Talk:Wilderness hut

Autiotupa (finnish, in Finland)
"Autiotupa" is a term and not a name. Is there an English translation for the title, then? J I P | Talk 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Google found "wilderness cottage", "solitary cabin", "empty hut", "abandoned hut". It doesn't seem like any of them would refer to this same thing, though, and they're not used that much. –Mysid(t) 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Found "wilderness hut", used by e.g. Metsähallitus on its Outdoors.fi site, and it seems so abundant I'll rename the article. Thanks for the suggestion. –Mysid(t) 07:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wilderness hut is probably way to go for now, as it's used so commonly. More direct translation would be something like uninhabited/unoccupied hut/cottage. Jesh (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Only in Finland? Not exactly (2006)
"As such, the tradition is almost solely found in Finland, and to some extent in Sweden and Norway, too." I don't know how you define 'hut' exactly, but there are very similar wilderness cabins that operate under very similar rules in many European mountain ranges (eg Romania). Where does this claim come from?--Zambaccian 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We also have essentially the exact same thing in New Zealand.--horus

And in France too. Nice little article - needs a re-write for grammar though --Gavinio 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I tried not to change things too much, though. Incidentally, we have a similar system in the Highlands of Scotland.--Zhengfu 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim comes from the corresponding article in the Finnish Wikipedia. I tried to search for similar articles here, but couldn't find any&mdash;that's why I translated the article as such. Now it seems like both versions should be changed a bit. –Mysid(t) 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal, 2008
I think that Wilderness hut and Backcountry hut are prime candidates for merging - the only real difference at the moment is what countries they focus on --Ozhiker (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - they are about the same thing and this will help to reduce over specialization of the article. -- maelgwn - talk 11:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as creator of this article, if it matters. :-) ›mysid (☎∆) 14:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support but there's also hut, climbing hut, bothy and alpine hut to consider. I've been trying to get around to doing some form of rationalisation of these for a while now. Malathos (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wilderness hut and Backcountry hut are similar but the differences can support separate articles. They are both nicely rounded articles. Merging them would make an unnecessarily longer and less focussed article. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Alan_Liefting, could you elaborate on what differences you see between the articles? I've used huts in New Zealand extensively and I think that apart from the Scandinavian focus and history, the Wilderness hut article describes the NZ huts pretty well. There are also huts in many other countries - e.g. Australia, Canada, Chile & Argentina that I've used which are not described by either article. --Ozhiker (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added Bothy to the merge proposal --Ozhiker (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - even if there are regional variations all of these articles seem to be discussing the same sort of thing. Rodney Boyd (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * support merging bothy, wilderness hut, and backcountry hut. Even merging Alpine huts seems reasonable (although they seem to be a bit more classy, in general). Hut (dwelling) should be a separate article. Samulili (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have just added the estate bothy and this is certainly not like the wilderness bothy. Deben Dave (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge, again, 2010
Above, there is a clear consensus for merging Backcountry hut and Wilderness hut. How about merging Bothy into here, too? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose This term is unique to Scotland and shows up in local articles. Jllm06 (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are similarities of course (basic accommodation somewhere in the wild) and of course they look similar (small, pitched roof, local materials) but surely the interesting thing is the associated culture. There are good reasons for not splitting. There isn't going to be any one term that fits all comfortably so the article title will not really sum up the subject, and then there is the problem of where to stop. Without a clear idea of the subject anything could fit at a push, and it will be endlessly disputed. Bad idea. ProfDEH (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support There are many countries with huts not covered by the current articles. There are also many countries that have multiple types of huts.
 * Below are the terms that need consideration:

Mountain hut short article about huts focused on mountaineering Climbing hut currently redirected to Mountain hut Wilderness hut currently only about Scandinavian huts Backcountry hut currently only about New Zealand and USA Alpine hut currently redirected to Mountain hut Refuge Bothy currently split between wilderness bothy and unrelated estate bothy


 * There are several uses for huts that are only partly covered by the current articles: hiking, mountaineering, fishing, boating, ski touring


 * There are huts with many types of facilities, only some of which are described by the articles:

basic shelters with bare sleeping platform furniture tank water food prep areas heaters/stoves (eg most mountain huts) mattresses (eg NZ) cookers/gas (eg Milford Track) staff (eg Great walks huts in NZ) store (eg some huts on Torres del Paine circuit) restaurant (eg huts in Jotunheimen National Park) hotel like rooms (eg huts in Jotunheimen National Park)


 * There are large crossovers between all the types of huts and the current articles, creating redundant article text.


