Talk:Bridge River Cones

Setting/location needed
As with on Talk:Mount Brew, there is no CLUE in that opening paragraph where these are, no mention of the Lillooet Icecap (is "at the headwaters of the Bridge River" or "on the eastern flank of the Lillooet Icecap" not more descriptive than only "in southwestern British Columbia", and yet ANOTHER first-paragraph focus on vulcanological classification only. At least talk about the setting, what town it's so many miles from, what other peaks are nearby, what rivers flow out of the area; these happen to be unnamed otherwise and are mostbly notable only as volcanoes; but they still have a setting, and the setting happens to be very historic, as is the river.  I don't want to piss you off by saying it too often but please write mountain articles than are about more than just vulcanology.  I know you're going through source material creating all of these in a string, and other people can add to them; but because of their obscurity it's unlikely anyone but another vulcanologist will add to them. Write in plain language, not scientific jargon; linguistics oriented pages are even worse; you'd never know language was about communication and not just syntax and phonology; ditto here. There's not much to add here other than a description of their location as just laid out, whatever's addable, but in general throughout all the articles you've created please make an effort to detail out other data than only what has professional/academic interest.Skookum1 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are bad latitude/longitude coordinates in the infobox, with impossible minutes for latitude. I believe that the number should reflect decimal degrees and not minutes. I categorized article in Squamish-Lillooet RD, but map indicates position too far north, in Cariboo RD. Backspace (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's very odd - the display says "50°80′N, 123°40′W" and so does the code in the coordinates template, but it goes to 51-20 N, which a you note is in the Chilcotin (which is what that area is called when you're not building a septic tank). Must be a glitch at the geohack site; the coordinates as written are correct (cant' be exact, it's a gorup of features).  Guess I should check Tuber Hill's coordinates and see what heppens there; and Nichols Creek Flows mabye has an article by now, not sure.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Duh - 80 minutes is one degree 20 minutes, of course; Tuber Hill will do for a rough coordinates for hte Cones; some area on the south side of hte Brdige River; I'll set it at 50-50 N; Tuber Hill's 50-54.Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Longitude's still wrong, the coords are now in the centre of the Lillooet Icecap; the Cones are east of it. The longitude in the Tuber Hill article will do the trick but for now I've got to head out the door, ahve to be somwwhere pronto; if you want, just pull the coords off Tuber Hill and put them here.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My take is original intention was 50 point 8 degrees north latitude, which is 50 degrees and 48 minutes; and 123 point 4 degrees west longitude, which is 123 degrees and 24 minutes. This I believe would set it in Squamish-Lillooet. People should not be confusing decimal degrees with degrees and minutes [and seconds]. Backspace (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just added the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt map which is better than the regional district map. Black Tusk (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[undent]By far, indeed - RD maps are bloody useless for anything but municipalities, and even then they're useless as nobody "scans" on the RD boundaries; rather on rivers and highways....I adjusted the latlongs manually by the way; I know there's some features south of the Bridge River, some to the north of it, so put it more or less on the river itself....Skookum1 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm probably going to expand the article anyway since there's more infomation about the cones in the same book I mentioned earlier on my talk page. Black Tusk (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Salal Glacier that should probably Salal Glacier volcano (w/wo caps on volcano), or maybe Salal Creek glacial volcano? Salal Creek is the only gazetted "Salal" name in that area; I'm curious as to the precise location, I think you provided one once, or I found one once, and it was on the north side of the Salal pass, i.e. not on Salal Creek itself, but in the upper reaches of the basin heading towards the Bridge River; if there is a reference of somekind for a glacier named "�Salal Glacier" that should obviously be its own article; I'm just wary of seeing it turn up, like Franklin Glacier did at one time, as a volcano article when it shoudl be a glacier.  Taht it's not a named glacier complciates the matter.  Also this is in some climbing guides called "Salal Pass"; I htink the one west of White Cross Mtn is White Cross Pass, but neither of those are official names.....PS I'd think that Vayu, Thiassi, White Cross, Frost Fiend an their neighbours are really basaltic, i.e. volcanic, I just don't know how old; "by the look of the rock" I'm giong, but I've never been up close and personal....just seen them from the Hurley, or in the distance from Bralorne etc.Skookum1 (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Salal Glacier volcano is usually referred to as the Salal Glacier volcanic complex or Salal Glacier Volcanic Complex I think. However, I'm not sure if that or the other volcanoes associated with the Bridge River Cones deserve a seperate article because there appears to be nothing much about them; most likely because they're minor volcanoes. Franklin Glacier was never a volcano article and I haven't created a volcano article with a glacier name. If I did it wouldn't be by itself; it would be like Franklin Glacier Volcano. Salal Glacier dosen't appear to be an official name for a glacier anyway. Black Tusk (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)