Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains

Add topic
Active discussions
 Portal-puzzle.svg Portal  People icon.svg Project  Nuvola apps edu languages.svg Discussion
Silvretta panorama from the Ochsenkopf

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)


Can someone make it so that you can filter the results by number? (ascending/decending order, etc) Anonüümne34 (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anonüümne34 Could you be a bit more specific? Which results and on what page do you mean, please? The contents of many tables can be made sortable - and many already are - so a link to an article would be really helpful. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References for prominence etc.Edit

Hi all, I'm looking for good online references for values such as prominence, isolation, parent peak, and the like for mountain peaks within the United States. I usually use Peakbagger and ListsOfJohn for these values in my daily life; they're both amazing sites. However, Peakbagger clearly isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia as it contains substantial user-generated content. LoJ is the very impressive work of a few individuals but has no oversight, so I see its reliability (in the Wikipedia sense) as debatable. My question is: do people think or is there a consensus that LoJ is reliable enough for use on Wikipedia, and if not, are there any other sources that you're aware of that could be used for these values? ST11 (t • c) 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For the reliability of Peakbagger, see the unresolved discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Is a reliable source?. I don't know of a WP:RS substitute for Peakbagger. — hike395 (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that discussion. Seems like there's no consensus on the topic. Peakbagger also has two separate types of peaks: provisional and verified. The provisional data are clearly unreliable. Fortunately, almost any peak that deserves an article in Wikipedia would be a verified peak. Without any good alternative, seems like there's no way to avoid using it for that sort of info. If nothing else, perhaps it would be a WP:IAR situation: even if Peakbagger isn't seen as reliable, a rule of not using the source would prevent people from improving Wikipedia. ST11 (t • c) 18:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mount Hebron#Requested move 8 March 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mount Hebron#Requested move 8 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Mount Price at FACEdit

I just want to let WP Mountains know that Mount Price (British Columbia) is a featured article candidate. Any comments are welcomed. Volcanoguy 09:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

20 days in and few comments... Volcanoguy 18:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerro Tuzgle/archive1 also has few comments, it's not just you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
No, but your FAC has been reviewed a lot more recently. Price's FAC will likely have to be archived in a few days without further reviews forthcoming. Volcanoguy 21:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)#Requested move 22 March 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)#Requested move 22 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Please note that Mountain pass, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of RaudebergnutenEdit


The article Raudebergnuten has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wholly unsourced for 11.76 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)