User talk:Hike395

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Hike395}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by when more than 7 sections are present.

Precious

hiking mountains

Thank you for quality articles around the Geology of the Rocky Mountains and Lake Sammamish State Park, for improving and fixing templates, for welcoming and advising users, for your contributions from 2003 saying "the best part of editing WP is when several editors cooperate to make a high-quality article", such as The Three Sisters, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda! —hike395 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1818 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Gerda, I look forward to this every year! — hike395 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edziza

Hi Hike395, do you have any interest in the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in BC? The reason I ask is because I know you've edited Mount Edziza in the past. I've been in the process of rewriting and expanding the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article in my sandbox for quite some time, having picked up in April after being relatively inactive since last October. Volcanoguy 00:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any special expertise or interest in Mount Edziza -- I just made a few minor edits in the past. Your expanded version looks quite promising! — hike395 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's turning out to be the largest article I've ever wrote/expanded. Once I'm finished with it I plan on requesting a peer review and then eventually nominate it for FA. I can let you know when that time comes if you would like. Volcanoguy 05:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! — hike395 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than four weeks in and just a single general support. Unless the nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I'm afraid that it is liable to be archived. Volcanoguy 23:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hike, Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex is at FAC if you're interested in participating. Volcanoguy 22:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI upscaling

Note that the current manual of style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images has (relatively recent) guidelines on the use of AI upscaling in articles:

AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.

I've restored the original images on articles where you recently replaced them with upscaled versions. Belbury (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Previous One Earth Ecoregion Discussions

Hi Hike395, I decided to continue the discussion here from my talk page so as not to be a bother towards the other person in the comment chain.

Last time we were talking about classifying the right photos into the right ecoregion pages vs subcategorizing the entire park. Today I decided to try and put that into practice. I'll provide two examples.

In the first example, I was categorizing photos from Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. This park is in a transition area between the Wasatch and Uinta Montane Forests Ecoregion and the Wyoming Basin Shrub Steppe Ecoregion. In this case, it wasn't too much of a challenge to distinguish between the two regions, because they have distinct characteristics. There were two photos that I categorized in both ecoregion pages (one was Flaming Gorge National Recreational Area - 49202160851.jpg). This was because they showed characteristics of both regions, i.e. conifer mountains and shrubby steppe in the same landscape photo.

In the second example, I was deciding what to do for Dinosaur National Monument. The One Earth Map has it categorized as Colorado Plateau Shrublands Ecoregion. But it can still be considered to be a part of the Uinta Mountain Range, so perhaps it could contain relevant images for the Wasatch and Uinta Montane Forests Ecoregion page too. Overall the One Earth Map is a solid guide in 9/10 cases, but I tend to refrain from using it as an infallible tool when making decisions of categorization. In this example, the characteristics between Wasatch and Uinta Montane Forests and Colorado Plateau Shrublands are a bit more blurred; at what exact point does one become the other? It's more of a gray area than the first example. I think that categorization can be done here, but this is an example where I would prefer to leave the decision to someone else.

For the most part, I would prefer to play it safe when it comes to categorization. There is bit of cleanup to do on my part, with respect to entire parks that I subcategorized, but I think this is generally how I plan to proceed. There are definitely plenty of places where the decision will not be as difficult, I plan to focus on those. Z3lvs (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z3lvs: this sounds good to me. I was thinking that the One Earth ecoregions were very granular (e.g., montane vs subalpine vs alpine), but they look to be wide-area ecoregions, so the number of parks that are split between ecoregions is probably small. — hike395 (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hello, I added an article. I would appreciate you taking a look at Kaneiolouma Complex. Thanks, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 03:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IG

Thanks for bringing this policy re:galleries to my attention. Is there ever a good situation to use an image gallery in a mountain-related article that you can think of? Maybe an article about a range (i.e., showing different peaks)? Just trying to get a sense for when it's appropriate. Teanaway (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually galleries in mountain-related articles are not instructional to our readers. An exception is list articles, like List of mountain peaks of California have a corresponding list/gallery of images (usually for the most notable peaks, because images are larger than text). Analogous to genus articles (e.g., Marmota), I could imagine an article about a mountain range could have a set of images of the most notable peaks in the range. However, I haven't seen that implemented, and we would have to discuss whether that has enough informational value. — hike395 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone folded in species images into the table at Marmota, so the gallery is now redundant, so I think I'll transwiki that one too. — hike395 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hi! This is regarding your edits to the article Western Ghats. A IP user had introduced a section called "Passes" and listed down some set of select passes as notable passes in the mountains without any citations or references. As a vastly experienced editor, you are well aware of the need for proper citations. I am trying to take the article to GA and have recently done a massive clean-up of the article. I have reverted back to the old revision for now. Hence, it would be helpful if you are moving sections please check for notability and proper citations as well. Thanks for your contributions and understanding on the subject! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that notability is a criterion for an entire article, not material within an article (see the introduction to WP:N). I edited the list of passes to only include passes with existing Wikipedia articles, thus fulfilling WP:CSC#1. As for citations, that can be fixed with a bit of research. — hike395 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oops

