Talk:Tsitsutl Peak
Latest comment: 14 years ago by BC archaeologist in topic Other Tsitsutl geonames
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Other Tsitsutl geonames edit
Looking this up on BCGNIS' main query, I found also "Tsitsutl Mountain". BC Geographical Names. and "Tsitsutl Creek". BC Geographical Names., which are 2 degrees of latitude further north....which leas me to the somewaht OR conclusion that "the local native language" on the vancouverisland.com page is from Carrier/Ulkatcho and not Chilcotin, as the Chilcotin language territory doesn't come that far north (except during raiding maybe); I'll amend it to "the local native language" for now until we know for sure, as to speculate it's Ulkatcho is OR for now.Skookum1 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just did the km radius search on BCGNIS for the northern Tsitsutl placenames - they're in the area of Trembleur Lake and Takla Lake....I'm tempted to amend the article to Carrier language but will get corroboration from a Carrier langauge specialist first. If he'll answer (User:BillPoser; another place to ask would be on Talk:Ulkatcho First Nation....Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a similar query to Talk:Anahim Lake, British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Anything is accessable. Not arguing, but I seen your discussion on User talk:Hike395 and I'm sorry I only include volcanology on all articles I work on. But that's because of the lack of volcanology infomation and before I started editing Wikipedia there was barely nothing about the subject which there should have. Volcanism might not seem to be part of the everyday reality of Canadians, but there are many volcanoes in British Columbia and the Yukon that remain geologically active. There's nothing much else to mention on volcano articles except volcanology most likely because there's an insufficient level of infomation about those subjects or the infomation is from a non-reliable source; probably because most lie in remote locations. As for the Western Cordillera (North America), I'm probably no longer going to contribute to that article but someone will likely add geology to that article anyway e.g. 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, which is a famous topic in the Cascade Range. A volcano is a volcano and a mountain is a mountain, that's how nature works. If you know any geography etc about those subjects then it's acceptable. I've been trying to expand some mountain, glacier and icefield articles for quite a while now, but if there's no users working on those subjects, I'm not working on them either. Not my fault wikiprojects don't do anything major. Really, I thought we were pals. Black Tusk (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't meant (exactly) as a criticism; my concern at the Western Cordillera article is that the weight of specialist information on any one range is going to drown out other ranges, and other specialties; I'm sorry to use you as an example; you have expertise in your field and aren't groping in the dark as a certain other editor is, and overall you focus on specific mountains/volcanic features; certainly in the case of the Coast Mountains volcanism and plutonism are the overbearing elements; but so is glaciation and teh associated precipitation;climate spectrum. The sheer size and complexity of the Western Cordillera makes it very difficult to give any kind of detail at all, other than the most cursory outlines of the individual major ranges. I'm not going to reply because I don't want to engage him further, but Thompsma's suggestion taht "gee, why don't we add something on the Clearwaters and Sawtooths" is truly "out of his depth"; if we add something on those, then why not on any of the other 40 or 50 ranges at the same "tier", and why not something frmo other fields. Multiply his idea by 100, and then by four or five fields/subjects, and the article would get into the 1MB range....I'm not going to even bother trying to tell him, but he's digging that specialty ditch of his way deeper, and will only re-add the USPOV weight it had when all this started; for every Clearwater Mountains there are ten subranges of the Selkirks at the same level, and twice as many of the Coast Mountains, and so on up into Alaska and the Yukon. We have to draw a line somewhere. Or pardon me, somebody has to draw a line somewhere; but I'm tired of having the sand kicked in my face once I try. I know the map of the region too well, in ways and in amounts of time and study he can't comprehend; not as a geologist, but as a "topographer" and "toponymist", which is the "top level" of the subject. All there's really room for is descriptions of the range boundaries, their main subranges and main summits, and maybe something about general terrain and climate. There's no room for detailed geological acccounts, or ecologistical elaboration, or references in Hemingway to the Sawtooths (which indeed, are one of the reasons that name is so "popular"). It's Hemingway, in fact, and others like Robinson Jeffers who are "landscape writers". So it wasn't meant as an attack on you, adn I'm sorry to finger you as the example, "you were just on hand"....relay my issue with his latest suggestion if you wish, I have a room to clean (guest coming for a few days tomorrow) and a mental deskful of othe topics that have been begging articles for a while now. The best place for any elaboration of material on any one range is in that range's own article. All that's possible on Western Corilldera is the merest outline (and some nice pictures). Geology can be in individual range articles; there's no room for any but the most general description of the orogeny and glaciation and climatology and so on; only the sparest and also most broad; confusing geography and geology is my main problem with where he's coming from, and he's not a geologist, nor is he a geographer.....we should probably migrate this discussion away from this talkpage, also, not sure where but it doesn't ahve to do with Tsitsutl....Skookum1 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- And about remote volcanoes/mountains, you should try cross-googling their names or basins or other nearby landforms with MINFILE....all kinds of interesting stuff turns up, because mining people have studied more of teh backcountry than nearly anyone else....Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't meant (exactly) as a criticism; my concern at the Western Cordillera article is that the weight of specialist information on any one range is going to drown out other ranges, and other specialties; I'm sorry to use you as an example; you have expertise in your field and aren't groping in the dark as a certain other editor is, and overall you focus on specific mountains/volcanic features; certainly in the case of the Coast Mountains volcanism and plutonism are the overbearing elements; but so is glaciation and teh associated precipitation;climate spectrum. The sheer size and complexity of the Western Cordillera makes it very difficult to give any kind of detail at all, other than the most cursory outlines of the individual major ranges. I'm not going to reply because I don't want to engage him further, but Thompsma's suggestion taht "gee, why don't we add something on the Clearwaters and Sawtooths" is truly "out of his depth"; if we add something on those, then why not on any of the other 40 or 50 ranges at the same "tier", and why not something frmo other fields. Multiply his idea by 100, and then by four or five fields/subjects, and the article would get into the 1MB range....I'm not going to even bother trying to tell him, but he's digging that specialty ditch of his way deeper, and will only re-add the USPOV weight it had when all this started; for every Clearwater Mountains there are ten subranges of the Selkirks at the same level, and twice as many of the Coast Mountains, and so on up into Alaska and the Yukon. We have to draw a line somewhere. Or pardon me, somebody has to draw a line somewhere; but I'm tired of having the sand kicked in my face once I try. I know the map of the region too well, in ways and in amounts of time and study he can't comprehend; not as a geologist, but as a "topographer" and "toponymist", which is the "top level" of the subject. All there's really room for is descriptions of the range boundaries, their main subranges and main summits, and maybe something about general terrain and climate. There's no room for detailed geological acccounts, or ecologistical elaboration, or references in Hemingway to the Sawtooths (which indeed, are one of the reasons that name is so "popular"). It's Hemingway, in fact, and others like Robinson Jeffers who are "landscape writers". So it wasn't meant as an attack on you, adn I'm sorry to finger you as the example, "you were just on hand"....relay my issue with his latest suggestion if you wish, I have a room to clean (guest coming for a few days tomorrow) and a mental deskful of othe topics that have been begging articles for a while now. The best place for any elaboration of material on any one range is in that range's own article. All that's possible on Western Corilldera is the merest outline (and some nice pictures). Geology can be in individual range articles; there's no room for any but the most general description of the orogeny and glaciation and climatology and so on; only the sparest and also most broad; confusing geography and geology is my main problem with where he's coming from, and he's not a geologist, nor is he a geographer.....we should probably migrate this discussion away from this talkpage, also, not sure where but it doesn't ahve to do with Tsitsutl....Skookum1 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- BTW I remade the introduction on Coast Mountains. Black Tusk (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll have a look; I'm going to come up with my range boundary notes for you, somewhere in my old email files, and see what I've got. BTW re Tsitsutl, the name on the northern Tsitsutl Mountain indicates it's polychrome rock as well....might be worth looking up any volcanological information. "Trembleur Lake" is right nearby...."trembleur" doesn't mean earthqueke, but it does mean "trembler". could just be an HBC staffer's or prospectors/settler's name though...(BCGNIS doesn't say)Skookum1 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Anything is accessable. Not arguing, but I seen your discussion on User talk:Hike395 and I'm sorry I only include volcanology on all articles I work on. But that's because of the lack of volcanology infomation and before I started editing Wikipedia there was barely nothing about the subject which there should have. Volcanism might not seem to be part of the everyday reality of Canadians, but there are many volcanoes in British Columbia and the Yukon that remain geologically active. There's nothing much else to mention on volcano articles except volcanology most likely because there's an insufficient level of infomation about those subjects or the infomation is from a non-reliable source; probably because most lie in remote locations. As for the Western Cordillera (North America), I'm probably no longer going to contribute to that article but someone will likely add geology to that article anyway e.g. 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, which is a famous topic in the Cascade Range. A volcano is a volcano and a mountain is a mountain, that's how nature works. If you know any geography etc about those subjects then it's acceptable. I've been trying to expand some mountain, glacier and icefield articles for quite a while now, but if there's no users working on those subjects, I'm not working on them either. Not my fault wikiprojects don't do anything major. Really, I thought we were pals. Black Tusk (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a similar query to Talk:Anahim Lake, British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The similarity of names is almost certainly a result of the name of the supernatural creature (whose crest was shared amongst several language groups)applied to this powerful mountain. The reference for the translation is to a tourism pamphlet, unlikely to be accurate.BC archaeologist (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Because of the similarity of these words, despite coming from totally different language groups, it might be worth having a hatnote to clear up any confusion - ??Skookum1 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)