Talk:Coast Mountains

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

The Coastal Mountains are located from Del Norte County down to the Mexican Border. The geological theory is that approxmately 250 million years ago, the Pacifican Plate and the North American Plate had a head-on collision, and the Pacifican Plate had slipped underneath the North American Plate, heating, melting, and crushing as it reached the Earth's interior. The Coastal Mountains is a countinuously linked trek that stretches from the southern Oregon State down south, with a exception of a break at the Golden Gate Bidge.

NOT the same Coast Mountains; note the -al on Coastal Mountains, which by your description is much farther south; part of the Pacific Coast Range(s) and the Pacific Cordillera, to be sure, but not part of the Coast Mountains, the southern limit of which is the Fraser River, just north of Washington State.Skookum1 05:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re above see also
Pacific Coast Range and comments about nomenclature somewhere, I think, on one of those two talk pages.Skookum1 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Caren Range

What about the Caren Range (http://www.carenrange.com/)? --Bill.albing 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to stop there being a separate article on it, which is why I redlinked it; technically the Caren Range is part of the
Ootsa Lake. I think if a Caren Range article/stub gets written, there's probably a Category:Coast Mountains to attach to it; or Category:Subranges of the Coast Mountains could be created, if not already extant. Skookum1 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Expansion

This article needs a lot of work. I would add some volcanological infomation but I don't want this page to end up like the Cascade Range article since this page quite short.

talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

And Skookum1, the mountain features you deleted and changed in the subrange list are from bivouac. I'm not saying you're wrong, but just letting you know because I seen your edit summeries.
talk) 05:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
We have to come up with a way to distinguish official names from coined ones - and to desigante whose coinage it is....Bivouac since I left is full of all kinds of problems, and it inherited some from before I got there....Fairley's guide to climbing in BC is where some of those names came from, but they're an expression of ignorance/arrogance on the part of the climbing community - "Nahatlatch Stein" is Fairley's coinage for all of teh Lillooet Ranges other than the Joffre Group, Breakenridge Group and Cayoosh Range but including the Brew-Siwhe group right up to Lillooet itself, and meant (by Fairley) to include the Old Settler/Giant Mascot area in the southern Lillooet Ranges; the East/West designation for Cayoosh Ragne likewise is a climber's division, not part of the official geography - the only relevance there is access, as the range comes down to a single ridge along the north side of Duffey Lake connecting two very different areas; but there is no reason for those to ahve their own article each; likewise Musical Bumps vs Fitzsimmons Range - Whistler, Oboe, Piccolo, Flute are the Fitzimmons Range (plus Overlord). "Howe Sound Group" is another expression of climber's ignorance - the official gazetting for south of the Stawamus River is "Britannia Range" (hence Britannia Beach, which wasn't named for the vessel but because of where it was, and the vessel was probably named because it went there, not the otehr way around). The Fannin Range is a tiny slip of the Mount Seymour massif, and so on......some groups are known outside the lcimbing community, e.g. Sky Pilot Group, but many of the others are just downright obscure - if that's all there is to name them is climber's refs I guess we have to/can go there but I don't like many of them and they're largely pretty arbitrary, and not very citable; Squamish-Cheakamus Divide is the Pemberton/Powder Mountain Icefields etc....."Chehalis Group" or "the Chehalis" was one item I found a lot of resistance among climbers who want their name for that area to be the common usage, but it already has an official name (Douglas Ranges). Bivouac has lost a lot of the credibility I was trying to give it - Tivy makes up range names, confers unilateral and rather idiotic/tasteless peaknames if something doesnt' have a name and so on......I think we should look around government databases for terms for some of hte areas that are "groups" as I suspect MoF and MoEMR and MoE may have other designations......did Bivouac have Slesse in the Coast Mountains group? If so just goes to show you how far out of touch with reality that organization has gotten; I don't think http://www.peakbagger.com divides up the Coast Mountains any better, perhaps so....Skookum1 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bivouac lists the Slesse Divide and Garibaldi Neve as a subrange of the Pacific Ranges here; Mount Slesse is a feature of the Slesse Divide on bivouac as well and therefore it's described in the Pacific Ranges insted of being in the North Cascades. I have seen some idiotic mountain names on bivouac but they are mostly described as unofficial names, including Samuel Black SW13 of the Samuel Black Range, which must be one of Tivy's names.
talk) 20:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Speaking of coined terms, most of the groups are most likely names for massifs (e.g. Meager Group is the Mount Meager massif) and its possible to search the name using BCGNIS to see if its an official name.
talk) 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm starting to gather infomation, images and references to make a major expansion and eventually make this article GA status since I see lots of editors are too lazy to make contributions. The Coast Mountains have many environmental effects, including weather.