I see I've been doing it wrong, thank you! Valereee (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: I was just look at Category:Pages using infobox food with unknown parameters and found those errors. — hike395 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Red Sea mangroves

On 30 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Red Sea mangroves, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite a global decline in mangrove forests, Red Sea mangroves have expanded in area since 1972? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Red Sea mangroves. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Red Sea mangroves), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using Infobox boxer (amateur) with conflicting parameters has been nominated for deletion

Category:Pages using Infobox boxer (amateur) with conflicting parameters has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire maps (.gif versions)

Hello!

I've noticed your substitution of the .png versions of the wildfire maps I've been adding—I wanted to say (1) thank you, and (2) I'm in the process of updating the map format for many of them. I've gone through many versions of data representation/symbology over the past 1.5 years and am finally beginning to standardize the earlier maps to match the later ones. I don't want you to have to duplicate your work, so it may be worth pausing for 1 to 3 weeks while I get caught up, after which the versions will be more static.

Best, Penitentes (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making such well-made maps! I'm not systematically converting them, just as I happen to come across them. I'll wait a couple of weeks before I convert any other ones. — hike395 (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reverts in Commons

I notice you are engaged in mass reverts of my edits in Commons. Why are you doing this? I think, based on available facts, that my edits are correct. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmains: I'm not mass reverting your categorizations, which are largely good. Because I live in the area, I have a fair amount of local knowledge of the area. I can find miscategorizations that you may not realize that you are introducing. There may also be definitional issues. More specifically, none of the following images:

show the summit of Mount Morrison, Mono Jim Peak, nor Mini Morrison, but only the slopes of the Morrison massif rising from Convict Lake. The last two images are not even taken in the direction of Morrison, but instead show the opposite side of Convict Lake.

I also removed c:Category:Skelton Lake from File:Pyramid and Herlihy peaks.jpg because that isn't Skelton Lake (it's too far from the base of the mountains), and c:Category:Pyramid Peak (Mono County, California) doesn't exist. The latter category is unlikely to contain many pictures, so I would recommend not creating it. I cleaned up a number of categories (e.g., c:Category:Skelton Lake, c:Category:Mini Morrison, etc.) leaving images that illustrate the topic.

Hope this helps. — hike395 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later -- Looking at the original image of File:Pyramid and Herlihy peaks.jpg here at flickr, I believe that is the east shore of Lake Mary. I took a picture facing the other way from the top of the red peak on the left, you can see that Lake Mary is quite a bit west of the ridge. I'll place it into the correct categorization — hike395 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does help, of course. And thanks for your correction edits. Hmains (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox dim/core

Template:Infobox dim/core has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Module:Infobox mapframe now supports all zoom dimensions

Hey there, thanks for the note!

Does that mean that we stop passing the |zoom= value calling {{map zoom}} with complex parameters, and instead simply pass all of these individual ones instead?

--Joy (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I saw [1] after writing this message :)

On related note, I think the biggest actual issue I noticed with zooming so far was with the river infobox, where there was nothing to map because the input was free-form and we don't have a parser to guess from that. --Joy (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: I modified {{Infobox river}} to default to the geohack "river" type, which should show a mapframe map that spans 20km in the infobox. I haven't seen any examples where this default is used, however. — hike395 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see e.g. Uba (river) where I had to force mapframe-zoom to a more useful value. If you edit the call to leave out the zoom setting, it's pretty crappy. --Joy (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I modified Uba (river) to set |mapframe-length_km= to be the same value as |length=. You can see it looks pretty good.

The easiest thing may be to use AWB to go through and try to set |mapframe-length_km= or |mapframe-length_mi= to be an extracted value from |length=, when mapframe is present. A more complex solution is to create |length_km=, |length_mi=, and |length_ref= and then use AWB to feed both the length field and the mapframe. That will make neater infoboxes but will be a more fragile AWB run. I may attempt the first soon. What do you think? — hike395 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if we're going to undertake such a huge effort to parse existing length fields as input, we should use normal length_* as output, not the specific mapframe-*. --Joy (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]