 * --Ozhiker (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. They are different structures. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Request: Could all current and future voters please specify which article should receive information on hiking huts in countries not currently covered (e.g. Australia, Canada, Norway, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, etc) Thanks, --Ozhiker (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would depend on what the common usage would be and whether there is sufficient info about them (is notable). It could be that hiking huts in the countries mentioned are simply not notable. I am familiar with New Zealand so I cannot comment on other countries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge, again again, 2011 edition
New year, new year's merge resolution, hopefully. It's logical to have only one article for Mountain hut, Backcountry hut, Alpine hut and Wilderness hut, since there are only minimal differences between the four, and any can be easily explained in the one article (eg "alpine hut refers to a hut specifically in an alpine area"). Where should the main article go? It should probably go in Wilderness hut, since that is the most general term. It can encompass simple refuges in remote areas of any terrain type, while "mountain", "alpine" and "backcountry" all refer to specific terrains. That said, I'd also support a merge of all "mountainous areas" articles to Mountain hut.

There was also some opposition to merging country-specific articles, such as Bothy. We had a similar discussion at Talk:Wildfire, about merging the Australia-specific Bushfire article. A consensus emerged to rename Bushfire Bushfires in Australia, and include a link back to the main article on non-urban fires, Wildfire. This could work here too, with an article Bothies in Scotland, including a more information link to Wilderness hut (or whichever). Thoughts? Let's resolve this. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The same thing could be done with Laavu.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like good idea to make a clear main article about different concepts and type of buildings of the similar thing in different cultures. But I wouldn't call it easy. It would probably need a few sub-articles, too. Maybe someone has done some research somewhere on this topic? Jesh (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that, at the least, Wilderness hut and Backcountry hut have minimal differences and should be merged, with "Wilderness hut" as a more likely main article. Laavu currently redirects to a section of Lean-to, which I think is more suitable than merging it here. Mountain hut should not be merged, as it seems to be meaningfully different (according to our article, most mountain huts are staffed, serve food and drink, and charge a fee for use). I'm on the fence about merging Bothy, but I wonder if the country bothy and the estate bothy are really the same thing, or if they just share the same name (in which case that article should be split). cmadler (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Merged June 2012
I merged backcountry hut into wilderness hut. I chose wilderness hut over backcountry hut as it seems to be the more common term.

The mountain or alpine huts appear to be different enough to warrant their own article; besides being in the mountains, in general they seem to be larger and have more services and can even be staffed. I have been in areas where there are both types.

Bothy appears to be more of an architectural form that can be used as a wilderness hut--other examples would be a lean-to, A-frame, log cabin, etc. Some of the bothy article should be merged here as well but I'll leave that for others with more knowledge about that topic.

HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hut use guidelines section
- This IP started the whole exchange by telling me to GROW UP: Really? What a good way to start a discussion, provocative and annoying person GROW UP'''??? Is it in their general right to behave and discuss thing like this to? Preaching about policy - well, how about start with the five pillars of Wikipedia? Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. WP:POLITE? What exactly did they expect after treating people like this from the other editor? IP doesn't want to listen to any arguments, the only thing is happening as soon I leave a message, in ten seconds - IP just goes and removes it. I don't know what kind of interaction you had with, but she could explain to you that this is not the way to act. When you start reverting people you SHOULD DISCUSS things with them and not  remove each and every   post non-stop like a machine.


