Talk:Cordillera Oriental

One range three (or more) countries
It seems to me that dividing the Cordillera Oriental of the Andes up by country is counter-productive to adequately describing the geography of the Andes which doesn't respect country borders. A country based breakdown also tends to encourage POV edits by nationalists. I suggest that the main article about the Cordillera Oriental of the Andes should be here instead of a disambiguation page. Then individual ranges in the Cordillera Oriental could each have there own article, by range name and extension, not country. What do you all think? --Bejnar 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also included the Cordillera Central and Cordillera Occidental in this discussion, since the issues are the same. Individual mountain ranges can and ought to be discussed in their own articles and the Cordillera articles can provide unification and the general lay of the land. Compare the Ural Mountains article and individual ranges such as the Research Range, which (as they are currently written) may not be the best example. --Bejnar 22:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The three articles (or however many there are now), should all be merged into one article for each range. I am currently working on marking the articles for physiography, and the Cordillera Occidental, Cordillera Central, and the Cordillera Oriental are all distinct physiographic sections of the larger Northern Andes province. This breakout by country overly complicates the issue, as these are multi-country 'areas'. wbfergus undefinedTalk 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the Cordillera Oriental is combined and redirected. Now to try and get the same done for the Central and Occidental. wbfergus undefinedTalk 11:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Okay, I had multiple articles merged into one more-or-less cohesive article for Cordillera Oriental, Cordillera Occidental, and Cordillera Central, but the common sense approach was reverted and we are now back at 9 or 10 different articles for what should only be three articles. If there are any substantive reasons for not performing the merger, here is the place to state the claims. Since this merge has the same criteria for the three different ranges, all three proposals can be addressed here, instead of a separate talk for each of the three proposals, which should all have the same arguments. wbfergus undefinedTalk 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For reference, see Help:Merging and moving pages. wbfergus undefinedTalk 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let´s take it to RFC.. you just can´t make up an article like that.. tell me where can I find a source in which all cordilleras are merged!!--  Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 12:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we have a slight misunderstanding then. I not proposing merging the three different cordilleras together, but instead merging the different articles for the same cordillera (but individualized by country) together. A mountain range doesn't stop at a country's border and suddenly have completely different characteristics in the next country (except maybe which country's soldiers may be present). The geological, biological, climate, and terrain features don't suddenly stop at a border and become different, they continue. As such, merging the three country-specific articles for each range (cordillera) into just one article per range will allow far better coverage of the subject, so information included in one country's article applies to the other countries as well. Subjects such as adminstrative divisions of a country as they pertain to various parts of the ranges can still be addressed in either the country article or through distinct sections of the 'range' article. There simply is no reason that I can see to have three (or more) articles for the same subject, where the only difference is the country part of the range falls in. I've already asked for input from the editors on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology‎ project. I wouldn't object to a larger audience though if you want to do a more formal RfC, as I think the outcome will still be the same. wbfergus undefinedTalk 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make any sense.. so instead of having an article about let's say United States we should also include United States of America, United States of Mexico or United States of Tumbuctu in a single article because these are called United States? is that what you are proposing?-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. What we currently have are three articles on the Cordillera Oriental, one for Cordillera Oriental (Bolivia), one for Cordillera Oriental (Colombia) and one for Cordillera Oriental (Peru), with a redlink for a potentially new variation at Cordillera Oriental (Ecuador). Instead of three articles for the same 'plot' of land, it makes more sense to only have one. The three articles themselves are basically just stubs, combined they offer more information, though it would still be classified as a stub. As it is, if someone want to talk about the geography of the Cordillera Oriental (or the other two ranges), they would need to edit three different articles instead of just one. Did I explain that clear enough (I haven't had much coffee yet). wbfergus undefinedTalk 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well nothing is complete in this encyclopedia.. stubs are valid.. and these eventually grow.. but to have them together why not then merge united states of america with united states of mexico I mean these are in the same "plot of land", continent.. ??? it makes a lot of sense to have these separately because there are a lot of mountains and cities within.. different climates, different fauna and flora.. I do agree if the same mountain range is shared directly by countries.. just like Serrania del Perija which is a single article and is shared by both Colombia and Venezuela (contiguous countries).. but to merge and create an article is called "Serrania del Perija in Argentina" for example into the Colombia-Venezuela mountain range that just wouldn't make any sense, that's when you create a disambiguation page. Just look for it at Britannica, they would never do such a thing.. The Colombian Cordilleras would not be included in your merger unless is a disambiguation.. Colombia would not make sense in your merge because these are only used in Colombia and Venezuela. I showed you the three cordilleras in Colombia has nothing to do with the other ones.-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If these are shared by for example by two countries Cordillera Oriental (Colombia-Venezuela) I can't see any other solution. With sufficient information this will eventually split. -- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 13:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * we just can´t make up an article like that.. tell me where can I find a source in which all cordilleras occidentales are merged!! Most of the sources divided them by countries. -- Zer0~Gravity  (Roger - Out) 13:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is making up an article? It's merely a merger of three (almost) identical articles into one. Using your example about the United States of America and the United States of Mexico, it would be perfectly acceptable to have a combined article on the North/Central American landmass and separate articles on the Geography of the United States of America and yet another on the Baja California, where the Baja California article talks about the geography, etc. of Baja California across borders, whereas the United States of America article talks about the United States of America and the Geography of the United States of America talks about the geography present within the country. That is clearly not the case we currently have with these three mountain ranges. These three ranges cross country borders, but the types of rocks that make them up don't suddenly change at the border. The types of animals or plants don't stop at the borders. The climate doesn't change at the borders. If the articles were instead "Geography of Boliva" (or Peru or Colombia) with a section on the Cordillera Oriental and another on the Cordillera Occidental, I wouldn't have a problem. That is perfectly acceptable, but instead the articles are written as if the each country has their own Cordillera Oriental, which I can find no reference to anywhere. All of the references I've seen have been to the entire range even as it crosses borders, or to the geology, geography, etc. of the different countries. Here's a couple references that clearly show the Cordillea Oriental as a non-country specific range (out of over 95,000 Google just returned) . The point being, the Cordillera Oriental is about the entire range. An more country specific artile such as "Geography of Colombia" could then include just the country-specific information of the Cordillera Oriental with no problem, as it's clearly just a small piece of the larger article, just as the Columbian part of the Cordillera is clearly just a smaller piece of the entire range. wbfergus undefinedTalk 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you seem not to understand my point, lets RfC. Your proposal is just unencyclopedic. You are trying to create an article that could pretty well be explained in the Andes better than in a mixed up article. I am asking you to please give me a reference.. a WP:RS that shows an article the way you want it.

