Talk:Mount Rainier/Archive 1

Mount Rainier's earliest lavas are about 500,000 years old (Sisson and others, 2001).

Who is Sisson? Where was this published?

Thomas W. Sisson is a volcanologist with the USGS in Menlo Park, California. [1]. I don't know the reference, I'm afraid. -- hike395 03:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Found an earlier reference by Sisson that contained the same info, included in article. -- hike395 13:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

While the gallery is perhaps unnecessary, this article ought to have more than one photo. For instance, the view from Puget Sound gives a sense of its ubiquity in the area's landscapes. Stan 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Rainier definitely needs another pic exactly from the area you mentioned. Puget Sound or Seattle perhaps, just to show how dominant it is in the geography of the whole area.

There are no references. slambo 17:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Now there are. -- hike395 13:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How about including more information on the mudflow threat from Rainier to the greater Seattle area from a lahar, as detailed here?

From the Seattle Weekly

There is a similar (if tiny) reference like this on the talk page for Glacier Mountain I believe. Something specific to Rainier that can wipe out lower King County might be worth a section. --rootology 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I decided that this Wikipedia article on Mount Rainier deserved a geology section. I was a little surprised that, unlike most of the other Cascade volcanoes, Rainier's article didn't have one in the first place. It is indeed a potentially dangerous volcano because of the potential for large lahars, and it certainly *has* produced huge lahars in the not-so-distant past. NorthernFire 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Test edit.

I took out "Because of its scenic dominance, Seattle/Tacoma-area residents often refer to it simply as 'the Mountain.'"

I've never, ever heard anyone refer to it as just "the mountain." If I were to hear "the mountain," I would probably think of Mt. St. Helens, since Seattlites are excited about its recent activity.

Where do you live, Spokane? During the ten years I spent in Seattle, any time anyone said "the mountain", it was always in reference to Mt. Rainier. Things like the weather forecaster saying "it'll be clear and sunny today, and the mountain should be out". --Carnildo 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. "The mountain" out of the mouth of a Puget Sound resident always means Mt. Rainier, never Mt. St. Helens. I've reverted the change. --Lukobe 05:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not from Seattle originally, but my native wife and *everyone* she knows always refers to Rainer as simply The Mountain. Sort of how if you're from a suburb of St. Louis, St. Louis is "the city", whereas everyone from vaguely near the New York Metro area always knows "The City" is New York City, especially Manhatten. rootology 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a way of predicting the weather in Seattle using The Mountain. "If you can see The Mountain, it's going to rain. If you can't see The Mountain, it's raining." --Dan 18:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All the above aside, how notable is it that it is (often/always/sometimes) called "the Mountain"? The same is true, to some extent, of many mountains (e.g. the Sandia Mountains near where I live, Albuquerque, New Mexico). For example, I think it would be silly to have a line in an article about New York City saying "residents often refer to it as 'The City.'" This case is a bit different, but does the line really need to be in the article?-- Spireguy 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it is interesting. Not all cities are referred to as "The City". In the U.S., I've only heard that label applied to NYC, and (rarely) San Francisco. Never, to my memory, to Chicago or Los Angeles. And, I've only heard "The Mountain" applied to Rainier, never to, e.g., Mount Diablo, Mount Baldy, Mount Hood, or even Mount Shasta or Mount Whitney. Aren't the Sandias called, well, "The Sandias"? (I've only spent a little time in New Mexico, so my ignorance is showing). In any event, my argument is that the usage is rare enough to be notable. hike395 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are conflating two different things. Someone in Albuquerque could be talking about the Sandias in a casual way, as in "the mountain is pretty today" or "I can't see the mountain very well, it must be hazy." (Note that I'm not capitalizing.) The same, I expect, is true of Rainier for Seattle. Similarly a resident of any city can say "the city hasn't been the same since the new mayor took office." (E.g. the comment about St. Louis above.) On the other hand, someone in Albuquerque could be talking about the Sandias in a more specific way, in a context where it wouldn't be clear which mountain is meant without specifying it, as in "The Sandias are not as high as the Sangre de Cristos." Similarly someone in Seattle could say "Rainier is higher than St. Helens." I find it unlikely that they would say "The mountain is higher than St. Helens." Similarly for cities, lakes, etc.; I would claim that this usage is quite common, whenever there is some obvious "default" feature.

In short, I don't think it is necessarily notable that Rainier is called "The mountain". However, it is relevant that Rainier is much farther away from Seattle than, say, the Sandias are from Albuquerque. Given that fact, Rainier's status as the default mountain is perhaps notable, since it is another reflection of how darn big it is. I'm not sure. -- Spireguy 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a reflection not only of how darn big it is, but of how big it is compared to anything else within visual range. You can see plenty of mountains if you scan the horizon in Seattle, but Tahomas sticks up so much above the rest that it is in a class by itself. Even to the west, Mt. Olympus is obvious, but nothing like The Mountain. --Dan 21:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear. I meant the use of "The City" or "The Mountain" as agreed-upon subjects of sentences without prior or immediate physical context. I can be in Newark, New Jersey, and if I refer to "The City", it doesn't mean Newark, it's New York. If I come up to you in Albuquerque, in the middle of the night, indoors, and say "How far is the mountain?" -- would you even know what I was talking about? In Seattle, people would. I think linguists refer to this as a homophora, but I'm not a linguistics expert. hike395 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That is clearer. If that is so, then I would agree that Rainier is a special situation, and probably notable. -- Spireguy 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "the mountain" being Rainier is like "the city" being New York. What is the source of that info? It's true that people in Seattle (and Tacoma even more) say things like "the mountain is out today". But if you said that to someone in Portland, OR, I'd bet they would think you meant Mt Hood. My understanding of wikipedia is that it doesn't matter how tall or far away Rainier is from Seattle -- what matters is citing a reputable source, no? Pfly 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a few examples:

