User talk:Tsylos

Welcome!

Hello, Tsylos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 04:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

North Shore Mountains[edit]

Hi; yeah, I agree officially the North Shore Mountains are not gazetted in the same way the Garibaldi Ranges or Lillooet Ranges etc are, but not only official geographical nomenclature is applicable within Wiki; this is a highly well-known usage and also used widely in climbing and hiking guides and various local geographic papers/articles; officially, in fact, somewhere on an old map, there used to be a "Front Ranges" designation" which spanned North Van up through the Sechelt and Malaspina Peninsulas and beyond, but I don't see it on current topo editions or on BC basemap. The mountain range hierarchy for BC in Wikipedia is largely official-named but not entirely, and in some cases popular and published usages are going to have to suffice; most of the named ranges on Vancouver Island are localized hill-ranges, and the mountainous core of the island is barely included; so other groupings (may) come into play, as is/was the case with North Shore Mountains and will also be for Anderson River Group (a subdivision of the northernmost Canadian Cascades, which is actually a redirect to North Cascades as you may know, another example of Wiki titling branching off from official titles when necessary (the southern Canadian Cascades - south of the Sumallo-Similkameen - being pretty much the same range/terrain as the North Cascades). Anyway, I'd challenge that about the North Shore Mountains not being a range; it has an article, and it can't be called anything else; it does have named ranges within it - the Fannin and Brittannia ("microranges") - and itself ("it" as the range) doesn't appear by name on the map; the southern boundary of the Garibaldi Ranges is the south flank of Mamquam, along Skookum Creek I think; so that was the boundary used to designate the area described in North Shore Mountains, although I'm uncomfortable with putting Burke and Coquitlam Mountains in the same group, as I always think of the North Shore Mountains as those on, well, the North Shore (Vancouver). But they do have a name in current and well-established use, and they are definitely a mountain range....Skookum1 07:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I write here do you get the message back?

So long as I monitor the page, which I'm doing; you can always reply on the other persons's own talkpage, or on any article talkpage; hard to keep threads together sometimes, but...Skookum1

I rashly made some changes, I started editing a bunch of mountains near vancouver and noticed that I didn't have a mountain range article for them so I stubbed in one for the Howe Sound Group based on the assumption that that North Shore Mountains were only those from Indian Arm to Howe Sound. Eagle Ridge and Burke should be in the Coquitlam range. I'll see if I can get my hands on a good geography text and see if there is a consensus about this.Tsylos 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find one. i.e. a consensus, can't say about a good geography text. The defining one used for Wikipedia, and also actually for bivouac (mostly), is S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia. Don't think it mentions the North Shore Mountains, and certainly not the Howe Sound Group. But definitely the Howe Sound Group article should be merged here; it's completely redundant and this name is a REAL one, not a bivouac.com fiction. I'd go with you on the Coquitlam Range thing but need a cite for that name.Skookum1 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "a bivouac.com fiction", since I cited three other sources that refer to the region as Howe Sound. How about we redirect the "Howe Sound Group" to the "North Shore Mountains" page, and include text that acknowledges that the name for this range is not consistent across cited references?Tsylos

But "three other sources that refer to the region as Howe Sound" are not sources that refer to the Howe Sound Group. The only citations for the name "Howe Sound Group" are in bivouac, and are fictional and the inventions of that website's owner; it's all the more redundant since the mountains flanking the east side of Howe Sound already have specific names - the Brittannia Range (official/legal) and the Sky Pilot Group (common in climbers/hikers guides); further applying "Howe Sound Group" to the inner part of the range towards Indian Arm is just silly. Why not call it the Indian Arm Group? The Capilano Group? The Crown Mountain Group? Nope, sorry, see Talk:Howe Sound Group - this is a merge/delete issue now, and please be careful of transposing things from Bivouac's ordainment of names and areas and stuff freewheel into Wikipedia; I left Bivouac because of such arbitrariness; fine for things that occur in other sources; but for things that occur only in Bivouac, nope, sorry, can't live with it, especially with invented range and invented mountain names which are imposed by Bivouac's site owner, who made it clear to me that he doesn't care what other people, locals in particular think, and that he feels he has the right to go around naming things before someone else does etc.. BTW your images look familiar; are you Don Funk?Skookum1 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept your point about bivouac, and I bow to your greater experience (that I can see from your user page). However, I still believe that most locals would call the north shore mountains those mountains they can see (but 90% can not name) from Vancouver and the lower mainland.

So would I; here I adopted, in creating the map, the default boundary left over from excluding the Garibaldi Ranges; as noted the only range-designation I've seen for what's left is the Front Ranges, but it doesn't appear on NTS topos and for the life of me while I know it was a govt-issue map I can't remember where or which series; Front Ranges is usually as you know is in the Canadian Rockies (and another similar in Colorado...). Coquitlam Range sounds plausible and likely and if we can document it I'd go with an article on it; then the Sky Pilot Group pretty much stands on its own; because the mountains that can be seen from Vancouver, i.e. that are on the North Shore, in a strictly-defined sense of the North Shore (excluding Coquitlam), then everything but the Sky Pilot Group is visible anyway; Seymour/Lynn headwaters are the "back wall" of that definition of the North Shore Mountains, with the Indian River in behind; OK, so what's the Meslilloet-Widgeon area? Good question; doesn't have to have a name, or a designation (see Vancouve Island Ranges map).Skookum1

However, I'm not just transposing things from bivouac, I am attempting to verify facts which is why I went to the trouble of looking in other guidebooks (repositories of common knowledge) and noted that most refer to the North Shore as just the few you can see.

I agree that the how sound group should be deleted.

Tsylos 07:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I am not Don Funk! Tsylos 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your pictures still look familiar. You can email me (link at left) if you want to i.d. yourself; if not no biggie but I did like your pic of Cheam from Lady. What else have ya got?Skookum1 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coquitlam Range (?) and The Five Fingers[edit]

Also, on your suggestion I'll make certain to go back through any articles I have made on mountains that reference bivouac and state that they names are not official (if they aren't). I put this into the article for The Five Fingers, but I know there are CAJ articles going back a long way that refer to them as such. I need to get a photo of me on the top of the middle finger, giving the finger. Tsylos 07:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Fingers I've seen in print somewhere, and I guess one reason there's not more on them is that they're in the watershed and off-limits to hikers and climbers, no? Otherwise, I'm sure they'd be highly-promoted scenic wonders like the Chief or the Tusk. I flew in and out of Vancouver quite a bit for a number of years, and often the descent or holding pattern would take us near the Fingers; I never had a camera, but what an interesting bunch of - volcanic plugs? What the heck are they anyway? BTW I think Wiki convention would be Five Fingers as a title (that's bluelinked because there's an old movie by that title and an article on it), but The Five Fingers might be OK - ask on the Mountains Wikiproject talkpage as to conventions for peaks with names beginning "The..."; either way one or the other is a redirect unless there's a disambig involved.Skookum1 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Fingers aren't in the watershed, on 92G/10 they're in the Debeck Creek drainage which goes to Pitt Lake. They reason they aren't populate is because of the insane bush that's up there. There's a report on bivouac about a 3-4km per day rate through this stuff, and I've seen some of it from a helicopter. The only way I can see heading in there is by chopper, set up camp for the weekend either at the Consolation lakes or the small one that could be called "Five Fingers Lake" someday. Tsylos 08:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup[edit]

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]