Talk:Eola Hills

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal 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 Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cat change[edit]

I'm curious about the change from Hills of Oregon to Mountain Ranges of Oregon. Is the hill category only for individual hills? They are hardly mountains... Katr67 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the GNIS reference. Everything USGS calls a "Range" is under that category. Ikluft (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be categorized in both. Based on your question, I restored Cat:Hills of Oregon. Ikluft (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! That was my next question. Thanks for all your hard work. I've added all your new stubs to WikiProject Oregon. May they all get expanded. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I was going to go back and add WikiProjects Oregon and Mountains tags to them all. So there's still more to do. Ikluft (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation[edit]

The elevation of 1,170 feet is from ListsOfJohn.com as cited. Looking at the topographic map reveals that this is an estimated height. The topo shows 20 foot contour lines and so this summit is above 1,160 feet and less than 1,180 feet. –droll [chat] 05:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The elevations shown by the Geographic Names Information System are notoriously inaccurate for summits. –droll [chat] 05:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]