Wikidata talk:WikiProject Mountains

Coordinates for mountain ranges

It's absurd to suggest that mountain ranges shouldn't have coordinates because they're not a single point. It is perfectly normal that there are a range of possible coordinates which are all valid, because almost nothing is a single point, consider oceans, islands, countries, cities, lakes, rivers, roads... we have coordinates for all of those. Even much smaller things like buildings are areas, not points.

A single coordinate statement might be less suited to long thin things compared to approximately round things, but it's entirely consistent with how we use coordinates elsewhere and is still useful (e.g. if you want to make a map of mountain ranges with markers, you need to know where to put the marker and a single coordinate statement is perfect for that). For describing things in more detail, we have geoshape (P3896).

- Nikki (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. They should still have coordinates, preferably pointing to what looks like the middle of the range. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A property for mountain ranges?

Hello. I sometimes wonder if this would not be a good idea, as currently the situation is complicated by the fact that located in/on physical feature (P706), the only option we have, is a catch-all property, which means it stores such things as the island in which a mountain is situated. A good number of Infobox in various Wikipedias have a dedicated parameter for ranges - the ones about mountains but also about refuges and so on. This seems a useful concept that may need a stand-alone property. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikidata:Property proposal/mountain range for the eventual proposal. Thierry Caro (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Olympus Mons (Q520)

Hi all,

Koxinga (talk) Thierry Caro (talk) Pasleim (talk) Runner1928 (talk) Tris T7 ^{TT me} Arjoopy (talk) SilentSpike (talk) Feed Me Your Skin (talk)

Notified participants of WikiProject Mountains

Just a message to let you know that I'm working on improving Olympus Mons (Q520) (if possible to make it a Wikidata:Showcase items). I can use any help and advice available (including the strange use of height (P2048) on some mountains, and I'm not sure to understand how topographic prominence (P2660) works, quite often it's the same value as elevation above sea level (P2044), 284 of the 7711 items having both properties...). PS: Wikidata:WikiProject Mountains is centered on mountain on Earth but AFAIK there is no major difference with mountains outside Earth, maybe it should be more explicit.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Topographic prominence is defined in w:topographic prominence, it is the difference between the height of the summit and the height of the lowest point you have to pass in order to reach a higher summit. It is the same as the height if the summit is the highest of the landmass it belongs to (for example there is one such peak for each island). Do you have examples of strange use of height (P2048)? Koxinga (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hill - subclass of mountain?

Cheers guys, I'm pretty new into this topic. Currently I'm trying to bring some order into minor mountains in central Germany, like Singener Berg (Q1353265) for example. I wondered whether to put these elements as instance of "mountain" or "hill". This page states, that "hill" is considered as subclass of "mountain", however, hill (Q54050) is only subclass of physical location (Q17334923) and landform (Q271669). Can somebody enlighten me? Best regards, Arjoopy (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Koxinga (talk) Thierry Caro (talk) Pasleim (talk) Runner1928 (talk) Tris T7 ^{TT me} Arjoopy (talk) SilentSpike (talk) Feed Me Your Skin (talk)

Notified participants of WikiProject Mountains --Arjoopy (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Arjoopy, from my own previous research in this area I believe the two items have no strict definition and are probably best related with said to be the same as (P460). The subclass relation is arbitrarily added and unreferenced. SilentSpike (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Overhaul project page

Mountains were one of the first areas of Wikidata I started editing and I was unaware of this project until recently. It looks a little dead and I was thinking of doing some overhaul:

• Update ontology documentation section.

• From my own reading, references seem to suggest the relation between mountain (Q8502) and hill (Q54050) is unclear. That's something of an open problem for this project - I don't think it should be suggesting a strict subclass relation one way or the other.
• Mention that there may be notable ridge (Q740445) and rocky wall (Q15809483) items.

• Split project into logical subpages (data modelling, data statistics/metrics, data validation/maintenance).
• Introduce entity schema in validation section. I recently created E339 and would be interested to create more-specific and other mountain related schemas.
• Remove clearly false statement about coordinates for mountain ranges.

If there is any support for this (or no objections within a week) I'll go ahead. Also please point out any other subpages which could be useful. I thought about perhaps having regional subpages since different countries have different notable mountains and associated culture, but probably not worth it with the project so small. --SilentSpike (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Don't overcompensate with too many subpages though. Just stick to simple things. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I agree, my plan would just be those 3 sections - for a natural division of responsibilities (document model, track progress/goals, track quality) SilentSpike (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

elevation (Q112744794)

Due to the lack of mandatory criteria to distinguish between mountain (Q8502), hill (Q54050) and other kinds of elevations, there is some confusion. To make things easier, I created elevation (Q112744794), which is a subclass of landform (Q271669) and geographical feature (Q618123), similar as things have been with mountain (Q8502) and hill (Q54050) before. (We maybe need to speak about terrain (Q186131) and terrain (Q14524493) aswell, but that's a different story.) This enables for example to run queries, which return both hills, mountains and other kinds. To add, I'm also planning to review the mayhem of subclasses for the likes of landform (Q271669), which is gonna be a huge task. If someone have resources to support, that'd be highly appreciated. Arjoopy (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)