Talk:Mulanje Massif

Mountains Top‑importance

	Mountains portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Malawi

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Malawi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Malawi.

Untitled[edit]

Google shows me 2,900 refs to "mulanje massif" vs 900 for "mount mulanje". That strongly suggests moving, unless the 2,900 refs are ignorant or mistaken in some way. Stan 15:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a fair plan, I've moved it as suggested. User:Worldtraveller - 7.44pm BST 21/8/04

...just a point to consider - when I searched the relevant terms on google earlier today they both came out on about 3,000 pages each, and now this evening, Mount Mulanje seems to be winning 2700-700. Seems that google numbers may not be a good way to resolve issues like this. Whatever the case though, massif is definitely better than mount, for purely geographical reasons.

Be sure to enclose the search strings in double quotes, otherwise you get random spurious stuff where the two words just happen to be on the same page, but maybe referring to different things - 'mount mulanje' gets 2,900, while '"mount mulanje"' is just 898. 'mulanje massif' gets only a couple hundred more than '"mulanje massif"', probably because 'massif' is more of a specific term - 'mount' by itself might be referring to horses, disk drives, etc. :-) There's a bit of art to getting and interpreting Google results, I always want to get some kind of independent corroboration. One of the good news/bad news developments is that WP content itself is being mirrored to more and more places, and is beginning to noticeably skew Google results. Lays an extra responsibility on us to be as accurately researched as possible... Stan 23:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mulanje Massif/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is a marvelous book, "Venture to the Interior," by Laurens Van Der Post,Vintage 1952, which describes Van Der Post's survey of the massif in 1949. I found the book very moving.69.107.137.214 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Louis J. Painter, San Rafael, CA, USA[reply]

Last edited at 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)