Talk:Monte Rosa

Untitled

(transfered from main page) Monte Rosa is a very big mountain which isnt well known.. why is that? someone else post here

Probably because it is lower than nearby Mont Blanc and less "impressive" than Matterhorn. Viewfinder 19:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No information on the Monte Rosa Hut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.210.89 (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Monte Rosa vs Monte Rosa Massif vs Dufourspitze

Monte Rosa and Monte Rosa Massif are a synonyms. Monte Rosa Massif is actually a pleonasm. See also: Talk:Monte Rosa#Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP)

Therefore: the article Monte Rosa Massif has to be merged, either with Monte Rosa, or then moved to Monte Rosa, after the article Monte Rosa has been moved to Dufourspitze. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

ZH8000, this was supposed to be a broad meaning of Monte Rosa Massif, including the Lyskamm and other summits that are not part of Monte Rosa but in the same group of mountains (broader than Mischabel for instance, which I redirected to Dom (mountain) a while ago, being an eternal stub). ZachG (Talk) 13:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

BUT this article is called Monte Rosa Massif, and not Monte Rosa Broad Group, or Monte Rosa Group, which is the term usually used for more than the Monte Rosa (massif)!!!

AND this, yours (sic!), misconception is again based on the very same error you are following now for (more than) seven years, see Talk:Monte Rosa#Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP) I do not think you cannot understand what I wrote in the my first collective statement. You can't be that stubborn, don't you??? And please discuss this issue at one single place, thanks!!! -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Then just rename the article "Monte Rosa Group", I've really nothing against that... ZachG (Talk) 15:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 12:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Monte Rosa Massif → Monte Rosa – Because this article is about the Monte Rosa, which is synonymous to Monte Rosa massif. Since this English WP article is connected to other language articles with titles, such as de:Monte Rosa, fr:Mont Rosa, it:Monte Rosa (and so forth) only, which do not explicitly make clear in the article's title that Monte Rosa is a mountain massif. The misconception on the English WP comes from a misconception made between Monte Rosa and the Dufourspitze, its highest peak. Therefore, there is a corresponding request to move the English WP article currently called Monte Rosa to Dufourspitze before this move. And finally, most text in the currently called Monte Rosa article (about the Monte Rosa massif) must then be subsequently moved to the then new Monte Rosa article (currently called Monte Rosa Massif, this very article). Only specific aspects about Dufourspitze should stay in the newly called article Dufourspitze. The result would finally re-establish a long needed coherent correspondance with any other language on WP! – See also the extensive argumentation: Talk:Monte Rosa#Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP). – An alternative would be to merge both articles Monte Rosa and Monte Rosa Massif to Monte Rosa. ZH8000 (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close there are different and separate articles at Monte Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and at Monte Rosa Massif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ; you cannot use Requested Moves to delete articles, you must use wP:AfD for that purpose. If you are instead asking for a merger, then this is also still the wrong process, as wP:PM proposed mergers is for that process. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not a request to delete an article, but to re-introduce their real meaning/content at the right article with the correct article title. Please read it carefully. So your objection is not valid. -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Since the discussion at Talk:Monte Rosa was not indicated in the nomination, this is a very poor multimove request -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
      • It explicitly and clearly says "Therefore, there is a corresponding request to move the English WP article currently called Monte Rosa to Dufourspitze before this move.". It can hardly get more explicit. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per my comment at Talk:Monte Rosa. This is a messy multi-move multi-merge/split situation, and there is no single venue that can sort it out. I support ZH8000's proposed schedule (most alternatives are messy as well). Procedurally, you should have used Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves to move (or not) both pages simultaneously, but that's water under the bridge, I suppose the closer will take both discussions into account. No such user (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually did try to use the multiple page moves template, but it produced an error. Probably because A is equal to D in: A-->B and C-->D. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • It has worked in the past, since people have done those type of move requests before. I suspect you've probably made a formatting error or parameter error in your multimove posting -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above and per discussion at Talk:Monte Rosa. Alex2006 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above and it needs rewriting in tidier English too. It reads a little bit like its been through a translation engine e.g. "The central range of Monte Rosa, which appears to originate in the intersection of two axes of great elevation, throws out a number of ridges that radiate afar and gradually subside into the plain of northern Italy, covering a relatively large area. There are no convenient mode of subdividing the range. However the natural limits of the district can be defined on the north side by the two branches of the Visp torrent." Bermicourt (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mont Blanc massif

Just an after-the-fact observation, following the move above. Compare Mont Blanc and Mont Blanc massif. Spitze is a German word, meaning "tip", "mountaintop" or "highest point". I guess, in this case, there is no "Blancspitze" equivalent to Dufourspitze, i.e. Guillaume-Henri Dufour-spitze. It seems common usage may be to call it the (Guillaume-Henri) Dufour-spitze of Monte Rosa, i.e. the "tip", "mountaintop" or "highest point" of "Mount Rosa". While the top of most mountains has the same name as the mountain itself, in certain special cases like this, an honorary name is given to the top of the mountain.

Also I observe that "the Mont Blanc massif is a mountain range in the Alps. Why is it called a "massif" if it is a "mountain range"? What's the difference between a "massif" and a "mountain range"? I thought the Alps were the "mountain range" and that Blanc and Rosa were massifs that are a part of that range. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Whittow, a massif is a mountainous mass with fairly uniform characteristics (geology, structure) and clearly defined boundaries. My take on this is that it's somewhere between a single mountain with one peak and a mountain range with lots of peaks. A massif may have a main and subpeaks but they're all part of the same block.

It's probably also worth adding two other points. Firstly that mountain ranges can have a parent-child relationship with other, smaller, mountain ranges within then, as explained in the Massif article, and secondly that, in the case of the Mont Blanc massif, the word 'massif' has commonly been used by local people (it's a French word anyway) and by non-geologists to refer to that particular range of mountains for over more than a century. (e.g. the book by Gaston Rebuffat entitled the Mont Blanc Massif and others here.) So my take is that it is OK to regard the totality of the Mont Blanc mountains as both a massif and a (albeit small) mountain range within the Alps range of mountains. Parkywiki (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monte Rosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120227032207/http://www.brauchtumschweiz.ch/fileadmin/DATA_Autoren/Bilder/Tradition/beruehmte_gipfel/alpenwelt_monte_rosa.pdf to http://www.brauchtumschweiz.ch/fileadmin/DATA_Autoren/Bilder/Tradition/beruehmte_gipfel/alpenwelt_monte_rosa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

'Highest mountain of'

Please, please, please can Wikipedia stop using the un-English expression 'highest/biggest/smallest etc. of' a geographical area? In English the correct preposition is 'in': 'the highest mountain in Switzerland'. The use of the preposition 'of' is a mistranslation from other languages.212.30.86.78 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monte Rosa. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930061233/http://www.lovevda.it/turismo/scopri/grandi_montagne/monte_rosa_e.asp to http://www.lovevda.it/turismo/scopri/grandi_montagne/monte_rosa_e.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215114223/http://www.tourmonterosa.com/ to http://www.tourmonterosa.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)