You provided these, and these show Cordilleras explaining an specific country or pointing nowhere..


 * 1) is about Colombia
 * 2) pointing nowhere specifically??
 * 3) Very clearly about Colombia

-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Zer0~Gravity 's point is not made by these three references. The first is an article about the montane forests of Colombia (and a snippet of Venezuela), a specific ecosystem. The third is about the provinces of the Llanos and Magdalena in Colombia.  These articles are not about the cordillera in Colombia, but about what is going on in Colombia relative to the cordillera.  The middle reference just points out a technological problem when requesting a pinpoint location for a mountain chain that runs for thousands of miles across an entire continent.  You get the same "points nowhere" in Encarta for the entry "Andes Mountains (range), South America". What you need to use for pinpoint references is pinpoint citation.  In the Wikipedia, if you need to refer to the northern Cordillera Oriental, and you didn't know the name of the specific range, then a reference could be made to that section within the Cordillera Oriental article by use of the #, thusly Cordillera Oriental. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Compromise offer. Okay, since you have finally stated your position instead of just arguing, I can now see where your objections are coming from. As a result, how about the following compromise:


 * 1) Create new, NPOV, non country-specific articles, such as "Cordillera Oriental (Northern Andes)".
 * 2) Move or merge the 10 (?) existing articles into the new 'titles' according to a table we all create and agree on below.


