Talk:Palomar Mountain Range
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Pigeonhole?
editA more likely origin for the place-name "palomar" would seem to be the Spanish words "palo" (tree branch) and "mar" (ocean). Wdfarmer 09:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
These two Palomar Mountain history books cite the "pigeon" origin of the name: (1)Palomar from teepee to telescope. Catherine M. Wood. San Diego, California: Frye & Smith, 1937. and (2) Palomar Mountain : past and present. Marion F. Beckler. Palm Desert, California: Desert Magazine, 1958 Plbman (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Merger
edit- Opposed. Palomar Mountain is independently notable of the mountain range, is far better known to residents of San Diego than the range, and merits its own page. More likely this article should be merged with Palomar Mountain. --SchutteGod (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose — this is about the whole small range, 'distinct' from the 'distinctive' singular Palomar Mountain. The Peninsular Ranges and Category:Peninsular Ranges are less well represented by component range articles than other California mountain systems, and so this helps expand info about it, and populates the cat.—Look2See1 t a l k → 21:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No such range in GNIS
editI cannot find a range by this name in GNIS, and it does not appear any the topographic map. Palomar Mountain is part of the Peninsular Ranges. –droll [chat] 07:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC) @Droll and Klbrain: There is some reliable sources mentioning the range: ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) Therefore although it might be in GNIS, that doesn't mean that it does not exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- @RightCowLeftCoast: that's quite right, but the question for the merge was really whether or not the Palomar Mountain range could be described within the context of its most important component, the Palomar Mountain. Given the virtual abscence of distinct information on the range, I thought the merge reasonable because the two topics could be best discussed together. Klbrain (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- However, there was no consensus regarding this merger, if anything there was no support for the merger, given the only two opposes to the proposal. Additionally the range is notable in and of itself per WP:GEOLAND as a "Named natural features".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)