Category talk:Mountains under 1000 metres

Mountains Category‑class

	Mountains portal This category 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
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Awkward intro[edit]

"For the purposes of this category (and to keep numbers in check) a mountain is taken to be 2000 feet (612 m) or higher (in England and Wales, summits over 2000 feet are known as Nuttalls). This category therefore lists mountains between 612 and 1000 metres high." I personally disagree with this statement as there are landforms less than 2000 feet high that are known as mountains. For example, see Mont Bellevue, Mont Brome and Mont Yamaska ("Mont" is French for "Mount"). Also, there are no sources backing that statement up, shining more doubt that a mountain is taken to be 2000 feet (612 m) or higher. As a resident of Temagami in Northeastern Ontario, Canada, Caribou Mountain is considered a mountain, as do other residents. Obviously the intro of this category needs to be either deleted or revised. It reads like something I would call bullshit. Volcanoguy 03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also worthy to note is that the previous intro was mainly based on low mountains in the United Kingdom insted of a worldwide view. See WP:Worldwide view. Volcanoguy 20:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no universally accepted defination of "mountain". As a result, this category should not treat 2,000 feet as the minimal elevation of mountains. Volcanoguy 00:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've taken your comments on board and reworded the text as a "guideline" and tried to take account of different "definitions". To date I only know of the UK, Ireland and (in the past) the US defining a mountain officially, but we should consider other English-speaking nations' definitions if they have them. The difficulty is non-English speaking nations. Here I have assumed that, in the absence of any national/international definitions to the contrary that North and South America could adopt the former US standard and that Europe should adopt the UK/Irish standard especially as their version of English is an official European Union language. What is clear is that anything over 2,000 feet (610 metres) is a mountain by anybody's standard. It's only the peaks below that where the differences appear. Happy for this to be developed and refined further. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]