Talk:Pacific Coast Ranges

This article would better be named Pacific Coast Ranges (as it is specifically about those particular coastal ranges). There is a (dictionary definition) article at Coastal range, that probably should be moved to Wikitionary. Any comments? - Marshman 19:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I decided to fix the confusion of names. This article is now at Pacific Coast Ranges - Marshman 17:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are there non-Pacific-bordering "Coast Ranges"? Stan 19:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not in North America, but there is a page Coastal range that was more a definition and gave the west coast as an example, so the concept is certainly not limited to the NA west coast. I'm sure there are other places in the world where "coast range" has a local meaning (in Japan, the "coast range" is on the western side of Honshu). Indeed, having grown up in California myself, my use of the term "Coast Range" is decidedly more local than this article encompasses. I'd have never meant the Olympic Peninsula in Washington or places in Alaska or Mexico by the term: the "Coast Range" clearly went from a bit north of LA to south of the Columbia River, at the very most! So the term that is uniting about all these ranges described in the article is that they are part of the North America Pacific Coastal Ranges—shortened to Pacific Coast Ranges. This eliminates some confusion I found in what various permutations of "coast(al) range(s) should redirect to - Marshman 21:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What are the Calipoiea Mountains? I tried googling them, and google wants to spell it Calliopeia Mountains. A search on < oregon coast range Calliopeia > had no web hits. I was raised in Oregon, and have never heard of these mountains.

I think we mean Calapooya Mountains See also: Kalapuya Katr67 22:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

And — the Tehachapi Mountains are considered a coastal range? dino 00:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would question that too. Although they "attach" to the coastal range, they divide the SJ Valley and the desert. Maybe whomever added them can explain inclusion of that particular transverse range? - Marshman 03:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. That ("California box") addition is absolutely ridiculous. I would hope there are no plans to stamp that monstrousity onto every article that remotely has to do with California. I thought the purpose of Categories was to avoid such redundant "sludge" ? - Marshman 19:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Marshman! I thought I was the only person who was repelled by enormous state navigation footers. I think they're ridiculous, even in articles that are completely intra-state. And your point that categories supercedes them is a good one.

Do you think there is a chance that we can move the consensus away from using them, at least for inter-state regional articles? -- hike395 05:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would hope so. Imagine a page with 6 to 10 of those worthless Tables of Contents, which could be the case here as Alaska, Yukon, BC, Washington, Oregon, California, and Baja could all claim a spot on this page (the "Rockies" article would be unusable!). Users do not go to an article like this to find a list of cities of a state. I'd ban them from all articles and use categories - much less space involved, serve the same purpose (see how we have been doing it for Hawaii), and can be focused AND worked on by all. Not so "templates" which I can seldom even find where they are to make corrections/changes and require careful attention to formatting - Marshman 17:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Oops, I see someone has plastered the templates on the Hawaii articles too! However, I will see to it that they only appear on articles for which the ToC template has an existing link (i.e., cities, islands, counties) - MarshmanReply

I have no idea where to start a policy discussion about this. Do you? -- hike395 04:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not really, but we could bring it up at the "Village Pump" - Marshman 18:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've lived in Oregon for almost 35 years, most of that in Lane County, and as far as I know, the range of mountains you cross on the way to the coast has always been called the "Coast Range". I'm completely unaware that there is a more specific name for it. All of the Oregon articles that mention the "Coast Range" redirect to "Pacific Coast Ranges", which doesn't seem specific enough. I like the idea of starting an "Oregon Coast Ranges" article, but what a mess to disambig all those links. I'd be interested to hear what any geography experts have to say on the subject. What is the darn range really called, and does it merit its own article? Katr67 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Problem with "Coast Range" is it's a synonym for the Coast Mountains in BC-Alaska; officially they're the Coast Mountains but habitually people, including official types, will say Coast Range. The qualifier on Oregon Coast Range may be necessary just for that reason. Similarly there's issues with the way Americans used "Cascades" and the way Canadians do.Skookum1 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)!Reply