 * This is consistent with current Wikipedia and technical subject-matter usage, where multi-country geographical 'features' are commonly broken out by region (as in Northern, Southern or Eastern, Western), maintains NPOV (no longer country-specific), and already has precedence in the main Andes article. This is also consistent with how other 'subjects' such as physiography handle this. The main article states "the Southern Andes in Argentina and Chile; the Central Andes, including the Chilean and Peruvian cordilleras; and the northern section in Venezuela, Colombia, and northern Ecuador consisting of two parallel ranges, the Cordillera Occidental and the Cordillera Oriental." (We could use this to create the table of what to move where, with maybe a few tweaks agreed by concensus). wbfergus undefinedTalk 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.. Again the Colombian cordilleras have nothing to do with the ones in Ecuador!!! You seem not to understand that this are the name of these.. Colombian Cordillera Occidental. It's like naming two peaks of the same mountain with the same name. the mountain range called Andes and the peaks being the cordilleras. The solution below violates WP:OR. -- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did a Google search for "Colombian Cordillera Occidental" and got 10 hits. I then did it for +"Cordillera Occidental" +"northern andes" and got 1,380 hits. So it appears that the usage of Cordillera Occidental with Northern Andes is the more common terminology. Regarding Ecuador, fine, I'll move that (as you could have, instead of arguing) to the Central Andes. It's really rather simple. But, I still propose that the country names be dropped in favor of using a region name, like Northern, Central and Southern, per existing Wikipedia, academia, and professional usage.
 * A case in point, even though the page doesn't exist, by this unprecendented use of contry names in geographic features, what would be the outcome when somebody decides to create an article called "Cordillera Occidental, Venezuela". It is the exact same mountain range as the one that goes through Colombia (see the first paragraph under 'Introduction', "The Cordillera Oriental continues into Venezuela, where it is called the Cordillera de Mérida (Mérida Andes)"). Also see where it states "These forests flank the lower slopes and lowlands between the Cordillera de Mérida and the Cordillera Oriental of the northern Andes" and "between the divergence of the Cordillera de Merida (to the east) and the northern extension of the Andes (Cordillera Oriental)". So, these do show that at least in one case a range does extend clearly into another country. It's unclear if more than one range does, but does help lend weight (besides all of the existing usgaes within Wikipedia), that region names are more suited instead of country names.
 * Your statement about this being OR is blatantly false and misrepresnted. This (and these terms) have been published by verifiable and reliable sources, so there is no way this meets any OR criteria. wbfergus undefinedTalk 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough, take some time to read WP:OR while a third party solves this. You can't understand that the Andes is made up multiple cordilleras, which are named by country. These are still the Andes!!!! What you are trying to do is not encyclopedic. '''What is the problem of saying this the Cordillera Oriental (Colombia) extends north into Venezuela were its name changes into Cordillera de Mérida ??? these are still all part of the Andes!!!'''. We should stop arguing in this page until the third opinion is made.-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What is 'original'? As I said, they (the terms, defininitions, interpretations, synthesis, evaluations, etc.) have all been published by verifiable and reliable sources. There is nothing 'original' at all. And in fact, it is very enclyopedic to do so. Show me one example (besides this mess) where major multi-country geographic 'features' are broken out by country-specific articles. Are the Alps that way? Or the Ural Mountains? Are the Rocky Mountains broken out into state-specific articles? You seem to be the one confusing the facts, besides making false statements. wbfergus undefinedTalk 23:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Original to you! creation of your own! I'm still waiting for that reliable source resembling the article you are pushing for. Give me a link were I can see that the author groups all Cordilleras Occidentales under a single article, apart from an article named Andes. -- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you are waiting. I just gave you two references above. You can also try your local library to see if they have a copy of the map "The Physiographic Diagram of South America" by the Geological Press (published in 1935). The map is where I first saw these terms, and by that date, it's definately not anything new or original. It's been around for quite a while. So I fail to see why you keep crying 'OR', when it is most definately not OR. These terms are not new, not original, and not made up by me. They were used by professionals in the field long before either one of us were born. So once again, what is OR?
 * And as the table shows, I am willing to have the diferent cordilleras sub-divided by Northern, Central and Southern Andes, as appropriate. So the (mainly) Colombian cordilleras would just be renamed (moved) to Cordillera Occidental (Northern Andes) or whatever cordillera name is appropriate. The country name is gone (that violates NPOV), and is instead replaced by a more nuetral region name (Northern Andes), as many other Wikipedia articles are done, not to mention all of the other professional papers, reference books, etc. wbfergus undefinedTalk 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1935 huh? ok.. so you want me to dive through a library for a single map against the thousands of books and information regarding this. I dare you to do it in the Spanish Wikipedia were these have the same naming convention. (1 vs. 1000s+) I mean if we do it by internet hits in google here 385,00 for naming it Cordillera Occidental (Colombia) vs. NONE for Cordillera Occidental (Northern Andes). You are just wasting your time and my time. I am just going to ignore you until there is a resolution.-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 01:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just great.. using your friends?? well I'm moving this discussion up.. WP:MC -- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 15:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD: I have pulled the original merger proposal since an RfC is currently in progress. ZeroGravity was asked very politely if there were any concerns to address them on this talk page, and he reverted without any comment other than "OR" (which the above discussions clearly show is not the case). After several days he finally made a couple of comments (out of many) that actually made sense were based on facts, not his own opinion, so I therefore modified my merger proposal with the compromise table below. It is now my position that the RfC should address the validity and/or value of adopting the the proposed changes in the table, or leaving the mess as it currently is. The list of involved articles and other related pages is:
 * redirect from "Cordillera Oriental, Bolivia"
 * redirect from "Cordillera Oriental, Colombia"
 * redirect from "Cordillera Oriental, Peru"
 * non-existant
 * non-existant