 * I was rewriting the text in the article. IP removed a different text from the article that was first removed, I was about to rewrite it to be less like a guidebook. I was adding references, I was working on the text and when I hit save three times the text was gone again and again and again - while I was working on it, with references and all. That information is valid - exactly because such rules do exist. It is NOT prohibited to mention them in the right way. But this IP interfere with editing in article and his talk with the drop of a hat. Then she/ he stops me from editing the article, and rewording the section, by removing that part all the time - while she/ edits all what  he desires.  Than he goes removing practically every edit - not only from this article but from his page,  NOT  only warnings, but practically everything. And he tells me to grow up and that I don't understand how to edit Wikipedia?


 * Now what kind of crappy rules that say s/he can behave rudely, remove every edit from his page and than he is right too??? several times  - If I go back to the article to rewrote that part -he will be on me in a second, and revert, and than he will remove the edit war warning too yeah, right, - come on. And he never stopped editing the article', he just removes every comment from HIS OWN VERY HOLY BY WIKIGODS PROTECTED PAGE -  sure, but how are we supposed to discuss things at all  and how when faced with this kind of behavior?? Hafspajen (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And many of these changes are senseless.

Yes it is valid. It is part of the general information about the huts and it should be possible to mention it somehow. And IP removed a very good picture too, one of the best one in the article, with no consideration for what is good for the article or not. I don't know if you edit any similar articles, but this similar articles have similar structures. For example Freedom to roam, Campsite - use here in Prior-appropriation water rights and so on. I don't like people simply removing things from an article in a brutal way, instead of trying to fix them. I have noticed this behavior everywhere on Wikipedia, and it is not for the encyclopedias best. This under, if I ever had a chance against multiple reverts, insults, total refusal to discuss anything (pluss removing valid edit war warnings -) it is perfectly acceptable to include, with references. There are rules the Metsähallitus has the written down and publish it.

Wilderness huts images removed


In general, these huts are open for every passing by. They do not have regular maintenance schedules nor paid maintenance staff. Unofficial rules for use have arisen to ease the interaction of the visitors with each other. The huts are in general are equipped with some basic equipment, beds, fireplace,. Some areas are designated fuel stove only, because fuel stove for cooking can reduce the use of firewood. Some huts contain emergency food stores like canned food and bottled water, meant to consumed in emergency situations. Generally no running water is available in the huts, and often no WC exist, and general rule requires that toilet wastes should be buried away from the nearest watercourse or the hut. An unwritten rule say that if the firewood supply is used the visitors should replace it they are expected to leave the hut as they would like to find it. Detergents, toothpaste and soap, even biodegradable types that harm aquatic life are not recommended when alpine waterways are easily damaged. When leaving the hut, the visitors are generally expected to leave it clean and secure, with the fire out, and the doors and windows securely closed. Escaping fires can severely damage the environment. Rubbish should't be buried. Rubbish like cans, plastic bottles or broken glass is often dug out by native animals and may harm them. Trash should be disposed by taking it away for proper disposal. Rules can differ between Europe, Australia and USA. And more references to come. Hafspajen (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, I am all alone here. I reverted to last stable version- with a note -do not revert but discus-

and was moving to the talk page - putting up a draft. And he reverts me again - HOW GREAT. Is this common sense, politeness, discussing and trying to reach a consensus? - this is just sick. Hafspajen (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and so when I saw an entire section instructing the reader in the imperative mood to use mountain huts in a particular way, I removed it. It was restored, in a slightly different format, with an HTML comment saying &lt;!-- yes it is encyclopedic --&gt;.  HTML comments are not the place for content discussions or instructions, and I found this an inappropriate way to behave.  The user who reverted my edit has undone my work for spurious reasons before (eg, ) and I noticed also that they have misused HTML comments in this way before as well, inserting aggressive statements and demands where the correct course of action is to determine the consensus on talk pages.  Then the user began insisting on their right to spam my talk page, even when the long established right for users to remove messages was pointed out to them.  I judge that this person is playing some kind of game here rather than trying to improve the encyclopaedia.  The fact that they have now undone all the edits I made, including corrections to grammar, spelling, incorrect capitalisations and unnecessary insertion of non-breaking spaces only reinforces this impression.