I have long thought of the coastal highlands of Oregon and Washington as called the "Coast Range", which, from a geologic perspective, includes the Olympic Mountains and the insular mountains of British Columbia (Vancouver Island, Queen Charlottes); while the "Coast Mountains" refers specifically to the big mountains along the mainland coast of British Columbia, which appear on maps to be a continuation of the Cascades north of the Fraser River although they are not geologically the same. I'm sure people call the Coast Mountains the Coast Range and vice versa all the time, and really the words "mountains" and "range" mean the same thing. Still, I wish there was an article on what I've described as the Coast Range. There doesn't seem to be one. It would be nice to wikilink to a page on just that range instead of every mountain range near the Pacific coast from Mexico to Alaska. The page could be called "Coast Range (Oregon)", since the term is usually applied only to the Oregon portion. If I find the energy and time, I'll make it. It can describe the problems and common confusion over the names of the coastal highland and mountains in the Pacific Northwest. Anyway, I was kind of surprised to discover it didn't already exist, but then again, there doesn't seem to be a "Geography of Washington" page either! Working on that one. Pfly 03:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for offering to do something about this. There are a few pages linking to Oregon Coast Range, including this article, so I think that would be an OK title for the article unless naming conventions dictate the ugly parenthetical... If you look at Marys Peak, you will also see why it would be handy to have an Oregon-specific article, as it says it is the highest point in the *Oregon* Coast Range. Katr67 05:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why is the Peninsular Range included here? It is not part of the Coast Range, and has more in common with the Sierra Nevada than it does the California Coast Range. --Pegminer 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure anyone is keeping a close eye on this list, and it may have been added incorrectly. If no one responds with a good reason for inclusion in a few days, I would say it would be safe to delete it, especially if you could find a source to show it *isn't* part of the Coast Range that you could cite here. Katr67 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Note: The Peninsular Ranges article says they belong to the Coast Range as well. Katr67 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is the Cascade Range really considered part of the Pacific Coast ranges? Katr67 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes; capital-r Pacific Coast Ranges is a grouping which has various names, e.g. Pacific Cordillera, American Cordillera, although both those definitions tend to include the Rockies and other inland ranges. I realize you may be speaking from the Oregon orientation, where the "Coast Range" is the lower line of mountains between the Williamette and the Pacific, yes? Thing is "Coast Range" in Canada is synonymous with "Coast Mountains" so we add "Pacific" to it to mean the larger grouping. The grouping includes the Sierras, the California coastal ranges (whose names I don't know), the Olympics, the Insular Mountains, the Coast Mountains, and the St. Elias and Chugach Mountains....so why shouldn't it also include the Cascade Range?Skookum1 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've currently set the northward limit here at the Chugach, Kenai and Talkeetna; ranges farther west, though also limning the Pacific Coast, sort of, are all in the Alaska Ranges; not sure if they should be included here, i.e. if they're classified as part of the Pacific Cordillera or not, or are something separate.Skookum1 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is Pacific Coast Range or Pacific Coast Ranges a well established name for the whole group of mountain ranges along the coast including the Cascade Range? I could not find any such use outside of Wikipedia. Brittanica concise defines Pacific Coast Range as only the coastal ranges from Southern California to mid Washington, and specifically excludes Cascade Range. Please give some references for the use of this term in the sense of the article. --h-stt !? 