 * redirect from "Cordillera Central, Bolivia"
 * redirect from "Cordillera Central, Columbia"
 * redirects to "Cordillera Blanco"
 * redirects to "Cordillera Real (Ecuador)"
 * redirects to "Cordillera Real (Ecuador)"

As 'most' people can see, the changes in the table would greatly simplify the current mess, which could only get worse. It also sets a dangerous precedent for POV pushing by naming mountan ranges (or any other greographical 'feature') by all of the different countries that may have territory on it. wbfergus undefinedTalk 18:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * redirects from "Cordillera Occidental, Bolivia", "Cordillera Occidental, Colombia", and "Cordillera Occidental, Ecuador"
 * redirects from Cordillera Occidental, Bolivia
 * redirects from Cordillera Occidental, Colombia
 * non-existant
 * redirects from Cordillera Occidental, Ecuador

Table offered for compromise resolution

 * Where the range already has a given name such as Cordillera Blanca or Cordillera Real I would keep them, I would view the breakdown of northern, central (middle) and presumably southern as more appropriate within the general "Cordillera Occidental", "Cordillera Central" and "Cordillera Oriental" articles. If pinpoint linking were required, then #-ing to the appropriate section could be used.  I still see the real meat of mountain range description being in the individual mountain ranges, such as, in the middle section of the "Cordillera Occidental", we have the the Cordillera Blanca, the Cordillera Huayhuash and the Cordillera Raura, all of which are distinct. --Bejnar (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC South America cordillera articles
Request for comments on whether the Oriental, Central and Occidental Cordillera should be discussed in three separate articles with those names, with subdivision by mountain range, or whether these article should be done by nationality.:
 * Statement in favor of three main articles and subdivision by range:
 * The point is that mountain ranges do not respect country borders. Countries have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical geography and geology, and in most cases little to do with the economic geography either.  In most physical geography books the Andes are discussed together, with each of the three cordillera discussed independently as mega-ranges (cordillera) without significant mention of country borders other than for reference points.  Having articles such as the Cordillera Oriental (Ecuador) is not productive, duplicates information and adds nothing. Any text in them that is not appropriate in the larger cordillera article belongs specifically in a Geography of Ecuador article.  Worse, subdivision of mountain ranges by country unfortunately leads to nationalists edits. Again, the individual cordillera should be subdivided by mountain range and not by country for the same reasons. --Bejnar (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some examples of other wiki articles done (more or less) properly are: Pamir Mountains, Pyrenees, Hindu Kush or the Alps. For that matter, most of the articles in the following categories: Category:Physiographic divisions, Category:Physiographic provinces and Category:Physiographic sections. Except for these three mountain ranges, none of them are piecemealed out by country, like "Alps, Switzerland", "Alps, Germany", etc. wbfergus undefinedTalk 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Statement opposed to three main articles and subdivision by range:

wbfergus is trying to merge all "cordilleras Occidentales" in the Andes mountain system into one article (same for the case of all named "cordillera oriental" and all "cordillera central").
 * 1) There are different Cordilleras Occidentales mountains (sharing the same name, but not the same location) in different areas of this mountainous system separated by hundreds of miles away from each other. He is aiming to merge a mountain in Colombia and a mountain in Chile!
 * 2) There is no point on creating an article that is meant to be a disambiguation. It's like merging a mountain named Maria in Mexico with another one named Maria in Canada.. totally different systems but part the same mountain range.
 * 3) Encyclopedia Britannica divides these by country. Cordilleras in Colombia are separate from the one named way further south in Chile. Name given in Britannica: Cordillera Occidental, or Western Range (mountains, Colombia)
 * 4) Together in disambiguation page but not mixed in a single article, what he is proposing should be mentioned at the Andes article.
 * 5) You can do whatever you want with the articles in Chile Peru Ecuador and Bolivia but as far as I know and I was educated partly in South America the Cordillera Occidental in Colombia for example is contained only within Colombian territory. I do not see why does it have to be merged into an article about Chile! I mean look at a map! you are not supposed to fish in an article to find the information... just use a disambiguation that will lead you to the specific location!!!!
 * 6) I asked him to provide links to support his argument from a WP:RS article that suggested these to be together in a single article. He provided links that instead supported my arguments. (posted above RfC section) I think his idea attempts to be WP:OR.
 * 7) I don't see why a city located in the Cordillera Occidental (Colombia) point to mountain in Chile.. no way!!