1. The book "The Measure of a Mountain" by Bruce Barcott, first chapter is called "The Mountain is Out", you can read it here, look at the first 2 paragraphs.
2. Instructions for attendees of ICDAR 2001, proof of local vernacular
3. Local hiking vernacular: Karen Sykes, who is the hiking columnist for the Seattle PI, uses the phrase (see first paragraph)
4. American Library Association lists "The Mountain" in their slang glossary for their Seattle 2007 conference.
5. AOL travel guide, first sentence about Mount Rainier

hike395 09:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I live near Seattle and although (How do u spell that anyways?) I've never heard any one say "The Mountain" Mt Rainier is a pretty big part of western Washington. If I heard some one say "The Mountain" I would automaticly think of Mt. Rainier. Also, there is a radio station called "The Mountain". And I'm pretty sure they mean Rainier. By the way, I'm a new user so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to put this at the end or somewhere else. Anyways, I think refering to Mt Rainier as "The Mountain" in the article, is just fine.

TurkyBaster (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there was no mention of the U.F.O. sighting in the 1940's over Mt. Raineer. Does anyone have any specific facts to add. BiggKwell 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to vandalize this article, I would suggest you identify yourself in the future. BiggKwell 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the location of the putative sighting is incidental. I think it is fine to link to Mount Rainier in the discussion of UFOs, but I would object to including in this article since it really isn't pertinent. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There were quite a few Japanese Fire balloons that landed around Rainier and elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest during World War Two. Perhaps those were the UFOs. They were UFOs in the literal sense of the word to most people who saw them. But in any case, they don't pertain to Mount Rainier so much as the whole western US. Pfly 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about it being linked earlier in the section, but (i) the link was quite a way back, so I do not think the delinking case is clear cut, (ii) the reason for the delinking was not given by the previous editor, and (iii) I cannot find the relevant guideline about earlier linking in WP:MOS or WP:CONTEXT. Viewfinder 01:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

the last picture (View from the space needle) provides the best vista, but I wish you could get a sharper image. There are plenty available, even on postcards.Dunnhaupt 17:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Replaced the main image with a more life-sized version of the summit. Anybody unhappy with the new picture?Murali

The previous one was a better representation of the mountain as a whole, I think - attempts to do closeups of the summit are going to be either distorted or show only a tiny portion of the mountain as a whole. It's just a big mountain... Stan 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the previous one was a bit better, although the new one is not bad. The previous one did place the mountain better in context. If the new one is kept, a better caption would be "Mount Rainier from Paradise" or somesuch. -- Spireguy 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked the old one, because it is a WP featured photo. Given that 3 of us prefer the old one, I put it back. hike395 05:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest http://ragingsamster.googlepages.com/rainfinal.jpg as a photo to use - I took this February of 2006 at south 277th near SR 167 in Auburn. It does establish the prominence of the mountain in the Puget Sound area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragingsamster (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, the other existing images appear to illustrate the mountain more clearly. But, if it is decided to use this one, then an unaltered version will need to be provided. WP:IUP specifies "user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Would this site benefit from having information about local accommodations? I think a lot of people come here to research a trip to the area. Is it appropriate to add a link to our Mt. Rainier Cabins on this page?

No. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Carnildo 01:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPAM for the relevant guideline. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that composite volcano links to stratovolcano, I propose changing the type to stratovolcano and replacing all references to composite volcano also.--Withamk@usa.net 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry forgot to link, stratovolcano--Withamk@usa.net 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It is almost always appropriate to change wikilinks to avoid redirects. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stratovolcano and composite volcano are the exact same thing. Volcanologists prefer to use stratovolcano over composite volcano because all volcanoes have composite layers. It just so happens to be more noticable on stratovolcanoes, hence the synonym composite. JustN5:12 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the Ascent records section for a number of reasons:

• I cleaned up the language a little. I changed none of the facts.
• I removed the eternal links because I believe they don't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:External links. They are not directly about Mount Rainier. They are also not citations which backup the facts.
• I have put back in the {{facts}} tag as the facts in this section have no source and may be in dispute.

Lastly, I don't know what it means to say that these records are official. Who decides that a record is official?

