Talk:Saddle (landform)

Deletion discussion

Yes, and if you remember I offered as part of that to rewrite the article. We clearly need the term, it's just a question of whether it is a standalone article or redirected to col. However, the terms are not always seen as synonymous. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Expansion

Schematic of a saddle with the red dot at the centre and the green line indicated the shortest route over it.

I appreciate that the recent edits are a good faith attempt to expand and improve this article, but they have left it with a number of problems. First it has mixed elements of the original article with new material of a different type which is confusing. The original article was simple, referenced, used neutral English and reflected the reality that the difference between saddle and col was blurred. That has been placed in a subsection. The new material is complex, written using mathematical language (even in the lede which should be a simple, clear overview), unreferenced, uses US regional terminology (ignoring the original style) and gives the terms saddle and col precise but unsourced definitions that AFAIK are not universally accepted. For example, the section "Saddles have Cols" (leaving aside the odd title) is contradictory. The title and the new opening statement state that a col is the lower point on a saddle, whereas the original text quotes three sources that illustrate a variety of definitions. I'd also suggest there may be simpler, non-mathematical diagrams than the "maxima and minima" one shown, such as the one illustrated. I'm not sure where to go with this, but at the very least it needs to be restructured and wikified. Do we try and harmonise the new material with the old? Do we remove it until it is properly referenced? What do other editors think? --Bermicourt (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)