This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose oppose oppose oppose how is 12,700 a clear and substantial absolute majority over 7,470+4,380 = 11,850? How is that the normal 66% plus of all Book references combined? There are too many RMs like this. Maybe we need to change the shortcut WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to make it clearer that Wikipedia works on WP:ABSOLUTETOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
You are not supposed to combine the other results to form a bigger number; that's cheating and they are not even related. Even if you do combine the numbers for the California and Washington Mount Prices it still doesn't put down the fact that the Mount Price in British Columbia is the most notable and the most viewed. It also has the most reliable sources. Volcanoguy09:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
And you stating that there are too many RMs like this raises a point; it is the most common method used to pin point what is the primary topic. Volcanoguy09:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
"You are not supposed to combine the other results to form a bigger number; that's cheating" that, I'm sorry is a perfect illustration of why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs rewriting to make what is there clearly stand out in bold letters to avoid so many time-wasting RMs like this one. Unless a topic (not article, a topic) has an overwhelming absolute majority in both criteria (not just one) then it should be at an ambiguated title. Ambiguating titles is a necessary ill done in super-cases like Paris, not to be done casually when there is no real global overwhelming meaning for a word. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it needs rewriting since WP:PRIMARYTOPIC appears to already cover this with this line A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Based on that line would argue that combining the other results in not cheating but in fact necessary.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per usage statistics presented, it is neither more than thrice as likely as all other topics, nor an order of magnitude more likely than the next likely topic. It fails than all the other topics combined -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
@Volcanoguy: I say that because, it's been my experiance that there're editors who don't like editnotices, just wondering what other page watchers have to say. If there is no response/objections in a couple days, I'll create it. - FlightTime (open channel)00:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@FlightTime:WP:ENGVAR: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." This is article about a Canadian feature and thus should use Canadian English. Volcanoguy00:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done Per talk page request. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