-- Patleahy 06:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, "official" indicates a record that is recognized by the governing or record-keeping body for the sport. For example, aircraft-related records are tracked by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. --Carnildo 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That’s what I thought. Over here Jane.freeser explained what she meant by official. I would appear that she means "independently timed" when she says official. I would like to see some source for these facts to see of they refer to them as official. -- Patleahy 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Over here The sources were given and then removed by you I believe -- the links to Rainier Mountaineering Inc (who timed Whittaker et al, and two links for the organizations/companies who timed Howitt. I'd like to add a wikipedia link to Whittaker as he was the first US citizen to summit Everest and one of the world's best Rainier climbers and co-founder of Rainier Mountaineering Inc back then. Do you have anything on him to link to?

Over here A $5000 offer was made in 2004 by D.Howitt to C.Kellogg, to have a Rainier speed climbed timed by independent timers. C.Kellogg claimed two record times both untimed and unverified, one in 1998, then 2004. Prior to 2004, D.Howitt offered $500 and then $1500, offer refused by C.Kellogg and instead he did a unverified 2004 climb and claimed a new record and publicized it widely and profited from it with sponsors etc. Then D.Howitt makes offer later in 2004 after this climb for $5000. Offer refused by C.Kellogg. Unprescedented offer as climbing is a kind of poor-man's discipline for most and this is huge amount of $ for such a thing. Offer made publically, to CK directly, and through two speed climbing resources [[2]] Hans Florine, and Bill Wright [[3]]

The links I removed provided no details about the records in the article. To be used as verifiable sources they must contain the facts cited and not just be links to organizations mentioned in the article. -- Patleahy 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All content must have a reliable source and satisfy the attribution policy. I don't know of specific guidance on records, but I'm not sure one is necessary if the above two policies/guidelines are satisfied. When citing other discussions, linking to difs is preferable since they are not mangled by archiving.[4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little research on this topic the only things I can conclude are that there is a great deal of unpleasant argument among the Northwest speed climbing community and very little verifiable facts as to the validity of clamed records. I found one mention of a record in a disputed book and a handful of newspaper articles. I am not familiar enough with the topic to edit it for content myself. However if there are no reliable published sources for these records I suggest the section should be deleted. -- Patleahy 22:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is correct. The content can always be restored if and when reliable sources are found. I would really like to avoid adding the {{totally disputed}} tag to the article. It seem to me that records have more to do with egos of climbers than the mountain and hence are arguably not germane. Moreover, they seem to apply to primarily to a single route and thereby give it undue emphasis (eschewed in the manual of style). Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the following content is disputed above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ascent records

Mount Rainier mountaineering speed ascent records include those of Jim Whittaker, Lou Whittaker, and John Day; who in 1959 set the official roundtrip speed climbing record of 7 hour and 20 minutes from Paradise at 5,900 feet (1,798 m) elevation to the summit of 14,411 feet (4,392 m) and back to Paradise, timed by Rainier Mountaineering Incorporated. The officially timed speed ascent record of Dan Howitt set in September 2003 is 4 hours 59 minutes and 5 seconds from Paradise to the summit, timed by Brogan Adams of Climb Max Mountaineering and Carl Poland of the Fort Lewis Army Rangers. Others have claimed faster times but none of the climbs have been officially timed. [5]

i'm surprised not to see mention of this on the talk page already; are there archives to the talk page i don't know about?

being somewhat anal retentive picky, it disturbes me that the elevation is given as both 14,410 and 14,411, in the text and in the info box. i understand that the accuracy of the measurement (what with snow and all) is probably only plus/minus a foot anyway, but i'd like to see some internal consistency.

14,410 is used on the National Park official website, and (noncredible source, i know) is what i've always been told. also, the metric equivalent is closer to this elevation.

14,411 is used in the U.S. Geological Survey official website (click on Washignton link), and is also used in the Mount Rainier National Park article (well, it was before i changed it).

I'm going to change it to 14,410, based on the theory that Mount Rainier National Park should match the official NPS website, and Mount Rainier should match Mount Rainier National Park.

i'm hoping/assuming this isn't going to start some lame edit war. if someone feels strongly about the 14,411, feel free to change it back, but for my peace of mind, please change it back everywhere, including the national park article. --barneca (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's even worse than you think. The most authoritative source for elevation is the National Geodetic Survey (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov), who use the latest geoid information to get very accurate elevations. I've copied the datasheet for the benchmark on top of Mount Rainier here. The problem is: the benchmark is on bare ground at 14,399 (which used to be 14,393 under the old geoid). The discrepancy is probably the thickness of the snowcap. The problem is: do we count the snowcap as part of the elevation of the summit or not? I can imagine that the snowcap thickness probably varies from year to year. I've been making infoboxes for Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains for years now, and haven't seen this problem before. What to do? hike395 04:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

well, my two cents on the two questions is,

(a) i'd count the snow. i've always seen the elevation as 14,410, so i think that's typically done. we could make this less opinion and more fact-like by finding out the NGS elevation for, say, mt. hood and mt. mckinley, and comparing them to the "usual" elevations given for them, to prove permanent snow cover is typically included. if no one else does it first, i'll look into it over the weekend.