talk) 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Different editors have different interests; there's only a few of us regular editors that "do" mountain and geography articles for BC; and I have too many interests and am drawn thin - I put a lot of work in on this article and the two Cascades article (.e.
Cascade Mountains); and on other articles/ranges....this one you'll probably get some corresponding intpu from WP:Alaska types, though not always helpful as t here's these overlaps with American terms and perceptions. Anyway BTW I'm sorry I don't hve more time; as It is I've got a series of major articles I have to/want to get done before I have to become kinda invisible again...as far as gegogrpahic aritcles goes that means rebuildson f the Coast and interior articles and also fixing up Interior/Freaser Plateau et al..Skookum1 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's what I mean. I'm not trying to make things personal because I know you have numerous interests and I'm aware of your work on this article and the Cascade Range/North Cascades articles. I'm very surprised many British Columbians don't pay attention to things like mountains because it's a common feature and covers large areas of British Columbia.... There's lots of work to be done on this article. I currently have 14 sections: History, Human uses, Impact on climate, Mountain passes, Origins and growth, Glaciers and icefields, Lakes, Rivers, Volcanoes, Notable peaks, Mountain ranges, See also, References, External links and 4 sub-sections: Glaciers, Icefields, Garibaldi Volcanic Belt and Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province.
talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
BTW Skookum1, "lazy" was the wrong word to use. What I ment was the lack of activity from WP Canada, which I know you're aware of that. I'm also almost done working on the "Origins and growth" section.
talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd rather not comment about that "in public", I get too much heat for speaking my mind as it is...but oh what the heck: lots of important articles out here are un-done while lots of largely meaningless institution and school and policy articles proliferate elsewhere, and "outside" categorizations adn style guidelines are imposed on BC (not all WPCan's doing); the mass of geography that BC has is something that other Canuck Wikipedians don't have to reckon with; nowhere else (in Canada) has thousands of mountains, hundreds of abandoned towns and similar points of interest/notability, and nowhere is recent history so much tied up with that of neighbouring US states, and nowhere has the complexity and density of FN articles and also a different set of realities for arranging them within....so we're stuck with writing bout where we know (even thoguh I'm not there anymore, and if I were really "at it" woudl investigate Nova Scotia some and try and improve coverage here). BTW I jsut created Bazalgette Range adn Beaverdell Range...you may find some volcanics in the latter, though it's mostly known for being where a lot of the big uranium speculation is going on right now...also created town articles in that area, including having to re-instate Rock Creek, British Columbia, which admin User:Steel deleted last year, apparently "speedily"...sometimes I wish I could delete admins....Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt ;-). Anyway there's several tectonic origins for the Coast Mountains but most seem related to volcanic activity; the Coast Range Episode (115 to 57 million years ago) mentions some of the tectonic origins.
talk) 19:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Might as well note this here since you mentioned Nova Scotia. I don't know too much about Nova Scotia, but I guess my knowledge about Nova Scotia geography/geology is broad enough given the its small size. There's a narrow mountain range made of flood basalt lava flows (nothing very recent though) along the western coastline called North Mountain. Apparently these lava flows originated from the the Bay of Fundy sometime during the Triassic period when the Fundy rift basin was still tectonically active. I would investigate my area area as well but there's nothing very "major" or "important", although there's rich mineralogy in greenstone belts and volcanogenetic massive sulfide ore deposits from ancient volcanic activity. With that being said, I know a pillow lava formation some 2 billion years old that might be handy for a few articles.
talk) 21:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Coast Mountains in YT??

By a few dozen square miles....maybe. FWIR the Coast Mountains don't extend much past the Chilkoot Pass - I can never remember the name of the pass west of there, the one the Haines Highway transits, that's the divide point for the Fairweather Range, which isn't part of the Coast Mountains; maybe though there's a few summits north of the 60th Parallel between there and Atlin Lake - but not many and they definitely end at Champagne Pass; though as I think i recall that pass is the boundary of the Alsek Ranges, which with the Fairweathers are subranges of the Saint Elias Mountains and so also aren't part of the Coast Mountains....of the Pacific Coast Ranges, yes, but not of the Coast Mountains...Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The
talk) 06:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Geology of the Dezadeash Range and adjacent areas of the northern Coast Mountains[1]
talk) 06:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh yeah (that map)....ok....just checking; what I based that map on was my own work at bivouac.com and I'd pretty thoroughly researched the range hierarchy in bivouac....I"m pondering, given everything else going on, what other sources I had on hand than Holland...maybe some, but it's been a number of years now....but I'll roll with that; peakbagger has it the other way around and extends the "Alaska-Yukon Ranges" into BC in the same area but he admits in his writeups that his range-classifications are "bogus" - practical, but not official.Skookum1 (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note what had me confused is tha the extension into the Yukon is the Tagish Highland; I guess tha'ts why I discounted it. In Bivouac I think we set the north-bound at either the White or Chilkoot Passes ,i.e. at the BC-Alaska boundary; when I created/expanded the article here in Wiki I went with Holland's main definition including the Tagish Highland, though he does comment as with all highlands that they can be seen as belong equally to the adjoining plateaus, in the Tagish' case I guess that would be the Yukon Plateau.Skookum1 (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the
talk) 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Isn't Edziza Stikine Plateau? I recall that somewhere south of it, a pass from Mess Creek east to whatever the valley eastwards is, is some kind of division point between the Highland and the Plateau, can't remember which way it works at the moment. This is one of the areas where I had to read multiple passages of Holland to figure out the definition of the Tahltan Highland, which he bridges over the Stikine; the Stikine Plateau is classified by him as Coast Mountains, in teh same wishy-washy he equivocates about whether or not the Quesnel Highland is Cariboo Plateau or Cariboo Mountains; it's his passage in reference to teh Stikine Plateau, maybe, in the course of yet another section that sorted it out for us....remember, essentially when you're citing bivouac. you're citing ME (and Holland), give or take some of Robin Tivy's fiddlings; he woulsn't have fiddle with this however. I have to go out again (it's 8:53pm I have to be somewhere by 10) so will try and put this on my "look this up in Holland" list that's growing longer by the hour....I may have in certain email files all the latlong boundary points I built for defining Bivouac's digital maps/range-placement system which will tell a lot; in fact the latlong series will also help build maps if I can find enough of them, for the right places.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Edziza lies on the Stikine Plateau. You were the one that changed Edziza's range to Tahltan Highland. Before that it was Boundary Ranges. I'll find out.
talk) 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If your Tahltan Highland map is correct then Edziza lies on the Tahltan Highland. I can just make make out the north-south trending lava plateau in the bottom-right corner in the red highlighting.
talk) 02:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Inclusions