 * Considering the text that the user restored:
 * The users are expected to leave the hut as they would like to find it. The fires should never left unattended, and if the firewood supply is used the visitors should replace it.  Some areas are designated fuel stove only, because fuel stove for cooking can reduce the use of firewood. Some huts contain emergency food stores like canned food and bottled water, meant to consumed in  urgent situations. Often no WC exist, and general rule requires that toilet wastes should be buried  away from the nearest watercourse or the hut. 


 * inappropriate instructional tone, together with grammatical errors - "should never left unattended", "no WC exist", "meant to consumed" etc.
 * Generally no running water is available in the huts, it is often recommended when using water from a stream, that the  water should be boiled for at least five minutes because of the potential danger of gastroenteritis and giardia.
 * There are a huge variety of mountain huts in the world and it is not correct to generalise about the presence or absence of running water. Nor is it appropriate to give instructions about avoiding gastroenteritis.
 * Detergents, toothpaste and soap, even biodegradable types, harm aquatic life, and alpine waterways are easily damaged.  When leaving the hut, the visitors are generally expected to leave it clean and secure, with the fire out, and  the doors and windows securely closed. Escaping fires can severely damage the environment. Rubbish should't be buried. Rubbish like cans, plastic bottles or broken glass is often dug out by native animals and may harm them. Trash should be disposed by taking it away for proper disposal. Rules can differ between Europe, Australia and USA.
 * The article is about mountain huts, not about detergents or soap, so their effect on wildlife is not relevant here. Instructions on the state to leave the hut in are not appropriate.


 * There is very little of encyclopaedic value here that wasn't already stated in the article. What there is, I've added 200.83.101.199 (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi both. Thanks for coming here - this is the best place. I am not known for my dispute resolution skills or even for tact, but I would like to try to broker a solution here for the good of the article and the encyclopaedia in general: you are both valuable editors. (And for this reason, plus the fact this is an article talk page, I'm not going to go further here into matters of user talk page etiquette, templating, or edit warring noticeboard reportage, except to apologise for messing with both of your posts above in flagrant violation of talk page guidelines.) You have conflicting editing styles. You have second-language problems, but you also like to sculpt your prose in stages, rather than using the preview button and then making the change all at once. @IP: you like to edit decisively once, but you usually focus on one small part of the article or one aspect, in "fix" mode. You've also both made assumptions of bad faith about each other.