(b) since the "true" elevation could actually vary, i'd lobby for consistency above all, and then for 14,410 for the reasons i originally gave above. --barneca (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mount Hood NGS = 11249, USGS=11239
• Mount McKinley no NGS mark
• Mount Adams NGS = 12281, USGS=12278

So, nothing really can be inferred here, I think. hike395 12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are three issues (at least) here:

1. The benchmark may not actually be on the highest bit of rock. Does the description say whether it is or not? I find it unlikely that they would dig out multiple meters of snow to place a benchmark which would then be covered again by the same amount of snow, thus making it useless. Benchmarks are often put somewhere other than the true summit of a peak, so you can't read off the summit elevation from the benchmark, unless it's clear that it really is on the summit.
2. As to counting snow cover versus not, that is a contentious issue, but I think the consensus is to count the snow cover. One obvious reason is that you don't want to have to dig way down to the rock every time, as per the previous point. This has come up at Talk:Mount Everest.
3. Geoid corrections: this is a pretty abstract issue, but I think the best practice is to use the most recent geoid and hence the most recent elevation, relative to that geoid. So in theory the NGS info is the best; however the preceeding two issues make that hard to use directly, as people have observed above.

Given these issues, I would stick with the 14,410 figure. I have seen the 14,411 figure as well, and had it described to me as a slightly more accurate survey, but I don't see a compelling reason to use it. Internal consistency is of course very important as well. So my vote is to use 14,410 everywhere, unless someone can give a source that is better and clearly refers to the actual summit, with snow cover. -- Spireguy 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the elevation from 14,410 to 14,411. I regret not doing so before participating in this part of the discussion (I searched for "14411" without the comma so didn't see it). That said, I do think 14,411 is the more accurate number, according to http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/150291/mount-rainier.html. See the "A Word on the Height of the Mountain" section with the statement "National Park Service and all other official sources recognize the height as 14,411.05 feet. This is based on a recent survey of the mountain." In summary, the old 1956 triangulation survey can't compare to modern satellite results. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus as to the correct height? I see it has been changed back to 14,410 ft. --Burntnickel (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there wasn't a new consensus, where occasionally people change the article without particpating in the discussion. Changed the title of this section from "elevation" to "Elevation: 14,411 or 14,410 feet?" to make it more visible. The best site I've found for the height is http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/6235014p-5444884c.html which describes the history of elevation measurements over the years, which shows there have been no measurements below 14,411 feet since 1956. That page is interesting, where it mentions the notable fact that Mt. Rainier was the first mountain to have its height measured using GPS technology. It also describes the difficulties in measuring the height of a mountain in general. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A more detailed source for 14,411.0 feet (August 27, 1999) is an article by Signani in Point of Beginning, a trade publication. (http://www.pobonline.com/Articles/Features/1fc6f0b5ba0f6010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____, "The Height of Accuracy", Larry Signani, PLS, July 19, 2000, Point of Beginning (trade magazine), Troy, MI.) Walter Siegmund (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting the changes made to metricize this article. I am doing this because this article is about a location in the United States and most of the sources use U.S. customary units. I believe this is the correct thing to do according to WP:UNITS. Also some of the changes were actually wrong (e.g. 93 miles is not 102 km). Where the article does not contain a metric value I am putting one in as a secondly unit. -- Patleahy 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We should use conversion templates for all of these, i.e. {{Unit ft}}, {{Unit mi}}, and other related templates. These conversion templates are very quick to type once you're used to them (much faster than manual conversion), and they avoid conversion errors. See Category:Unit display for more info. They format numbers like this:

• {{Unit ft|14410|0}}   14,410 ft (4,392 m)

They even work for approximate numbers by using negative values for the rounding parameter. This is very useful because most general elevations like "16,000 ft" don't mean exactly 16,000 ft, and so they shouldn't be converted exactly to metric (or vice versa):

• {{Unit ft|16000|-2}}   16,000 ft (4,900 m)   or   {{Unit ft|16000|-3}}   16,000 ft (5,000 m)

