|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peak bagging article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This page is not a forum for general discussion about Peak bagging. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Peak bagging at the Reference desk.|
|WikiProject Mountains||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I merged UK-centric material on this subject from the hill bagging article; most of it is in the "For and Against" and "British Isles" sections. See the history for hill bagging for contributors. Gdr 16:15, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
Good call, I din't know this page existed when I set up hill bagging (probably should of checked more thoroughly).Grinner 09:19, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
The metric equivalent of 3000 feet is 914.4 m. It looks like this is too precise. But in fact many hills in the British Isles have triangulation pillars at or near the top of the hill and it using these it is possible to measure the height with an accuracy of better than a metre. So the fraction of a metre may turn out to be important. For example, Ben Avon in Scotland has a spot height of 914 m but is not considered a Munro as it does not reach 3000 feet. See the essay "Allowing for measurement error - a principled approach to peak bagging" for a slightly tongue-in-cheek look at this issue.
So please don't round these figures. They are exact conversions of exact figures. Gdr 18:12, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
- If you are going to be so picky about precision, you should at least be consistent and put the extra significant digit on your feet (e.g. 3000.0 feet is 914.4 meters. --Mouser 19:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- No. These figures are numbers, not measurements. (Would you write, "there are 100.0 centimetres in a metre"?) Gdr 18:30, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
British Isles: split and merge
The British Isles suffer from quite a surfeit of bagging lists (I've just added yet another, the Murdos, but have declined to give it the dignity of a wikilink); it would make sense to split off this section into a new article, something like Peak bagging in the British Isles (or maybe Peak bagging in Britain and Ireland to avoid offending the Irish; "Hill lists..." might be more appropriate). At the same time we have a good and informative article on Munros, lists of Corbetts and Donalds, and short stubs on Grahams, Donalds, Hewitts, Marilyns, Nuttalls and Birketts. I propose leaving the good articles (including the lists), and merging all the other stubs into the one article. What do others think? Blisco 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- That might make sense. There are many U.S. lists too, some of which perhaps haven't been added for fear of overwhelming the article. A complementary Peak bagging in the North America may also help. -Will Beback 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I've added a merge tag, and will go ahead and do it in a few days if there are no objections. I'm still undecided as to what to call the page though; any ideas? I'm currently inclined towards Hill lists in Great Britain. (Notwithstanding the existence of the Hewitts, it's essentially a British phenomenon.) Blisco 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm happy with some sort of merge between these, and I think a new page rather than expanding the UK section of this article is the way to go. I had been contemplating merging Nuttalls and Hewitts anyway. (In this case, the lists should probably be merged too — I'm happy to undertake that.) Regarding the name, my vote is for Peak bagging in the British Isles. Notwithstanding the controversy with British Isles, it does seem to be the term used in the walking community to refer to the UK, Ireland and Man. -- ras52 09:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Right, I've split most of the British Isles content into Hill lists in the British Isles. I went for "hill lists" rather than "peak bagging" because the existence of a list doesn't necessarily imply bagging (it could just be an expression of nerdiness >;-)), but if anyone thinks that "peak bagging" (or anything else) is a more intuitive title then feel free to move it. It obviously needs more work, but at least we've got an article to play with. --Blisco 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just removed a fair bit of information from the introduction on highpointing as I don't feel it's relevant to this article. There's already a paragraph contrasting highpointing with peak bagging and explaining why a highpoint may not be a peak. Further detail on highpointing belong on that page. -- ras52 09:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Cairns on peaks and logs in cairns on peaks
The cairns on peaks paragraph has popped in and out over the last couple of days.
Is the practice of locating a log in a cairn common outside the UK?
In the UK more-or-less all peaks are marked by a cairn - even when the highest point is contentious and the cairn is one of many. The practice of keeping a log in a cairn is a rare practice in my experience, I know of four such peaks out of 1,300+ UK Marilyns visited. Or have I been missing them? --Eddie | Talk 11:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Summit registers" are very common in the United States. I know of hundreds in California alone. Cairns are rarer, though I gather they're more common in the ranges in the NorthEast. -Will Beback · † · 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently quite a number of British hills have geocaches, which include log books, in or near the summit cairns. I've little experience of this myself, but summit logs in the form of geocaches might be more common that one might naïvely imagine. After all, have you ever dismantled a cairn to check that it doesn't contain a log book? I never have. Perhaps one of the editors who believe that such logs do frequently exist can provide a reference to support this point of view? — ras52 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response - nothing like knowing there's people bothering. Please see me edit and be bold. Ras52, I take your point. The Cairn Destruction Society may be able to help us here. I'm not sure the chairman's active on Wikipedia - he's busy in the winter anyway. --Eddie | Talk 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Transfer peak bagging lists into Lists of mountains
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Lists in Infobox, we've been discussing making an article that lists many notable mountain lists: we'd like to link the Infobox "Listing" row to such an article. My plan is to convert Lists of mountains into such an article --- by cleaning it up and moving all of the peak bagging lists from this article into Lists of mountains. Just wanted to notify editors of this page. Thanks! hike395 19:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Massive POV in this article. Is it notable?