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added a cite from a reasonably reliable source. It does not mention the Alaskan and Canadian portions (as this article does), but has a peculiarly vague everything west of Puget Sound included in it. I guess Vancouver Island and Alaska are west of Puget Sound.... Does this satisfy your query? —EncMstr 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately not really. The main aspect of my question is, whether the Cascade Range is part of this Pacific Coast Range or not. The northernmost parts may be checked too. And everything west of Puget Sound would exclude Cascade Range, would it? But this articles claims Cascade Range to be a part. The question originally arouse in the de-Wikipedia. Someone copied this list over there, but it doesn't fit with the geographic structures in the other articles on the West Coast. Thanks so far for your help. --h-stt !? 20:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC) PS: The definiton from USGS ends at the Strait of Juan de Fuca, so Vancouver Island and Alaska are excluded. To me it seems, that this whole article needs some serious editing. --h-stt !? 09:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The main "authoritative" source for BC geographical nomenclature is S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia (Prov. of BC, 1976); it is used as the basis for the range-naming on the NTS topo and BC Basemap/MoE/MoF maps and similar. I don't have Holland handy - in most BC university libraries and often in school libraries - but I recall that "Pacific Coast Ranges" (note plural) he used to include the Cascade Mountains as well as the Coast Mountains, perhaps also the Hazelton Mountains (which are just behind the Coast Range) in the Terrace-Smithers area), and the Insular Mountains (the Vancouver Island-Queen Charlotte Islands ranges); but only in the singular, not in the plural. NB in BC "Coast Range" is synonymous with the Coast Mountains; not sure where else to look for citations of these usages, maybe the Canadian Encyclopedia but it's quite useless as it's edited in Edmonton or Toronto or wherever and they get all kinds of things wrong about BC (part of the "Granite Curtain" effect). There may be more recent geographical classification writings but I don't know of them; we used Holland as the basis for names/range definitions in http://bivouac.com (Canadian Mtn Encyclopedia) and you might want to look at peakbagger.com for his references.Skookum1 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can get got a scan of the first edition from 1964 of the book by Holland here in Germany, but it would need some time for it would be a inter-library-loan. Can some of you get it easier? And do we need it? From my perspective, it seems like everyone on the West Coast calls the mountains in his vicinity Coastal Range and Coastal Mountains as an unspecific umbrella term. The USGS as well as Brittanica use Pacific Coast Range only for those ranges in the continuous US and immediately at the coast and therefore exclude Cascade Range from the term, the Canadians (or at least the British Columbia Dept. of Mines and Petroleum Resources in 1964/76) use the term in the plural form in a much broader sense and include everything from Baja to Alaska and the Cascade Range. What does this mean for Wikipedia? Which definition is more helpful? Any statements? --h-stt !? 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC) [edited] --h-stt !? 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here - Here is Holland's book in PDF. I can't find the original download page but it's on the same BC govt server somewhere Maybe here or else just start at this main page and search for "Bulletin 48" and "map"- that's an ancillary map that goes with it, I have it stored on a Cd, if you shoot me an email I'll be glad to forward it. while looking for the map I also found [http://homer.ugdsb.on.ca/jfr/jfr_geog/CGC/CGC_landforms/landforms_of_canada.ppt this powerpoint - Landform Regions of Canada which is Canada-wide...Skookum1 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to Holland, the terminology is different than given in our article: The Pacific Range stretches from the Burke Channel and the Bella Coola River for about 300 miles to Fraser River. It has just one mayor subdivision, the Chilcotin Ranges on the east flank of the Pacific Range, between the Klinaklini River and Lillooet, British Columbia. The Cascade Range is not a part of any of them, but it is covered in the following separate chapter [Holand, Landforms of British Columbia, 1964, p 42/43] So now I have even less confidence in the definition of this article and would suggest some heavy editing, to reflect these reliable sources. --h-stt !? 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC) PS: I can send the two-page-PDF-scan to anyone who needs it, just contact me through the systems e-mail-function.Reply