There are currently many such conversion errors (with too many significant figures) in the article; I'll try to fix most of them now. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What tag do I use for converting acres into square kilometers or hectares? I've tried {{Unit acre|... and {{Unit ac|... but neither work. SteveSims 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You can use {{Unit sqmi}} although some may object to giving areas in square miles. The practice in most US sources and WP US National Park articles is to give areas in acres. For areas larger than a few thousand acres, I've never found that very meaningful. It is the wikipedia practice to give metric equivalents in square kilometers even though hectares are commonly used elsewhere. See Category:Unit display for a list of the unit templates. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just created {{Unit acre}}. Its the inverse of {{Unit ha}}. -- Patleahy 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the measure international acres or US survey acres, see Template talk:Unit ha#International acre or US survey acre. -- Patleahy 18:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, 6 photos of Mount Rainier in the article is too many: beyond ~3, they don't add any information. What do people think? I want to transwiki some of them to Commons, if they are not already there. hike395 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd remove the quarter and the b/w image. The former has little to do with the article topic. I'm not inclined to use b/w except to illustrate history or when no equivalent color image is available. Image:Rainiersourdoughridge.jpg and Image:Mount Rainier 7431.JPG are largely duplicative. The latter is mine so it would not be appropriate for me to suggest which to retain. Image:Mount_Rainier_over_Tacoma.jpg has badly exposed highlights, but it illustrates the mountain's contribution to the scenery of populated areas of Puget Sound, an important point, I think. Image:Mount Rainier from southwest.jpg is high resolution and a good depiction of the Tahoma Glacier. The tilted horizon should probably be fixed. Image:Mt Rainier peaks.JPG is similar and shows the local relief well. I somewhat prefer the higher contrast afforded by pictures of late summer, but one could easily argue that this aspect is more representative. Even more representative is the mountain completely shrouded in cloud, but such is a poor illustration. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Image:Rainiersourdoughridge.jpg is featured, so I think it trumps your photo. I'd be in favor of removing the quarter and b/w picture also. hike395 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What you do is make an area for photographs such as the one at the bottom of the page for Fuji. Nicer solution don't you think? Googie man 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am mostly opposed to using galleries in the English Wikipedia (for mountain articles, at least): they tend to get filled with redundant photos that add nothing to the article. When that happens, I transwiki the gallery over to Commons, and leave a Commons link here. Commons is the perfect place for galleries of photos: editors can select individual photos for inclusion in any language wiki, and, indeed, for any "free" purpose. hike395 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 1932 photo: in my opinion, it is redundant with the picture in the infobox: it doesn't add any more information to the article. I would propose transwiki-ing it to Commons, not leaving it as an orphan. hike395 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've actually come to favor having reader-oriented galleries here rather than commons, because here we can caption consistently in English, while Commons is a tangle of multiple languages and will only get more so with time. Stan 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on photos in running text, I think it has about the right amount now, but they could be spread a little more evenly. My rule of thumb is that every screenful should have at least one photo visible, two in each screen is ideal, looking the most "professional", three may be justified by the content, but is starting to get cluttered-looking. Don't be afraid to have pics, look at the good textbooks and see they usually have multiple images per page. Stan 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the page from the Category "Sacred mountains", not because I don't believe it, but because there is nothing about sacredness in the article. I know the mountain plays a role in native mythology, but am not aware of it being specifically sacred. To whom? A reference and something in the main text would be useful. Just adding a category only confuses me. Can we have some info about it? Thanks! Pfly 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Need "red dot on" map showing Mt. Rainier's location in the State of Washington. 24.93.190.134 03:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Volcanoevacuationroute.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the interesting (to me, anyway) facts about Rainier is that it's readily visible from major cities - people coming to Seattle or Tacoma are often startled by its omnipresence on the horizon. I thought the Tacoma picture was useful as an illustration of that, although there might be other better candidates. Right now none of the pictures even hint as how close it is to civilization. Stan 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the following content should be moved to Rainier Brewing Company. A reader looking for this content would be more likely to look for it there. That article provides more background than this one. Any objections? Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

After Rainier Brewing Company resumed producing "Rainier Beer" after the end of Prohibition and its advertisements became ubiquitous in the Seattle-Tacoma area, a rumor began circulating that the brewery's owner, Emil Sick, had bribed a Washington state committee with free beer to promote the name "Rainier". This, however, is an urban legend and can still be heard today among Tacoma residents who preferred the alternate name. Sick did, however, purchase the local baseball team and named them the Seattle Rainiers for this purpose.^{[beer 1]}

With no objections, I moved the content as above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a minor cleanup for reference. --DRoll (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm here because Tahoma redirects here, or the mountain redirect from the disambig page does anyway; I'd always thought that this word was for Rainier in particular, but in J.A. Costello's Indian History of the Northwest - Salish, p.82 it says in the original language (which?) it meant "a lofty mountain, but not to any peak in particular". Not saying Costello was right, just thought it might be mentioned here somewhere. Once etymology is established a comment on the original language/meaning should go on teh Tahoma disambiguation page.Skookum1 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Costello wrote that in 1895, right? There was a long and bitter battle of words about the word Tacoma/Tahoma/Tuchoma, mainly between the people of the cities of Tacoma and Seattle. It raged from the 1880s to at least the 1930s, and still simmers mildly today. In the late 1800s the two cities were battling for dominance in the region, which mainly involved railroads. The war over the mountain's name blew up when the Northern Pacific Railroad announced in the 1880s that it would call the mountain "Tacoma" in all its publications. The NP had also chosen the city of Tacoma as its terminus, leaving Seattle without a major railroad. Seattle "declared war" over the mountain's name. Numerous experts of many kinds proclaimed things like "tacoma" means any mountain, not Rainier specifically. Many other "facts" were proclaimed about the mountain's name. The case finally went to the US Board of Geographical Names, which declared the official name to be Rainier. The NP gave in, but the city of Tacoma did not. Another round of the "war" took place, lasting decades. Many experts, including local Indians, swore that Tacoma/Tahoma was in fact the name of the mountain, and meant any number of things -- meanings which were often highly romanticized. Great Indian mythological stories were told about Tacoma. Poems were written. The daughter of Chief Seattle said her family always called the mountain "Tacobet". Nevertheless, in 1899 Congress created Mount Rainier National Park. ... In short, the etymology of Tacoma, Tahoma, etc, is not going to be easy to determine. I'd be skeptical of nearly every source about it -- exccept perhaps the first written record about it, from the 1833 journal of William Fraser Tolmie -- "Had a fine view of Tuchoma or Mt Rainier". It seems clear to me that Tuchoma/Tahoma/Tacoma was a Nisqually word. But Tolmie didn't say what it meant. Pfly (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Winthrop wrote about Tacoma in his book The Canoe and the Saddle before the civil war, though it wasn't published until 1866, several years after his death. I'm sure his words were fuel for the fire during that debate. -- BlindWanderer (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Malonecr7 uploaded a new image and changed the one used in the infobox; but the original image showed more of the mountain and was more illustrative of the mountain itself. I agree that the newer image was of better overall quality, but it shows a very small portion of the mountain itself, so in my opinion it fails to adequately illustrate the size of the mountain. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

