Talk:Rocky Mountains

Total length

I just measured the length of the entire chain (from the Liard river to the south of the San Juan mountains) on open source reference maps and on Google Maps. Measured length is +/- 3000 to 3100 kilometers, if you follow the main direction of the chain in a north-south direction (so not following the divide itself for every meter). This is the geodetic distance. Can anyone confirm this? I just tried to edit the length in the article but this was reverted. Grutman (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the geodetic distance from Liard River Hot Springs Provincial Park to Albuquerque, New Mexico is 3,051 kilometres (1,896 mi). However, I'm reluctant to override reliable sources with map measurements --- that seems to be original research. Both Encyclopedia Britannica and the Columbia Encylopedia list the length as 3000 miles. However, the latter says that the Rockies stretch to NW Alaska (an outdated definition), so the 3000 miles could be for a bad definition. It's 4,990 kilometres (3,100 mi) from Albuquerque to Kotzebue, Alaska.

At this point, I'm at a loss of how to proceed. The otherwise reliable sources may be incorrect, while I'm concerned about OR. Can we find another reliable source for the length? I spent about 15 minutes looking for one, and cannot find any. —hike395 (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

To me, maps are like books. Depending on the map/book, it is a reliable source. A measurement on a map is taking the information which is on the map, just like reading a book. If we accept the definition of the extent (Liard to Albuquerque), we can derive an estimate for the length from reliable maps. Grutman (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Grutman: As you say, above, the problem is that the length of a range depends on how you measure it (e.g., how closely you follow the ridgeline) I believe extracting the length of a range from the map is a form of interpretation, which requires a secondary source (according to WP:PRIMARY). —hike395 (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Later: I clarified (in the lede) that the 3000km is a great-circle distance, not necessarily the length of the range. That isn't an interpretation of the map, but is an actual fact. The problem, now, is that the lede seems to contradict the infobox. —hike395 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Even later: I changed the infobox to match the lede, with a note of "straight-line distance". This is not very satisfying, but it's the best I can think of. —hike395 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

References

There seems no simple single figure answer without "picking a side". Is it not as simple as explaining there are different definitions at different points in history as to the ranges northern most extent, which give different lengths for the range, and then giving more than one length; it is clunky but more correct. Is there and official body to do with mountains? like there seems to be with oceans, (regarding how many there are and where their boundaries are said to be etc) When I saw both 3000 miles and 3000 km both listed in the lead and infobox, I thought it may have been a rookie error of someone reading 3000, and confusing miles for km or the other way round at some point whilst editing, and came here to mention it or see if anyone else has, I can't be the only person who thought it was a mile/km mix up, it is a coincidence two different definitions give a 3000 something measurement.

 Carlwev  19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Geography Nitpick

The article states that the Rockies form the "easternmost portion" of the "North American cordillera". The cordillera in question runs through to the southern end of Mexico, and contains much that is further east than the Rockies. I'm assuming the author meant that they are the easternmost portion of the cordillera in the US and Canada. Perhaps that should be clarified? Doug (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Map of the range should be expanded

The map of the range in the infobox, despite the opening paragraph discussing the disagreement between the USA and Canada regarding the northern terminus of the range, only shows the Canadian definition of the Rockies. I feel that the map should, like other disputed maps, show both claims in different colours. I lack the geographical expertise to do so myself, but I think that it would help to clarify the situation. THMWikiAcc (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Intial information

the intial info stating the shallow plate theory is semi wrong and should be adjusted new evidence has found that the rockies formed due to a collison with baja bc with happen to be a stationary peninsula and that collison is the reason why we have the rockies. 2001:56A:F643:DF00:D5C2:BF91:5E8C:6CA4 (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)