Jump to content

Talk:Mount Morning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Morning. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of USGS text

[edit]

Pace the lack of copyright, I am not sure that copy-pasting this content wholesale from the USGS website is reasonable. It doesn't fit into the rest of the article structure and is, well, not original. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The USGS information on the mountain's ridges, glaciers etc. is not original, but gives an idea of the topology and the people who have explored it. The back of the article is the natural place for it. This is a lot better than context-free stand-alone articles on each separate feature. I have turned those into redirects to sections in the main article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but for this article, restating the content of the USGS webpages seems half-baked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My main aim was to preserve the basic USGS gazetteer-type information on each feature: what, where and why it got that name, but eliminate the thousands of stubs on individual features, with their endless AfD debates.
    This article is unusual in having some real information about the parent. Often the articles for large ranges in Antarctica just copy the basic USGS information. That is not the case here.
    Possibly some content on geology could be moved or copied down to the sections on features. That way, the main sections on geology would be more general, with the features sections describing specific examples or exceptions. I could do that. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a better solution would be to write a section about the placenames and their origin, and to split the information from USGS between that section and the "Geography and geomorphology" section. That is, order the information by theme, not by geographic feature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A section on feature names would be awkward, suggesting original research. I would prefer to prune down the "Geography and geomorphology" section a bit, followed by the geology and volcanology sections, and then at the back expand the "Features" section to give geographical, geological and historical detail, feature by feature. A bit of repetition would not be a problem. Our readers almost always see Wikipedia on their phones, where short, focused sections are a lot easier to follow. When they click on Wikipedia's Riviera Ridge entry in Google search results it would be good if they saw all there is to say about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't see/don't agree how a section on feature names would be "awkward" or whatever. This article is about the volcano, not a list of other features that happen to lie on the volcano, I don't see why we'd "prune down" anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about the volcano and the features of the volcano. The peakbagger types will be more interested in the ridges and glaciers than the geological processes that formed the mountain. The geologists will see the ridges and glaciers as trivial superficial aspects. We can satisfy both audiences. The section on "Features" at present is mostly about names. We could rename it "Feature names", and perhaps replace section headers with anchors, so redirects like Gandalf Ridge still work, but that would look worse on a phone. I would prefer to add a bit about the geology of each feature, so someone following a redirect would come to a more informative section. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds to me like they want a map like the one at Lascar (volcano) ("Town names..."), we currently don't have a sufficiently large one but maybe somebody can create it. I don't agree with dispersing the geology information between the features, the geology information is a) mostly volcano wide and b) it'd be only one or two sentences per feature except for Mason Spur and Gandalf Ridge where it'd be sufficient for an entire separate article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Features" section has a box in the top right hand corner that shows the coordinates on OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately, that is a very poor quality map. As stated before, a small amount of copy-paste repetition should not be a problem. If there is a sentence or two elsewhere in the article that says something about a feature, it can be repeated in the section on the feature. I would prefer not to make full-size articles on the features if they contain no more than a paragraph. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is information on some of these features to make a multi-paragraph article (e.g Mason Spur [1]) but the point is that I am not convinced that a list of features with one sentence max about each's geology is worthwhile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things, Wikipedia is meant to be a gazetteer. Lists like this are legitimate, if boring, like lists of tributaries of a river or lists of lakes in a county. We should supply the available information: geography, geology, exploration and naming. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't which information to provide, though, but in which form. I don't think that taking USGS text verbatim is good form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information originated with the United States Board on Geographic Names, and was copied verbatim by the United States Geological Survey and the Australian Antarctic Data Centre. Starting around 2010 several editors copied thousands of articles from the USGS database into Wikipedia stubs, usually verbatim. In many cases, the features are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, leading to a steady stream of AfD discussions, with results equally distributed between keep, delete and merge. This is a big waste of time.
As a first step, I have been grouping the information into list-type articles associated with a "parent", which may be an island, mountain range, valley, large glacier etc. Brown Peninsula and Ricker Hills are typical. At this stage they copy almost verbatim from USBGN or USGS sources, with minor edits to improve grammar or reduce repetition. The original articles are left as redirects to sections in the parent. If there is any hint of notability in a stub I have left it, with an entry for it in the parent list that links to it with a {{main}} template. The list-type articles could use a lot of improvement, but do give some context for each of the features.
In rare cases I find that some effort has been made to make a real article for the parent, as with Mount Morning. It may have fresh information on exploration, geology etc., and often has a feature list with a selective set of USGS-type entries. I just expand the feature list, or start one. It serves as a sort of appendix to the article.
The next stage would be to work through the greatly reduced set of "parent" articles adding information from other sources, and improving unclear wording. I see no strong need to paraphrase clear and factual wording. The feature list format is appropriate for Wikipedia as a source of gazetteer-type information. Jumbling all the information on features into large paragraphs will not help our readers. That is not to say that information cannot also be organized by aspect. An article could say "... Volcanic cones of this type in the range include Mounts A and B ... ... Mount A is a volcanic code ... Mount B is a volcanic cone ... " Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Morning&oldid=1211614531"