More editing back-n-forth for the infobox image. Which one do people this is better to illustrate Mount Rainier:

File:Mt. 003.jpg

Let's discuss, please state your preference below, with reasons. Thanks!

Prefer right --- in general, WP photos of mountains should show the whole mountain unobstructed by clouds or other things. hike395 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was unable to find an image guideline at WP:MOUNTAINS, so posted a request for comment at WT:MOUNTAINS#Request for comment from WikiProject to get input from participants of that WikiProject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I omitted the original image (now the middle one). I still prefer the right, shows the mountain more clearly.

Relevant image choice guidance is at WP:IMAGE#Image_choice_and_placement. I'll see if I can find mountain-specific discussion... hike395 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Prefer right --- I think all three are OK, but I agree that the one on the right shows more of the mountain. In particular, I like that it shows a valley bottom, to get the full vertical scale. -- Spireguy (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Prefer right or center but I think it inappropriate to express a more specific preference because the right photograph is my work. My reasoning is similar to those above. I would add that the left photograph foreground is unappealing. If it is chosen, its color balance should be corrected (the rock is quite blue). Both the center and right image show the White River Valley, but the right image shows more. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ADDED a new one to chose from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainman8664 (talk • contribs) 06:47, August 22, 2008

Personally, I still prefer the third one, as it gives a better impression of the mountain's size. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The prominence I listed for the summit is from Peakbagger's Mount Rainier Page. I used the clear prominence. This is the value most often used in Wikipedia in my experience. If you wish to revise this entry again please offer your rational here. It is true that these calculations are not perfectly acurate but the values given at Peakbagger are well considered and this source is accepted as reliable. Note that he uses NAVD29 but this does not play a part in prominence in North America because the differences cancel out more or less. I'm always open to new information so if I have missed something let me know.DRoll (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Droll: Prominence of USian peaks is almost always clean (i.e., conservative) prominence. hike395 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mount Rainier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There are two requests for citation, one dating back to April 2008.

• The fourth paragraph of Human history contains a direct quotation for which a source must be given.

• There is one dead link.[6]

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to GA Reassessment

• There is one dead link. fixed --DRoll (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph of Human history contains a direct quotation for which a source must be given. fixed --DRoll (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed disputed fact about crater lake, not supported by ^{[nb 1]} hike395 (talk)
  • What? This fact is completely supported by that ref, which states on p. 462 that "This cave system, however, hosts a small crater lake," etc. I know that you removed the sentence in good faith, but please check the refs more carefully next time before deleting correct facts. I've already re-added the info to the article a few minutes ago, along with that reference and 2 more, one of which provides dimensions and elevation data for the lake. The info was never really in dispute, but an anonymous IP had needlessly added that tag in April 2008, just because he or she hadn't previously heard of the lake (see diff [7]). --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Removed second disputed fact, contradicted by USGS official quoted at ^{[nb 2]} hike395 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Excellent work, thanks very much. The review is now closed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I added this image to the page, but it was reverted, because the page "Already has enough pictures."Personally, I feel that the image is more than valid to be on this page. This is the iconic view of Rainier, the one that everyone knows. It's what Seattlites wake up to every day, and I think that it should be documented. Bubsty (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your picture is welcome on Wikimedia Commons. A link to the relevant category is provided on the Mount Rainier article page. Look for "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Mount Rainier". Also, please see Commons:Mount_Rainier#Photographs_from_distant_locations. We have a photograph from Tacoma. I suppose that many would suggest that suffices. You may wish to provide a description of your image and add the date that it was obtained on the image file page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. (Incidentally, the view from Tacoma is actually much different, considering it's about 3 hours closer to the mountain than Seattle, and faces it from the West rather than from the North. However, the Rainier from Space Needle image seems pretty close). Bubsty (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently the file File:Mount Rainier from Spray Park, 1908.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. This image is special mainly because it was taken by Asahel Curtis in 1908. Dcoetzee 03:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Should the following image be used in the article as illustrative of the crater?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Rainier_Crater.jpg

Thanks--71.111.194.50 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC) (no I did not create the image nor am I associated with the creator in any way)

