Talk:List of mountains of New Hampshire

Split/Merge/Reassign?
This message was also posted by me to Talk:Four-thousand footers.

I suggest that the article Four-thousand footers be kept in the "Mountaineering" category and dropped from the "Geography of New Hampshire" category, because there is an independent article List of mountains in New Hampshire. The 4K footer article covers the NE 4K and 100 Highest, which is not properly exclusively NH geography. The "List" article should be included in the "Geography of New Hampshire" category and renamed Mountains of New Hampshire so as to be consistent with the format for other geographical features. It can refer to the 4K Footers article and peaks appropriately marked as listed, but could also include others, such as Clay (er, Reagan), Jim, and smaller peaks such as Monadnock. Thoughts? FrostHeaves 18:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Arghman 12:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC): I have deleted the "Giles Mountain" from the list. There is certainly not one that is 4000' elevation.

Article titles
There seems to be no predictable way that the mountain articles have been named. Some are named "x Mountain", and some are name "x Mountain (New Hampshire)". I suggest that summit names that appear in more than one state in the GNIS, or in more than one Wikipedia article, be named "x Mountain (New Hampshire)", but that otherwise they just be named "x Mountain".

Examples:
 * Mount Washington (New Hampshire) is correctly named, because there are many Mount Washingtons.
 * Boott Spur (New Hampshire) becomes Boott Spur, as there is only one.
 * Cannon Mountain (New Hampshire) remains unchanged, because there are several Cannon Mountains in the U.S., even though there is only one Wikipedia article.

I will be removing "(New Hampshire)" from the article names for unique summits. --Ken Gallager 12:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a year or two from now, as wikipedia slices the universe into ever-finer articles, are you sure that another Boott Spur won't show up? Plenty of these articles (including, I think, Mount Washington) were created without any geographic addition in wikipedia's earlier days, and have had to be moved since to make sure. Perhaps we should just leave them all in the same format. - DavidWBrooks 15:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose there's a remote possibility that there may be a Boott Spur (or whatever) in another country somewhere. I know for sure, though, that there are no others (of the ones I've renamed) anywhere else in the U.S.  This is based on checking the USGS Geographic Names Information System.  I think it'll be pretty easy to keep on top of any surprises that turn up...  --Ken Gallager 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple-peaked mountains
Over on Talk:Four-thousand footers I asked if, e.g., the North and South peaks of Kinsman or the North, Middle, and South peaks of Tripyramid should be considered separate mountains with separate articles, like North, Middle, and South Carter Mountain, or just considered parts of one mountain, like the peaks of Adams or Wildcat? Or some one way and some the other—but which? Is there some standard we can use, say some minimum prominence and horizontal separation, or just a sense of 'these are different enough to be distinct'? —wwoods 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's how the Appalachian Mountain Club does it in the NH 4000-footer list: "To qualify for the list, a peak must rise 200 feet above any ridge connecting it to a higher neighbor. As a result, several notable peaks (including Clay, Guyot and the south peak of Moosilauke) are not included on the lists despite their height. Determinations are made according to the most current USGS topographical maps and peaks have been added to or deleted from the lists as newer maps became available." - DavidWBrooks 19:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you then think we should merge Mt. Clay (139 ft of prominence) and Boott Spur (100 ft) into Washington, the way Sam Adams (100 ft) and Quincy Adams (65 ft) are included in Mt. Adams?
 * —wwoods 02:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mount Doublehead should be added as well. Badagnani 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommend this list for Deletion
I know this is probably someone'e baby and I don't aim to sound like the grim reaper, but I have to recommend this list for deletion, well intentioned as it may be. Why? It seems to serve no purpose that other articles and category lists don't already carry in full. Check it out and see if it isn't so. If folks want a general list of New Hampshire Mountains, all they need to do is click on Category:Mountains of New Hampshire or any of the lists below. This list is extraneous. These are not:


 * Four-thousand footers
 * Northeast 111 4000-footers
 * New England Hundred Highest
 * New England Fifty Finest

I recognize that the elevation figures are unique to this article, and I have an inherent liking of anything related to mountains, however, if someone can make a list of the mountains of New Hampshire and nominate it for article status, then someone can make a list of just about anything under the sun and nominate that list for article status. For instance, I could write a list about male movie stars who grew up in Illinois and turn that into an article (List of male movie stars who grew up in Illinois) with associated data tables. Or worse, what if I created List of mountains in the Rocky Mountains and went on to add every single peak of the Rockies with elevation to the list? Where would it end? Lists should be articles only when they have a genuine life outside of Wikipedia, for instance the Four-thousand footers, otherwise they are Categories and should be carried by the Category list itself. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I appreciate your making me aware of your proposal to delete the List of mountains in New Hampshire, and you make a lot of good arguments. I also see that by the time I logged in and found your comment, someone else had already removed the proposal tag. Overall, your reasoning makes a lot of sense, but I find the one element of the list that makes it usable and worth keeping is the fact that it's a sortable table, either by elevation or by name. Not the most earth-shattering feature, but probably enough to keep it for now. Still, you make a good point that there should probably be more to the list than just names and elevations. See you, --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ken, One major problem I see with a list of this sort is that when links to it start appearing in other articles readers will confuse it with the category list by the same name. The problem there is that while the category list automatically adds anything listed as "Category:mountains of. . ." under the appropriate list, "List of mountains in New Hampshire" does not.

I keep coming to the question: what is the purpose of this list? Is it simply to list every single mountain in New Hampshire with elevation? So is it an "elevation list?" If so perhaps it should be moved to "Elevations of mountains in New Hampshire" But each of the mountains on the list has an associated article which shows elevation. That information is already available, but not in table format. What is the purpose of showing it in table format? Who specifically does it serve? Or is the article trying to do something more? What? Could this list be appended to the category page somehow (which is really where it belongs)?

Finally, why divide it into "4000 Footers" and "Less than 4000 feet"? Seems there's a little peak bagging bias there & there is already a list of 4,000 footers.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ken_Gallager"


 * Hi again. Basically, I'm on the fence about this. I know exactly what you mean about the difficulty (and non-necessity) of keeping lists like this up to date, when categories do that automatically. I'd like to see the sortable table feature kept somewhere, though. I see that the person who deleted the "prod" tag is someone who makes a practice of deleting such tags, so I'm not sure how productive any discussion with him/her would be. I also know that few people check the discussion pages of New Hampshire articles, or so it seems, anyway. You might want to get the opinion of Wwoods, who has contributed a lot of material to the NH mountains articles. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pgagnon999"

I made a few changes to the introductory material for this article that will hopefully make its purpose clearer.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many, many articles in Wikipedia which are lists of something or other; it's a common form. Just scan through Category:Lists of mountains in the United States, Category:Lists of mountains by country, Category:Lists of mountains, Category:Nature-related lists, or the ultimate Category:Lists. I don't see anything egregious about this one.
 * Lists and categories are different things. Category pages are not articles. A category page gives you a list of links to articles, which is only useful for navigation to an article you're looking for — if it exists. An article can give information about the items of the list, even if they don't have articles of their own. For instance, compare List of rivers in Maine with Category:Rivers of Maine. Here, if, say, you're only interested in the biggest mountains of NH, you can see which those are at a glance, without having to go through all the articles and compose your own list. While the list currently only has elevation data, if someone wanted to, it could be expanded, e.g. by adding locations or indicating which are ski areas.
 * This list overlaps with the other lists you mention but is neither a subset nor superset of any. It is not of course an exhaustive list of NH mountains. Rather it is a list of mountains that someone thought notable for one reason or another. (Mostly because they were included on one of those lists. :-) This list is older than most of the articles it links to; I see there are still a couple of red links.


 * As for the break, the original version just had the 4,000 footers, but later editors added lower notable mountains. I suppose the two sections could be combined.
 * —wwoods (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see how that makes sense. Thanks.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where to slot in Dickey Mountain
I noticed a mountain I climbed did not have an article so I made a stub: Dickey Mountain. It should probably be in the big Mountains of New Hampshire footer but I am not sure what range it belongs to. If someone more knowledgeable than me could slot it in, I'd appreciate it. Jessamyn (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the article! I've placed it in the "Others (White Mountains)" box, since it is not part of any White Mountains subrange. Also, the article has a very nice photo of Welch Mountain, not Dickey. Welch is the pointier of the two mountains. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks much -- will fix and re-upload with the proper name. Jessamyn (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Improvement to table
I'm working on an improvement to the main table at User:Sphilbrick/Mountains_of_New_Hampshire_table. Input welcome.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I am going to incorporate my improvements.


 * The old table was technically sortable, but not in a useful way. Although the height field was sortable, it didn’t sort in the way you want (highest to lowest or vice versa) so I corrected that.
 * It is useful to have both feet and meters, but entering both as values leaves open the chance that one or the other is mistyped. It is better to enter one, and convert, which I have done.
 * The notes field contained several pieces of interesting information, but sorting that column did nothing. I have separated the info out into separate columns so each field can be sorted in a meaningful way.
 * My conversion process did have a couple false starts—I think I fixed all the errors I introduced, but if I missed some, either point them out or just fix them.
 * I also converted the references, although I did not independently verify them-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent job! It looks like it will be very usable. Just one question: why did you want the footnotes to go into a separate column? You could put them after the mountains' names and thereby save some space. But not a big deal. Thanks for your big improvement to the list, --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What do people think should (and shouldn't) go in the "notes" field? I've added a couple of name hiking trails to the mountain(s) at each end of the trail, but not to mountains the trail passes over. That seems pretty basic but there are now two items in the "notes" for Mount Sunapee. It could get cluttered and not useful, if we're not careful. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)