Another source is peakbagger.com, which divides all of the worlds mountains into a hierarchy of ranges. They simply call it the Pacific Ranges, but have it include the Sierra Nevada. They do warn that it is a "Bogus mountain grouping for this site", so perhaps we shouldn't take it seriously.

I think this article dates back to the early days of WP, when we were trying to sketch out the world's information, and didn't worry so much about WP:OR. This does need to be rewritten, perhaps separating into two article, one with the USGS definition, and the other about the Canadian range. hike395 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about moving the article to List of Pacific Coastal Ranges? Then the title is marked as descriptive and not a proper name. Because that gave reason for the confusion in the first place. --h-stt !? 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does the Pacific Coast Ranges include the Yukon Ranges? I'm the creator of the article but I'm not sure if the Pacific Coast Ranges is appropiate for the parent; it's not listed in the article. If the Yukon Ranges are part of the Pacific Coast Ranges, it should be included with the list. Bivouac currently lists 10 mountain ranges and 4 sub-ranges associated with the Yukon Ranges ([1]). Black Tusk 23:40: 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Wrangells are part of the PCR system, despite their physical linkage to the Saint Elias Mountains....to me, FRIR, the Yukon Ranges are all the other ranges in the Yukon, but not the Saint Elias; the Yukon Ranges and Pacific Coast Ranges are different systems, i.e. "sister ranges"....I think the confusion may be because of the mixing up of "Pacific Cordillera" which is the name for everything west of the Great Barrens-Mackenzie/Prairies and is better called the Western Cordillera and sometimes the Canadian Cordillera. The Ruby, Ogilvies etc are all inland ranges; I seem to recall the Wrangells not being in the same "mother system" as the Saint Elias and Chugach, I'll look at the bivouac link...I guess I should sign up for at least a free month with them again so I can look through all the lists and range defintions that *I* built but it's conceivable that site owner has rearranged things to suit himself, as he was doing when I left (and which is why I left...). What's http://www.peakbagger.com say?Skookum1 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Peakbagger lumps the Alaska Ranges and Yukon Ranges together as the Alaska-Yukon Ranges, and includes the Saint Elias in them; I'll have to write him and ask where his definition comes from; there's a spur of it that drops south into BC east of the Alsek Ranges, not sure what he means by that; that would be the same bit of possibly-Coast Mountains that you added the YT switch to the WPCan template on Coast Mountains for. As far as Pacific Coast Ranges go, he uses Pacific Ranges here....I wonder if he has the subrange of the Coast Mountains similarly named? I'll be back...Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hm he gets around hte name-conflict by using "Northern Pacific Ranges" and "Southern Pacific Ranges" but he doesn't give maps for them as he does on higher tiers...he's also got "Lillooet Range" in the singular and such; I've never considered that site authoritative; I was trying to make bivouac.com that way but....well, I won't get into it right now....I'll use one of my dummy email accounts and cop a free month or whatever the trial period is on bivouac.com but I'd probably like to make a list of all the things I should check there for teh short time I'll have access to it.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I amended the opening paragraph in accordance with what I "know" to be the case, although my own ref for that is in the distant past from my work at bivouac.com - must have been Stuart Holland's definition, as I know he discussed the term; I'll look in my copy when I get a chance. I had a look at the USGS ref for that paragraph and it's US-only:

Incomplete record. Series of ranges, most of which have individual names, extending along the Pacific coast from southern California to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. They also include everything west of Puget Sound, the Willamette, Sacramento, and San Joaquin valleys, and southwest of the Mojave Desert.

There's nothing in BCGNIS or CNGDB but, again, I'm pretty sure Holland gets into it somewhere, and distinguishes the broader meaning of the term from its Oregon-only meaning. So effectively the USGS ref is a dud, as far as the macro-definition of the range-system goes; as I recall, the Alaska Range is not part of it, though the Saint Elias Mountains are, while maybe the Chugach Mountains are not (even though part of the Chugach is east of the Copper River, which otherwise would make a nice tidy boundary....but in toponymy nothing is all that tidy, in many cases.....the Rockies, for example, are pierced by the Peace - largely because nobody ever gave a esparate name to their extension north of the Peace (what's now Lake Williston)Skookum1 (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been unsatisfied by this article for almost 5 years now: it seems that there is no consistent hierarchy of ranges in North America, and so if we select one, we'll be violating NPOV, and if we try to make a new one, we'll be violating NOR. I am really uncertain what to do here.

An analogous case is with ecoregions of North America. For a few years, using the WWF ecoregions in WP was all of the rage. Then, editors started to realize that might be POV, so that now we have ecozones based on the CEC (NAFTA) data. We have ecozones ending with (WWF), and ones ending with (CEC), and it's kind of a mess. And, to top off the confusion, we have Cascade Range and Cascades (ecoregion). I just don't know how to resolve it. hike395 (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pacific Coast Ranges. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104204050/http://www.geo.arizona.edu/tectonics/Ducea/teaching/Dickinson2004.pdf to http://www.geo.arizona.edu/tectonics/Ducea/teaching/Dickinson2004.pdf

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The second paragraph of the article indicates that Vancouver Island's Insular Mountains are not Pacific Coast Ranges, but the fourth paragraph lists them as one of the ranges. It seems most intuitive to include them, even if they are "geologically distinct". In fact I think we could cut the whole second sentence. Dardanelle (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply