Talk:Mount Charles, Jamaica

Hoax or wild extrapolation from name?
The Main Mountains in Jamaica lists this but I suspect they are just going by its name. A quick look at Google's terrain map (via Wikimapia) shows a small plateau on a hillside while Google's satellite view (via Wikimapia) reveals a small hamlet.

On balance, it seems that the article should be converted from "mountain" to "settlement".

-Arb. (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised that an editor with User:Arb level of experience would be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia concept of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I find the suggestion that this page is a Hoax - and that consequently I am responsible for creating the hoax as incompatible with an assumption of good faith. As the link describes Mount Charles as a "Mountain", well that is a referenced source. If User:Arb wants to question the value of the source, that is another matter. As regards the taxonomy of hills and mountains, again that's another matter. I would be grateful if User:Arb would retract the allegation of the page being a hoax. perhaps we could get more information about the location such who Charles. Again if there was an argument about notability, perhaps the information could be put in page sharing information about other nearby physical features of the countryside.Leutha (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The tag was not meant to be taken personally Leutha (did you not notice the full title of this thread?); it was simply the most appropriate one I could find. I'd guess it's an unintentional mistake both by you and your source. If you've ever lived in Jamaica you'd likely know that "Mount whatever" is much more common as a settlement name than a physical feature. In fact Higman and Hudson state: "The 1950 [ cadastral ] map had only... [ four mounts ] ...as physical features, but had 109 instances of mount in settlement names, almost all of them using the term as their first word. Few of these referred to physical characteristics and generally the references were vague".


 * So, now we've got to the bottom of that, we can do the conversion and loose the offending tag. -Arb. (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * References


 * Thanks for your prompt response. I think your quote will prove very useful in clarifying this page and perhaps many others.Leutha (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are welcome but did you look at the terrain and satellite views I linked above? If you had you'd realise that your recent changes to the article do not reflect reality; neither does the citation you provide support your contention in any way shape or form. I've just reread it three times and it nowhere says that "Mount" = high hill. The book has a very thorough index and Mount Charles is conspicuous by its absence. It's also not marked on the DoOS 50K map. It's clearly a small, recent settlement less than halfway up an unnamed hillside. Here are those links again:

-Arb. (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Google terrain map
 * Google satellite view