Contents

Talk:Mount Rainier

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mount Rainier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Mount Rainier has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 13, 2005 Good article nominee Listed October 23, 2005 Good article reassessment Delisted October 27, 2005 Good article nominee Listed April 8, 2006 Featured topic candidate Not promoted November 1, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept September 25, 2010 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Volcanoes Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Washington High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as High-importance). Mountains Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Craig Hill (November 16, 2006). "Taking the measure of a mountain".

• 
  From northeast, by User:Wsiegmund
• 
  Aerial from west, by User:Stan Shebs

User:Rising*From*Ashes changed the infobox photo from the one on the left (from the northeast) to the one on the right (aerial from the west). While the aerial photo does show the whole mountain, I think that the clouds distract from the photograph. I prefer the older one.

What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hike395! I see we are both interested in Mount Rainier. Awesome! It is a very special place.

Regarding the change from the original image to the new one, here were some of my thoughts:

1) The original image only shows has some significant issues with haziness, clarity, and noise. It was a great photo when it was taken, but as technology has improved, we now have quite a few sharper, clearer images in the commons that would better represent the mountain. The new photo appears to be technically superior in regards to clarity and lack of noise, which is especially clear upon zooming in, and it appears to have sharper focus as well.

2) Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains, I see that the ideal lead image is described as one "preferably providing a view that shows the bulk of the mountain." The original image does not show a significant portion of the mountains bulk. When looking for a replacement, that was something I took into consideration, and I think the new photo does a better job of this.

3) The three summits seem pretty difficult to distinguish in the original image. The three summits give Mount Rainier its unique appearance, and appear in depictions like on the main state license plate. Honestly, I find the mountain in the first image difficult to identify from this image; it looks like it could be one of any number of mountains. The second image seems much more recognizable as Mount Rainier in its appearance, in my opinion. That being said, there certainly are files in the commons that show the three summits even better than either of these, like this one.

4) I think the clouds in the second photo actually improve it. They are predominantly behind the mountain, so they do not obstruct it, and they provide valuable perspective regarding the mountain's size, as it majestically towers over them. In a way, they act like a fiducial marker.

5) Since the lead image is going to be the one that represents the article the most, I think it needs to be highly aesthetically pleasing as well as informational. While the original image has done its job well over the years, I think the new one exceeds it in beauty and impact. That being said, there are many other images I was considering in the commons that are also quite captivating. We have so many great options, I think it would be worth expanding our search beyond these two. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other images that I think could be worth considering for the lead, though in the end, I keep coming back to the one by Shebs. But these all have various strengths. I am letter labeling them for easier reference in conversation:

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F
• 
  G
• 
  H
• 
  I

Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following other mountains from WikiProject Mountains, it is common to name the category on geography as 'Geography.' Here, it is named 'Geographical setting.' Might one rename it for consistency? Aonus (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I was wrong to unilaterally change the opening sentence to exclude “also known as Tacoma or Tahoma.” I am not going to do that anymore. I am genuinely trying to reach a consensus. I live in Eatonville Washington near Mt. Rainier and nobody calls it Tahoma/Tacoma. The official name is Mt. Rainier. I was wondering if the native name could be in the info box but in the lead sentence it could just say “Mt. Rainier.” I will abide by whatever is reached through consensus. I’m just offering a suggestion. NapoleonX (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2007 WA Proof.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is insane 2600:6C4E:B7F:F850:F84E:C532:603A:9555 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source explains: The prominence parent for a peak is the nearest ridgewalk-connected higher peak with greater prominence than the given peak. It will always be both higher and more prominent than the peak itself. Schazjmd (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WZ2372 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WZ2372 (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LEADLANG, only one non-English name for a place can be in the lead sentence if that name is a common variant. Otherwise, other names must be elsewhere in the article. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tahoma" certainly qualifies, as it has fairly wide use in geographic names (Little Tahoma, Tahoma National Cemetery, Tahoma State Forest, Tahoma School District, etc.) and has been used as a substitute or second mention for Rainier by non-local outlets, such as the LA Times and the Washington Post. SounderBruce 06:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahoma is an English name, təqʷubəʔ is a non-English name. Like @SounderBruce said, Tahoma is a common secondary English usage word for the mountain, so, in my opinion, both should remain. PersusjCP (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since its a common name in English, "Tahoma" certainly qualifies under MOS:LEADLANG as an alternate, but not the Lushootseed original. The Lushootseed original can be in the "Name" section and is certainly appropriate there. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I trust this article? For school research? Because no one at my school believes Wikipedia is a reliable source. Foofy Plop (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Foofy Plop, the reliable sources are listed in the References section at the bottom of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Rainier isn't called Tahoma. It's near Tahoma though. Right? Foofy Plop (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahoma is another name for the mountain. There is no "place" named Tahoma. Schazjmd (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox listed the last eruption as 1450, but the text of the article lists recorded 19th century activity. This is a contradiction in the article, and the way we normally handle it is by noting both sources since both are reliable. I've moved the 1450 date and citation to the body of the paragraph and out of the infobox so not as to overweight it. Happy to discuss, but came across this as a reader and it was fairly confusing, so I went ahead and made the change. If people think there's a better way to address it, I'm all ears. Just don't think the status quo is the right presentation. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]