isolated a mountain is. Volcanoguy 03:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. You're right. It's just aggravating to give up on a source that Kirmse says is more accurate (for prominence at least). And it's going to be a lot of work to change over.
I was just looking at Kirmse's page on isolation, and it turns out that Peakbagger overestimates isolation in 80% of the cases by using the distance to the next highest peak, not by looking for the closest point that is higher. — hike395 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought I had commented on this site in the previous section (but didn't). I find peakbagger reliable although for mountains in Canada, I tend to rely more on for prominence (which is probably in the same "reliable source?" boat as peakbagger). I find prominence useful but isolation not so much (I rarely add it to articles; I'm not advocating we remove isolation). It's probably pretty rare that a guide book is going to show isolation (mostly likely due to not finding any reliable sources and probably not being of much interest to hikers/mountaineers in general). Guide books will usually give an indication of elevation gain from the "official" trail head but it's probably fairly rare that it can be considered the prominence value. Is there any gov't source in the world that provides prominence and isolation (especially prominence) and if so, do it consistently and not just for better known mountains? I think it fair to say that the general public doesn't care about prominence, isolation and to a much less extent elevation (except for well know or local mountains perhaps). However, that doesn't mean we should remove prominence/isolation values from the infobox. Is a reliable source? If so, what makes it different from peakbagger? Surprising tidbit about peakbagger's isolation determination critera, I didn't expect that. I am quite reluctant to remove sourced information from peakbagger, bivouac, summitpost and peakfinder and yes, it would definitely be a lot of work to do that. No easy answer here. RedWolf (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
If there comes a time when sourced information from peakbagger has to be removed I will likely be able to help. I just finished rating 2,000+ mountain articles. Volcanoguy 22:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Prominence is used a lot in the UK to categorise mountains and isolation is also of interest to 'peak baggers'. However the usual source is the Database of British and Irish Hills which appears to be highly accurate. I don't know if other sites draw on them for their data on the British Isles. Bermicourt (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding Mount Langley to "List of mountain peaks of the United States"[edit]

I propose adding Mount Langley in California to the "List of mountain peaks of the United States", table "Highest Major Summits". Mount Langley has an elevation of 14,032 feet and would be ranked 44th in the table (of 100). Granted, its prominence is quite low at 1,165 ft or 1,230 ft (depending on the definition), but there are lower prominence on lower elevation mountains in this list, for example Sunshine peak with a prominence of 501 ft.

Sources:, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacadeW (talkcontribs) 22:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)