Talk:Himalayan Peaks of Uttarakhand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance to WikiProject Mountains on the project's importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
Two suggestions for the list: (1) delete the "State" column, since it is redundant; (2) re-order the peaks by elevation, which is more standard for lists of mountains. Also, many of these peaks are not notable enough to merit individual articles, so the redlinks may be unnecessary. -- Spireguy 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Spireguy,Thanks for your valuable suggestions made by you here and other places.I like your penchent towards mountains.Himalyas are the youngest of all great mountain ranges of the world.Uttarakhand Himalayan peaks are not only beautiful but present tough challenge to a climber,not to talk about their aesthetic value.All Peaks I mentioned in the list are well documented in the many alpine journals and all peaks are attempted many many times by climbers world over.You from Mexico cant imagine the importance of these beautiful peaks.I am just putting the information systemetically for knowledge seekers.You being aMexican can't imagine,how important these peaks are.If I am giving detail for every peak,it will enrich the wikipedia.So, If you think it is all useless,You may stop visiting my pages.You are not the only sole authority over Himalayas.So don't poke your so called intelligence here.Better concentrate on something worthwhile on Mexico. Tribhuwan 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear, Spireguy,Your objections of mentioning state is accepted.There is no need of re ordering peaks.Just see, It's user friendly table.No All peaks are very very important,yes I will try to make single page of peaks of close nature and situation.So, please don't think on merging or deleting,first let me complete the whole.Tribhuwan 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Tribhuwan---I did not mean to offend you or the peaks of the Himalayas in offering my suggestions. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors, and please be civil and refrain from personal attacks. I am sorry if you felt I was not being civil on my part in my suggestions; that was certainly not my intention. (I won't respond to the personal attacks except to say that I live in New Mexico, United States, not Mexico.)
I was also not threatening to personally delete your information myself. I tend to be somewhat of an inclusionist, and I have a personal interest in the subject, so I would be unlikely to delete articles on any of these peaks, or suggest that they be deleted. (On the other hand, as you have seen, I do favor merging pages on peaks which are subpeaks and which do not have long pages to themselves.) However, not all editors feel the same way. In particular, a list such as the one you have created here tends to be a red flag for a lot of editors; see for example Baldy Mountain (look at the history). (That is not a completely parallel case, but you will see the resemblance.)
Even I, as a relative inclusionist, do feel that there is a line one must draw regarding how notable a subject must be to be in Wikipedia, and I am not sure that every mountain that has been written up in a book or journal must be included. Many other editors would agree and even be more predisposed to deletion, which you need to be aware of. But again, I was not trying to be confrontational.
If you want to continue this discussion, it would probably be more appropriate at my talk page or your talk page. -- Spireguy 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear,Spireguy Thanks for all above.I am very sorry for writing all that absurd to you! ,I misunderstood you a bit.I do believe in creating some kind of nucleus of knowledge to let it grow.I am of the firm believer that it should be spread,shared and mutually enriched.I will definitely follow and regard your mature and valuable suggestions .Here I am removing all the peaks ,whose pages are yet not ready.You please help me in adding extra bit of knowledge to it.I am really happy that mature persons like you are in the world.Thanks.Tribhuwan 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The table--further tightening?
More suggestions: I would suggest that the first column (the number) and the "Country" column be removed. The latter is superfluous, since these are all in India. The former is not meaningful, and is a pain to change when adding a peak. If this were a complete list, ranked by elevation, a ranking column would be meaningful and useful, but as it is, I think the list would be better without it. -- Spireguy 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good Addition
Thanks Spireguy for valuable editions.I think together we will complete this part of project.Tribhuwan 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some suggestions
There is no need to link every single occurrence of the locations or divisions in the list, linking only the first one is sufficient. Also, please remember to disambiguate links. Otherwise, an interesting list although the article should be called Himalayan peaks of Uttarakhand since peak is not a formal name. I have only been to the Himalaya of Nepal but I have no doubt that the peaks in this part of India are quite remarkable as well. That said, there are many mountain ranges in the world that are equally impressive, although they may not come close to heights of the Himalaya. RedWolf 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