A lot of this is POV and opinion, rather than verifiable fact. I'm going to have a look tonight at tidying this up, but I wonder if it's better included as a section in another article. Ms7821 (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's a legitimate topic on its own. Opinion does need to be trimmed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Somebody - you? - sprinkled lots of "citation needed" and "who?" and other single-sentence tags throughout a particularly egregiously unreferenced section. I removed them, since that isn't wikipedia style, and put an "unreferenced" tag atop the article, but this article certainly does need work. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Refactor External Links
I'd like to propose a refactoring of the External links section: break it up into Online Communities then clubs. Currently, it's a desperate collection of links. Jipjoy1939 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
(I had an edit conflict with the comment above - we're both interested in tackling the same issue, although we have different approaches)
Wikipedia is not a linkfarm ([]} - that is, the articles are not places to gather lots of relevant external links in one spot. There are currently 39 external links in the "External links" section of this article, including 16 just about the U.S. and six about the U.K. That is *way* too many. A small attempt to cut them back just got undone, so it's time for a discussion.
- How about moving the online communities (Peakbagger, et. al) under the Summit logs as they're already referenced there and then create a small, new section for actual clubs (ADK 46ers, et. al)? Or organize them this way under External Links? The links to outside lists are what are really sprawling. Jipjoy1939 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- For better or worse, wikipedia style does not put external links within the article itself - they're collected at the end.
- But above and beyond organization, I would argue that we don't want links to external clubs at all - people can easily find them via web search. Listing them is beyond the scope of a wikipedia article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also a term in astronomy?
This article is poor in my view and captures little of the major events and names in peakbagging (and why it is so notable). Could do with a re-write to capture the major achievements in this area (of which there are larger articles in WP), regarding the eight-thousanders and Munros for example. As currently written, it seems like a term of low relevance imho. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think the "Clubs" and the "Reaching the Summit" sub-sections should be dropped. The Aspects section should be about the most notable peakbagging lists and achievements. The "Arguements for an Against" can be updated for the notable deaths, unfortunate events in the persuit of peakbagging. Britishfinance (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of their fame or accomplishments, I don't think an article about a general activity is helped by a portrait of an famous current individual who did that activity - e.g., Reinhold Messner's portrait in this article. An action picture of him summitting some particularly notable peak accomplishment might be different, but "here's what one peakbagger looks like" seems unhelpful. Historical portraits have more potential value - Munro's portrait is more informative.
- Remember that photos add to load time, a consideration in many parts of the world that depend on wikipedia, so they shouldn't be added unless they can help readers understand the topic. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fair point DavidWBrooks. I would be far better to have a photo of him standing on top of a peak; I cannot find one that is useable on WP, unfortunately. I do think that peak bagging is an interesting area. Many people have died for it, other people have been made famous from it etc. My desire in putting his photo there was to show readers that this is a much bigger deal than the content implies. However, your point is taken, and please do take whatever action you feel is better regarding the pictures. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Anything do to with the big "peak bagging" moments - the eight-thousanders, the seven summits etc. Note that the biggest "uncompleted" peak bagging list is probably all the 14 eight-thousanders in Winter (e.g. K2 has never been done), which people are still being killed to this day trying to complete.
- Would be great to have a picture of some of the notable compleators of the Munros (the article has a sub-section on compleators). The two other "mega" peak bagging lists from my part of the world (although, they don't come with the same public fame), are the List of Marilyns in the British Isles, and the almost impossible List of Simms in the British Isles.
- There are also some great "disputes" around peak bagging, such as Alan Hinkes, which brings in the most famous "referee" of peak bagging lists, Elizabeth Hawley. It really is a fascinating topic and rich in very notable people and events. hope this helps. Britishfinance (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)