Talk:Mount Hood

Infobox image

With no edit summary, JoJoes123 (talk · contribs) restored a watermarked image to the infobox.[1] I don't think this image, File:Mount Hood from Tumala Mountain.jpg, is suitable for use in mainspace since it has "TheCascadeHiker" in large letters across the center of the image. Please see WP:WATERMARK for the policy on watermarks. I think the previous image, a Commons Quality Image, is a better choice. Please see Commons:File:Mount Hood reflected in Mirror Lake, Oregon.jpg. The WP:COI guideline may apply, too. JoJoes123 is identified as the uploader of the watermarked image.[2] What do other editors think? In the meantime, I'm restoring the Quality Image. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The image is sloppy and watermarked. Heck, it's even uglier. Don't know where the need to swap it out comes from. The reflected photo that is on there now is great. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree also. The Mirror Lake photo was a candidate for best photo in 2006 and is otherwise quite awesome. While the Tumula Mountain photo is fresh because it is a different angle than usual of Mount Hood, the watermark is a serious blemish. —EncMstr (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I put the watermark on the picture so nobody would steal it. There are watermarks for a reason, you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoes123 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2015 February 10‎

JoJoes123, you do realize that by uploading your images to Commons and releasing them under the CC-BY-SA and GNU FDL licenses, you granted permission for anyone to use or change them however they want, right? Conifer (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What Conifer said. The whole point of Wikipedia is to share information, pictures, etc. All pictures are fair use or in public domain. Putting a watermark on your photo defeats the purpose of it being on Wikipedia in the first place. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo

I have uploaded a new photo, but this time there is no watermark. I also put it somewhere outside of the infobox. It is near the "name" section and shows Mt. Hood I the background with Timothy Lake in the foreground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoes123 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point I don't think that adding another landscape photo of the mountain is adding anything to the article except for clutter. If this was a photo that added something strikingly new to the article I would be for it, but this is just another scenic shot. And we already have two of those to speak nothing of the other multiple photos in the article jockeying for space. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Elevation conversion issue

In the elevation section, it says the height is 11,240 ft which actually converts to 3426m, but the conversion is listed as 3430 m which is wrong. I tried editing but noticed that the conversion was done automatically by Wikipedia using its internal converter. Maybe there's some problem with the converter? Dcqec111 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see Template:Convert to learn how to make adjustments to the precision of the conversion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I just stumbled over the same issue. Both 11239 and 11240ft should convert to 3426m. I added sigfig=4 where appropriate. That seems to fix the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:4A:CE11:9361:C66E:1FFF:FE10:D8CA (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wy'east

There is no record of the Multnomah tribe having used the name Wy'east at all for anything. It is not even a word. Scholars and linguists have looked closely at the word for more than 100 years and found no record of the word. The word has been documented as being used first by Fredrick Balch in his admittedly "fictionalized" account of the supposed native story quoted in the entry "Bridge of the Gods". What this means is Balch likely created the word himself to enliven his "fictional" account. Again this is a "fictional" account which means many of the details are made up by the author. This is romanticist history at its finest. Now more than 120 years after the Balch text was first produced (1889?)people tend to believe in the word Wy'east even though it is not proven in any way to be a native word. There is a discussion by me in the article Four Deaths published in 2014 in the Oregon Historical Quarterly. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5403/oregonhistq.115.3.0414#metadata_info_tab_contents). So this word now has taken on other public dimensions as people have widely adopted it, and in many ways have been taught about it as if it is a native word, so it will be tough to change people's minds. but I challenge anyone to find a varified ethnographic or linguistic record with the word at all?!!! If this is found and proven to be legit, I will immediately change my position. There are other words for the mountain, the local tribes did call it Pahto, and the Molala have a word for it, I would have to dig that word from my notes, but no one to this point has found Wy'east in any record. I recommend changing the record to suggest that the Multnomah have no record of using it as a word, BTW we do not have many words at all from the Multnomah, their language would be lower Chinook. The record could suggest that there is an "assumed" native placename, with no record of tribes using it. I realize people who believe in the myth of Wy'east will be highly critical of these statements and will try to attack me personally, All I can say is prove it, find the record of this, or change the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dglewis9000 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

'enemy commander'

In the article it talks about US Navy ships named for Mt. Hood, it states this is 'despite being named after an enemy commander'. This doesn't seem to fit, both ships were commissioned long after the US and the UK had become rather staunch allies and in fact the earliest one was on the tail end of WWII when both countries had bled together on the same side of the largest conflict the world has seen. Would there be any opposition to me cutting that phrase? --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Ehh, after seeing the lack oh historical activity on this talkpage I just went ahead an did it. If anyone thinks the phrase added something to the text feel free to tell me why I'm wrong :) --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case of opinion/POV. Thanks for removing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Arachnophobia, not Acrophobia

See the referenced article. 99.23.194.130 (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)