 * I don't see why the article should not contain such a section -- if adequate sources can be found. I agree with the IP, it should be brief and avoid all suggestion of "how to": rather it should summarise what rules or guidelines apply in different environments worldwide. (This particularly because we have another article on mountain huts - IP, I think you've missed that.) Hafspajen, right now you are using two Finnish sources. This is far too unrepresentative either for the breadth of applicability of the article or to establish the need for the section. Look for sources from other parts of the world - ideally from desert environments (Australia?) and less cold highland environments (US?) Are there wilderness huts in any tropical forest environs? IP, you rightly point to international/regional variation, but I'm not sure you are talking about wilderness when you say that some have running water. Can you help with references? Both of you: as you can see I am no expert in the topic, but it's the sources that should decide here - both whether we include the section as anything more than a sentence saying "There are different rules in different places", with maybe a link to mountain hut, where the firewood and emergency rations stuff surely obtains, and also what we put in it. Does that make sense? I hope so because I have already been interrupted once to do work and am coming to the end of my break. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'''
 * I don't have that much second-language problems, not to understand  You provocative and annoying person grow up and  You and your ilk cause immense damage to Wikipedia - ... I would appreciate an appology - if he is such a valuable editor as you say, than he should appologize for this. I have not started making  assumptions of bad faith about IP at all, I never do that  -  but I simply stated the fact that here is an individual who is doing his/her best to offend me. Didn't need much of a genius to understand that. What kind of response did s/he exactly expected from me after calling me  provocative and annoying and damaging the project???? He - not me - was calling me names and told me that I need to grow up, that I am irritating and so on. He - not me. Point me to the part I was name-calling towards him. - You will not be able to find such a thing.Hafspajen (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, galleries are not discuraged. And it took me a heck of a lot work to try to find them - and put them together to present the different styles of huts, and from different countries. It is a general lack of good images in this topic.  And - also - wilderness hut is not only architecture - it is a lifestyle. There should be an  editor involved here on this topic who genuinely knows about hiking - anyone could tell you that these huts are intimately bound together with - a lifestyle around them. I agree that it could have been written differently - and IF anyone should have cared to talk to me I might have had a chance even explaining it - before all my pictures were ripped off with no consensus.Hafspajen (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And a final small point - he still did not stopped showing bad faith: he was accusing me of falsely accusing HIM  of breaking the 3revert rule. Hm. If Drmies wasn't interfering - we both would have been blocked - that is for sure. HE for the like 33th time or so for edit warring - and me for the first time ever - and BOTH indeed for edit war. Were is the part with the FALSELY ACCUSING? - It was plain and sheer luck that nobody got blocked. None of this was false accusations. It was edit war alright, and namecalling. Me - only edit war - but I have a certain theory  that his style of interacting with other editors might be quite problematic and rather provoking, something this editor would indeed need to work on - because yes, this is damaging the project. I was provoked into a behaviour that was very close to both get me blocked and made me quit today -and yes,  I would call this  is indeed a  damaging behaviour to Wikipedia - not from MY side but his-hers. Not a civil or constructive behaviour. Also, here is quite a record for this kind of behaviour.    Hafspajen (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And what more interesting is that this editor is a blocked editor who was unblocked, here high up. Two admins, Drmies and Yngvadottir, have unblocked with a WP:0RR restriction. Looks to me that he was on called 1RR (one-revert rule) or 0RR (zero-revert rule). Why didn't you Yngvadottir or Drmies blocked him right away - when he was on his second? Hafspajen (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, that was an interesting reading. Sorry - not interested any more. An editor with a past like this is an obvious danger to the community. He will not apologize, because this kind of people never do, so it is no point even expecting anything like that, this is way too far from any reasonable Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community. This expression: you cause immense damage to Wikipedia - he probably picked that up in one of the conversations about his own editing style. This is clealy a hopeless case, an editor that should have been banned for ages. No point in discussing anything more here. Hafspajen (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge
This subject is substantially identical to - the two should probably be merged. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See the section below. Rwood128 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC) below

Permanently attended?
The lede has: "Huts range from being basic and unmanned, without running water, to furnished and permanently attended", but the body of the article states, that "Unlike mountain huts, they do not have a permanent resident who tends to the building and sells food to mountaineers", though this refers specifically to German Biwakschachteln. Clarification is needed here. I have stayed in a Swiss hut that did not have a guardian but did have food (and beer) paid for on the honour system. Rwood128 (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Re the above merge proposal I found this in the lede to the bothy article: "but related buildings can be found around the world (for example, in the Nordic countries there are wilderness huts)". There are a number of related articles on various kinds of wilderness or mountain huts or similar shelters. Some might be merged but at the very least the similarities need to be fully acknowledged. Rwood128 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In the Vercors Massif of France there are cabane non gardée and refuge gardé. I would describe the cabane as wilderness huts, or bothies. They were indeed originally shepherds' huts, and "shepherd's hut" is one meaning of the word cabane, though I do not remember whether or not you are supposed to send a small overnight fee by mail? Rwood128 (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now discovered that there are cabanes on the The Pyrenean Trail GR10.
 * More information re all kinds of cabane on GR 10. Rwood128 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is also relevant here "A mountain hut is a purpose-built refuge situated at some strategically high place in the mountains so that one or more peaks are readily accessible from it. It may vary from a simple bivouac shelter to something resembling a small hotel in size and facilities".

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021
Please update the outdated link in * into *

This update has already been made on the corresponding Finnish page (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autiotupa). Jvp2010 (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All set. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)