I have been pondering what should be included in this article. A large mountain range like the Coast Mountains must have lots of information and knowledge. Surely there has to be information about glaciers, icefields and other mountainous stuff, but lots of areas in the Coast Mountains are either remote or poorly known. More about the mountain range's creation would be ideal since I know enough about its formation and is one of the core subjects of the range. Stuff about mountain passes, rivers or lakes should probably be included as well.

talk) 12:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Glaciers and icefields, other than those only in Alaska, are all listed in BCGNIS; but therei's relatively little glaciological work, I think, going on in BC relative to what's being done in the US; you could check with the Pacific Geosciences Centre or whatever it's called now for publications but I just don't think there's as much money/resources dedicated to this field in Canada; the BC government spends money on trees and hydrology, the federal government likes to spend its research money in provinces where there are more votes. Passes I've been plodding along at, as with a not-finished round in teh Chilcotin Ranges, but even around there some important ones aren't named, e.g. Mud Lakes (Tyaughton-Churn divide); Lord Pass turns out to be not in BCGNIS, though I've seen it in other govt publications.Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note a map similar to
talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Use of bivouac-dubbed names

I have strong reservations about using the unofficial names conferred by Bivouac's senior editor Robin Tivy as being at all meaningful; he was "playing God" in doing so and many of his names are utterly out of context, and it's not in his personal power/authority to be doing this. In the case of the climbing-club named regions like "The Tahumming" these should all be marked/footnoted as "unofficial, derived from climbers' guides" or some such label; it's different when there's an informal usages ilke the Pemberton Range (the east flank of the Pemberton Valley from Pemberton northwestwards, not sure if it extends past Railroad Pass or not); "Bridge-Lillooet Divide" is the area between Salal Creek and Railroad Pass; its eastern regions - the Bridge-Hurley Divide - are called locally the Hurley Range; between the Hurley and Pemberton Pass and McGillivray Pass a local usage is "Birkenhead Ranges" (which includes the formally-named Cadwallader Range and also the informally-named Noel Range, and the Pemberton Range); but none of these are official, though they turn up in historical writings. The difference is that they're not part of an agenda from one website to advance its nomenclature and to go naming things willy-nilly across the countryside. It may be that Scud Peak and Kwatna Peak are more-or-less valid as derived from the name of a nearby river; I know when I created those entries they were Peak 14-10 Scud River and Peak 04-67 Kwatna River according to the system we were using then. Robin had other ideas, and wants to be a one-man naming committee, hoping that the names he confers become official (and he ultimately gets credit for them, too). As a friend of mine in Lillooet says, "mountains don't need names, let them just be mountains"; this was in reference not just to "Seton Peak" (the higehst in the Cayoosh, to the south of Seton Lake) but also Robin's obsessive need which took Marshall Ridge, named after Ernie Marshall, and added a bunch of military-rank names to its various summits (totally out of context and not used locally at all) or deciding that Nine Mile Ridge's highest point needed a name "because a ridge is not a summit". He's done the same on Fountain Ridge, the jagged rampart opposite Lillooet, without asking anyone locally and without actually even climbing the ridge. this is all bogus; Peak 24-10 Scud River and most of the peaks around it don't have names and arent' likely to anytime soon; how to name them I don't know, but I don't think it's right to absorb bivouac's a priori names as if they were valid; at the very least they should be directly tagged as not being official and being only used by one website.Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this. Bivouac lists some mountain ranges as "groups", which all appear to be unoffical names.
talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coast Mountains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coast_Mountains&oldid=1194939212"