It doesn't illustrate the crater well, but it is a decent illustration of the upper portion of Tahoma Glacier. The west crater is a slight depression atop Columbia Crest, the most distant summit in the photo, visible, but not obvious in the image. The east crater is shadowed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting not notable enough to be mentioned in the 'human history' section of the article? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Include. In my book, that would certainly qualify. UFO culture has become a rather big deal in the U.S. and I would say that the first reported sighting is notable. I'm still a pretty new editor, so I tend not to make substantive changes to GAs without consensus, but this one gets my vote, and I'd be happy to do the legwork if a few others agree. Also note this article from the Seattle Times two days ago as a possible source (see last 4 paragraphs). W.stanovsky (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't include it, unless it is part of a broader pattern of UFO sightings around the mountain. I agree his sighting is notable in itself, but that doesn't mean it should be covered here, any more than it should be covered in our June article because it happened to occur during that month. -- Avenue (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would add that in addition to its being a significant event that occurred at Mount Rainier, the Seattle Times article I linked above draws a pretty plausible link between that event and the pattern of lenticular cloud formation specific to Mount Rainier. To continue with Avenue's analogy, it would be more like covering a major event in the June article that occurred (at least plausibly) because it was June, not just coincidentally during June. W.stanovsky (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that these lenticular cloud formations are entirely unique to Mount Rainier. (For example, see photos 6-10 here.) To continue the analogy, I think it is like covering a notable event in the June article that occurred then because it could only happen in the summer. -- Avenue (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're not unique to Rainier, though they are unusually common; I should probably have said that they are characteristic of the mountain, rather than specific to it. But I still think that mentioning a major human event in an article about the location of that event makes a lot of sense, especially when the event itself was shaped by an unusual characteristic of location. I fail to see how the occurrence of such an event would not qualify as part of the human history of the location. W.stanovsky (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought I would just mention this. The article cited as the authority for the elevation of 14,411 ft. states clearly that the result of the survey yielded a NAVD 88 elevation. That figure is not mentioned in the article. It says that the result was converted to a NGVD 29 value which was 14411.1 or 14411.0 feet. WikiProject Mountains states elevations "referencing NGVD 29 should be converted to NAVD 88". This yields and elevation of 14417.4 feet. I'm not advocating any change to the article. –droll [chat] 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a tough one. Ideally we should be consistent throughout and use NAVD 88 for everything, but I can imagine how much flak we would get---and how many reverts we would have to do---if we changed this to 14417. I would propose making it clear that the given elevation is NGVD29, and put somewhere in the article that the NAVD88 elevation would be different. -- Spireguy (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Spireguy -- I think there is a misunderstanding. Reference [2] says that they measured The Mountain to be 14411 in NAVD88, using GPS. So, all we need to do is to put the NAVD88 tag on the elevation and we're done. —hike395 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I disagree. I see it saying that they measured it in NAVD88 and then converted it back to NGVD29. Here's the confusing bit for me, though: they refer to the following table as a table of both 1988 and 1999 surveys in both NAVD88 and NGVD29, but the table has only two entries for each location, and the title of the table refers only to NGVD29. So I'm thinking that the 14411.0 and 14410.7 figures are NGVD29, as stated. If you put that into VERTCON it does give 14417 for NAVD88. (Note that given that 2 meter difference, it would be quite odd if the NAVD88 elevation were 14411, agreeing with the old NGVD29 elevation.)

Mt. Rainier Comparison of Elevations Between 1988 and 1999 NGVD 29

Station 1988 1999

Elevation Elevation

Sunshine 2042.18 2045.31

Paradise 5389.60 HELD

Stevens 2180.62 HELD

Muir 10087.12 10086.9

Summit 1 ICE CAP 14411.1 14411.0

Summit 2 ICE CAP NONE 14410.7

--Spireguy (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I re-read the article, and yes, you're right: they converted back to NGVD29 to get the 14,411 elevation. We can undo their conversion to get 14,417 --- but that may be borderline WP:OR. Probably leaving it alone is best, unless we can find a reference that explicitly lists 14,417 that we can point to. —hike395 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on expanding this section to include analysis and predictions of what a potential eruption could do to Washington's Economy? We may want to consider eventually making it a separate article if we get enough contribution....--Gniniv (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can find enough verifiable material from reliable sources, sure... —hike395 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Article says mountain was originally named Tahoma or Tacoma. Why the change to Rainier? Certainly not to promote Rainier Beer, right? (Rainier was a local brand which at one time was by far the #1 selling beer in the seattle area. A national company bought it and dumbed down the formula, so it is no longer as prominent.)--Measure 13:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

See the History section --- it was renamed by Captain Vancouver on his exploration voyage. -- hike395 22:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tahoma was the original Native American name for it. 'Tacoma' was a mis-interpretation of the word and that name was given to a local city. 'Tahoma' appears in a few places, such as 'Mount Tahoma High School' ... 'Mount Tahoma,' of course, is Mount Rainier.

