Hi Gang,

I'm a bit of peak bagger, and I admit it freely. This puts me atop a lot of relatively minor peaks, which though they truly are mountains in their own right (i.e., with 300+ feet of prominence), are nonetheless eclipsed in many ways by the major peaks nearby. I love these little mountains, many of which have official names, if not interesting etymologies.

I have therefore created several pages describing these peaks on summitpost.org, but my general approach has been to avoid duplicating information from the Getting There and Camping sections of the major peak nearby. Instead, I've included links from these sections to the major peak page. This approach has engendered some criticism, since it is certainly more convenient to have all of the relevant information on the single mountain page of interest.

Perhaps it's just my perspective as a programming geek, but I shudder to think of keeping multiple copies of any body of text synchronized between pages. In most cases, the major peak page was authored by someone else anyway, so I'd be forced to duplicate most of their work even if I didn't resort to outright plagiarism.

Furthermore, I think one of the things that distinguishes a web-based resource is the utility of the hyperlinks (i.e., summitpost.org is not a printed guidebook). While it may be convenient to "just print out and then take to the car and go", I would argue that most climbers would be printing out the major peak page for that trip anyway. Printing a second page containing only the additional information relevant to the minor peak seems more appropriate to me in that context.

Thoughts?

- Chris

Hi Chris,

thanks for bringing up this issue. My preference is to have all the information on each page. That being said I agree that we don't need to have all the details of getting to the trailhead as already mentioned on the "major peak" page. I reference or hyperlink is fine. However, I still would like to have at least a very short description on the minor peak page as well with a notation (and link) that more information can be found on the major peak page. Same goes for the approach to the minor peak if it shares the same approach as the major peak. A short, abbreviated description is fine in my opinion. When the routes eventually diverge you can and should describe more details.

Best, Guido

Chris,

I gave this some thought and concluded I wouldn't bother making an additional page. For example, with your NW Lamarck page, I agree that 13,464 should have been given the title since the actual Lamarck summit has almost no prominence. In that case I think a short paragraph on the Lamarck page itself could point out to interested folks that this nearby point is the more prominent one. Creating a separate SP page primarily to conform to a list of 13ers with a given amount of prominence (in this case, 300ft) I think is a bit silly and doesn't really serve the SP community. You don't own those other pages I realize, but you could add comments to them asking that additional information about nearby points be incorporated. If you don't hear back from the owners, we could either facilitate a transfer if appropriate, or I could help you add the additional info myself since I have edit privs on them.

Bob Burd wrote:I gave this some thought and concluded I wouldn't bother making an additional page. For example, with your NW Lamarck page, I agree that 13,464 should have been given the title since the actual Lamarck summit has almost no prominence. In that case I think a short paragraph on the Lamarck page itself could point out to interested folks that this nearby point is the more prominent one. Creating a separate SP page primarily to conform to a list of 13ers with a given amount of prominence (in this case, 300ft) I think is a bit silly and doesn't really serve the SP community. You don't own those other pages I realize, but you could add comments to them asking that additional information about nearby points be incorporated. If you don't hear back from the owners, we could either facilitate a transfer if appropriate, or I could help you add the additional info myself since I have edit privs on them.

I agree with your suggestion, Bob, and will pursue the matter. However, in my view, this would apply only to the Mt. Lamarck issue. You wouldn't suggest taking the same approach for East Barnard, would you? The line between the two cases is fairly clear, whereas the relative merit of other minor summits might prove contentious.

Any mountain page should be able to stand on its own. If the nearby named summit page is deleted, there should be nothing lost with respect to any other nearby mountain page.

If it doesn't make sense to duplicate or rewrite the information, then I would agree with Bob Burd that the page is not warranted. Make it a paragraph on the named mountain page.

Also agree with the comments you liked to that suggest attaching the area pages (not just the 13ers list) and using something more identifiable than UTM.

Hello out there!

I am surprised that so few have weighed in on what seems to be a fairly central style issue for posting pages here at summitpost.org. Perhaps this has been contentious in the past, and so community members are loathe to launch a new flame war? I would at least like to get a sense of the range of opinions out there, even if no consensus currently exists.

Assuming you don't have time to write up a nuanced description of your personal take on the issue, do you agree more with the views expressed above by Guido (SoCalHiker) or with those of mrchad9?

Please let us all know!

Thanks,

- Chris

P.S. - Let's put aside the issue of the NW Lamarck page and focus on more prominent minor summits, such as “Ed Lane Peak”.

Given that SP just lost a substantial number of major peak pages for Colorado, New Mexico and Texas (by a member who once seemed perfectly stalwart), I think mrchad9 is making a seriously valid point.