-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements by parties not previously involved:
 * Mostly agree While it looks like wbfergus' compromise table was created after the RfC was started, it seems like it works better than the original wording of the RfC. It clearly meets the NPOV required of all Wikipedia articles, which having a country name associated directly with a mountain range like that does not accomplish. I would accept wbfergus' table offer as that seems the most equitable solution to what is clearly a POV (and complicated) situation. Those names Northern, Central and Southern are also clearly in use within USGS literature when describing the entire range. We (USGS) only 'limit' ourselves when a study area for a manuscript is confined to a country (as many are), but when describing the entire range we tend to go with the more common and 'generic' approach so as to not make one country seem more important than another. OracleDude 12:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I fail to see what the disagreement is all about. It seems rather childish. Wbfergus seems to have addressed all of the major points with his table. The part of the ranges in Colombia merely get renamed to (Northern Andes), so they are still separate and distinct from the ones in Bolivia or wherever else, which are named appropriately as (Central Andes) or (Southern Andes). I don't how ZG can claim a city in Colombia would point to a mountain in Chile. I don't see the connection at all for that statement or several others. OracleDude 13:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bejnar's statement that mountain ranges do not respect country borders. But it is also true that the Cordillera Central in Bolivia is not at all the same mountain range as the Cordillera Central of Colombia. One could, I think, readily make the point that the ranges in Colombia continue into Venezuela, or Ecuador, with different names, but it is all a matter of convention. Given that these articles are primarily geographic, and geographic names are largely for human convenience, and given the great capability for interlinkability, redirects, internal references, and disambiguation that comes with Wikipedia, why not have separate articles, at least for those that are by consensus distinct (e.g., Cordillera Central in Bolivia vs the same name in Colombia). If usage of different names for the same range exists (e.g., Cordillera Orientale of Colombia is either continuous with, or branches into the Sierra de Perija and/or the Cordillera de Merida in Venezuela) then it comes down to an argument over which one should be the "main article" and which should be subsumed in that main article. Nationalism apart, how can it matter very much if an article starts by saying "The Cordillera Orientale of Colombia continues into Venezuela as the Sierra de Perija and the Cordillera de Merida." If those ranges (or sub-ranges if you like) have enough distinct information, they can be separate pages that begin with something like "Venezuela's Sierra de Merida is a northeastern branch of the Cordillera Orientale of Colombia..." And I agree with OracleDude that it seems like a bit of a tempest in a teapot; provide whatever information there may be, interlink alternative names, and go forward. There's my 2 cents (US) worth. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like everybody with an opinion on this has weighed in so far. So what's the resolution? OracleDude 11:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like 4 vs. 1 for changes, with a week since the last comment on how to handle this. I'd say wait until at least Monday, just to give the rest of the weekend for any further comments from others, but it looks like making the changes is a 'go'. wbfergus undefinedTalk 13:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In my view, the points put forward by wbfergus are persuading. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As one of the authors of some of the Cordillera articles, I have only today come upon this discussion page. I can understand both points of view expressed on this page, but I see one problem: All the different Cordillera titles which do exist now are by no means complete, and for some regions or countries articles do not even exist. If we collected all this information - that which exists and that which is still to be added - under three main titles, the information would become quite voluminous.

I would suggest that we go a different, a compromising way. Look at many of the articles of the world's countries. At beginning of subtitles, there are often links ("For a detailed article, see: ...") to articles which handle the subtitle in detail. So, why does wbfergus not write a general article about the Andine Cordillera Oriental, with subtitles like where below the subtitles the specific features of each of those sections are characterised in short, and below each subtitle there is a reference to each of the (already existing) more detailed articles about each of the sections of the Cordillera Oriental? -- Meister (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cordillera Oriental (Bolivia)
 * Cordillera Oriental (Colombia)
 * Cordillera Oriental (Peru)
 * Cordillera Oriental (Ecuador)
 * Those subsections are, for the most part, irrelevant to the articles. Links in the articles to specifics that are tangentially related may be sufficient. Appropriate subsections might be:

with the various cultures or actions compared and contrasted. --Bejnar (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Water
 * Agriculture
 * Folklore