The word "Tahoma" is not a native American word for anything. It is an amalgamation of three towns in the area to the northwest of Mt. Rainer. TAylor, HObart, MAple Valley. TAHOMA. It was selected by a vote of school children 1926 as the name of the new Junior High School. Jerome oneil (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mt. Rainier is currently being prepared for FA review. Please assist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terra Novus (talk • contribs) 06:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless a lot of expansion is planned before then, I don't think that is a great idea; 2300 words isn't much for such an important mountain with so much written about it. Compare with the 4200 words and coverage of the FA Mount St. Helens. Just looking at coverage; geology is OK but a geography section is completely missing, human history is on the short side. This article is on my ToDo list, but not anytime soon. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Other FA volcanoes that might be worth looking at incl. Mauna Loa, Mount Tambora, and The Volcano (British Columbia). Each uses a fairly different way of organizing information. Pfly (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mav's point about a geography section is valid: in fact, most of the lede was about geography. I moved that material into its own section, but now the lede is pitifully short. In fact, the lede needs to summarize the whole article (WP:LEDE). I'm pressed for time right now: if someone wants to take a shot at writing a good 3-4 paragraph lede, please go ahead. If not, I'll come back and expand the lede. —hike395 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a number of images of the south-southeast side of Mount Rainier taken from near Paradise. Two are high resolution stitched images that may be useful illustrations of the article topic. The smaller, 70 megapixel image is cropped from the larger, 175 megapixel image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've recorded a little pronuciation file: File:En-us-Mount Rainier.ogg. I don't get how to hook this into the {{IPA-en}} template, but if someone else does, please do so. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

While a nice sentiment to rename the mountain to support a local sports team the State legislature has neither the legal prerogative or the support of historical naming conventions to change the names of prominent geographic peaks. In addition Mount Rainier exists within a national park. The name is not to be changed in any official but merely as a sentiment of support for a single weekend. Leaving the name as Mount Rainier is appropriate for this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.165.1 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm proposing replacing the current article lead image with a new photo I took: File:Mount Rainier from the Silver Queen Peak.jpg. Compared with the existing picture, when viewed at full resolution, my photo is technically superior in the following areas:

• Is a Quality image.
• Better sharpness.
• No chromatic aberration.
• Less coma.
• Wider field of view.
• Less snow on the peak, allowing for better view of geographical features.
• No possibility for stitching distortion since this is a single photo taken with a mostly distortion-free lens rather than a panorama.

However, the existing photo is superior in the following areas:

• Less atmospheric haze since it is taken closer.
• Slightly more pixels for the mountain.
• Possibly more detail in trees.

Thoughts? See also: Commons:User_talk:Wsiegmund#New_Mount_Rainier_Photo. dllu (t,c) 21:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think dllu's image is a fine photograph of this subject. It was taken in the summer. In my image, fall snow makes the layers of andesite more apparent, especially on Curtis Ridge. Also, the fall foliage of the cottonwood along the White River is apparent. The larger field of view of dlli's image may be desirable as is, or it may be cropped so as to show more detail in the infobox. Too much of dllu's image may be devoted to sky which conveys relatively little information to the article, but is ascetically pleasing. Also, large areas high on the Emmons Glacier are saturated (equal to 255), but are not in the unprocessed image. As a result, the Emmons Glacier climbing route cannot be traced through the bergschrund at the head of the glacier in the processed version. But these are minor quibbles and I am comfortable with either image.

Elsewhere, File:Mount Rainier panorama 2.jpg is obstructed and depicts an unappealing parking lot and road cut as well as the mountain. I think it is better suited to illustrate the national park article. My image, File:Nisqually_Glacier_0902.JPG, depicts well the features on the southeast side of the mountain and I think it is a better choice for this article. File:Mount Rainier over Tacoma.jpg has overexposed highlights. My image, File:Mount Rainier 27477.JPG, also depicts Liberty Cap and Mowich Face as well as the relationship of the mountain to a nearby urban area, i.e., a neighborhood of Seattle. Topinka's image of Mount Rainer is better-illuminated and less obstructed, however. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've gone ahead and been bold and replaced the lead picture with mine, but I also added your Nisqually Glacier picture to the section on glaciers. The panorama and Tacoma images are already in the article. dllu (t,c) 16:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

NapoleonX has performed multiple edits where he/she has removed the native name(s) for Mount Rainier from the infobox. I believe that the geographic naming guidelines allow us to include the native names:

Relevant foreign language names (... that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted.'

and

Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names.

I would propose restoring Tahoma and Tacoma to the infobox. I think these names are relevant to WP, since they are the basis of names of nearby geographic entities, such as Little Tahoma Peak and Tacoma, Washington.

@Wsiegmund, Myasuda, Vsmith, and Acroterion: What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thought & acted :) Vsmith (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Hike395 and Vsmith. Tahoma Glacier, South Tahoma Glacier, Tahoma Cleaver, and Tahoma Creek are listed in GNIS. Tahoma and Tacoma have been used historically and have appeared in renaming proposals (especially the former). NapoleonX has been cautioned by a member of an Arbitration Committee regarding a similar edit.[8] S/he has been asked not to edit war and avoid disruptive editing, also.[9][10] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the native name is disruptive and obscures the connection between the native Tahoma/Tacoma and lots of local names. This is basic encyclopedic information that is to be encouraged, not removed. NapoleonX's assertion that "its American name" should be the sole nomenclature is silly - Rear Admiral Rainer was British and the name was applied by George Vancouver. The GNIS name should take priority, but "its American name" is more like Tacoma/Tahoma and its "European" name is Rainier. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

NapoleonX did it again, with an edit summary that doesn't make much sense. I think they are trying to inject some form of "official only" format that doesn't actually exist, that nation-states are the only namers of things. I've warned them that it's becoming disruptive [11]. Acroterion (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)