Talk:List of highest mountains on Earth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kashmir border dispute, continued

Afasmit please explain why you undid the changes about Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir is the official name of the disputed entity and still used by India and Pakistan officially. Kashmir is the name of the Vale in the middle of the state, there is no official political entity named only Kashmir. Indeed, none of the peaks mentioned are in the vale itself, the pakistani entity is split in two i.e Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Northern areas. Please, stick to official names. I would suggest changing it to Northern Areas instead of Kashmir(Pakistan) where ever appropriate. How would someone find K2 if they trying to look for it on a map in Kashmir(pakistan) on a political map of Pakistan for example when no such official political entity exists. It would even be more helpful to list the regions they are located in i.e Ladakh, Baltistan, Gilgit etc. but that is not possible here. So, the bare minimum we could do is avoid creating confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The current labeling has been in place for 2.5 years, seems as neutral as possible, and is explained in footnote 2. I had actually considered using only more refined regional labels, like Gilgit etc., instead of country labels, but most readers probably would like to see something they are familiar with in the table. Like the wikipedia article, Kashmir refers to the geographical region of greater Kashmir, which includes all regions disputed between Pakistan, India, and China. Note 2 also explains why mountains around the Siachen glacier are labeled neither India nor Pakistan. My experience is that if I leave your edits, a person "on the other side" will not only undo them, but go a step further.Afasmit (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to continue to challenge the version that has stuck for 2.5 years then please do so here, not by continuing to edit the main article. See WP:BRD. Viewfinder (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone from the other side would change Nanga parbat from AJK to J&K or the location of k2 for that matter. Its just creating confusion where there is none. This is not an article about neutrality, the purpose here is to provide acurate information about the accurate location of certain physical features and the present political entities they are in. Kashmir region exists only as a convenient term for policy discussion it has nothing to do with actual location of places and peaks. There aren't many refrences to K2 in Kashmir or Siachen for that matter, we're pointing out the exact location and under what administration or political entity at the present time the other side can diagree all they want, but you can't move K2 from where it is today or saltoro kangri for that matter. Also, if someone points out with good reason that it is inaccurate they can edit it. Just because it has stuck around for 2.5 years doesn't make it correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please:

• sign your posts using four tildes
• supply a reliable source in support of your claim that the Siachen summits should be placed within India
• read WP:BRD and do not edit the main article again until consensus has been reached.

Viewfinder (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The regional indications are only a general guideline and should not be used to find the peak on a map. You'll find the (exact) location without any confusion by clicking on the coordinates and entering, for example, google maps. You can zoom in to within a few meters.

The use of the historical Kashmir region is appealing for its recognizability (because of the use of its name for the conflict, far more people have heard of Kashmir than of Gilgit-Baltistan or Jammu) and its apparent neutrality (though if it turns out to be offensive to most local people it probably should be changed). Another benefit is that the historical region contains the high mountain ridges, rather than border on it. As an extreme example, Sia Kangri at the tip of the Siachen glacier is, according to probably most, on the border of Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu & Kashmir, and Sinkiang, which is a mouth-full to put in one cell. Others see it just on the border of Gilgit-Baltistan and Sinkiang, a few see it on the border of Gilgit-Baltistan and Jammu & Kashmir only, some Pakistani see it entirely in Gilgit-Baltistan, and you changed it to be located entirely in Jammu and Kashmir (India). I venture that the label "Kashmir" with the associated footnote is not so bad. Likewise, Sajjadbeeg just changed K2 and all other mountains that are on the most commonly accepted border of Pakistan and China within Gilgit-Baltistan, as if that political region overlaps part of Sinkiang.

With the Tibet issue in the news there should be more coming elsewhere. Perhaps we should take the entire "region" column out. Afasmit (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How others see it, doesnot warrant the confusion in an article about physical features to be vague about who administers it at the present moment. Indians are allowing expeditions to Siachen peak as of 2007, obviously they are the ones who control it, Other wise Pakistan will be giving those permits, not even Pakistan disputes the location and control of Siachen peaks(or for that matter Indians in case of Northern Areas) so why should this article? Political dispute is a different matter altogether.

"The use of the historical Kashmir region is appealing for its recognizability"........This is your POV not the ground situation. If for example if someone wants to access teh peaks in Northern areas, they have to obtain permission from Islamabad and not the Azad Jammu and Kashmir administration while for the Siachen expeditions there is an involvement of both India and Jammu and Kashmir governments.

Please can you supply a reliable source in support of your claim about Indian de facto control of Siachen Peak and the access permit situation there. Viewfinder (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The key dispute here is over whether this article (or by extension any geographic article) should focus on a statement of who is de facto in control of a certain feature, or instead use a more neutral descriptor, which does not explicitly give such information. I think that both ideas have merit. The anon IP editor notes that, for example, someone interested in climbing one of these peaks (or in just knowing about the details involved in climbing) would like to know the de facto control. (However, such info could be relegated to each individual peak's article.) This editor is correct in saying that putting the de facto control info would be more specific than the current statement.

However, that does not make it obvious that the current statement is inappropriate or that the article is being needlessly vague. The main "fact on the ground" here in Wikipedia is that this is a hugely divisive issue, causing many, many edit wars on various pages, and a solution that is relatively stable and has a wide consensus is a very valuable thing. Making the information more specific in the way that the anon IP editor suggests is an invitation to that kind of edit warring. I gather from the editor's comments that the editor believes that few people would quarrel with a statement of who is in de facto control of each peak, since that is different from a statement of ownership or a judgement on the legality of such control. I strongly disagree, based on much experience on Wikipedia with these peaks. Any location information that assigns a peak to one political entity or the other is seen by many readers, and many editors, as an implied statement of de jure ownership. It's very hard to make that distinction at all, and it's impossible in a tiny box in a table.

Note that cartographers often go out of their way to avoid giving the impression of siding on one side or the other of such a dispute. (When they are not careful in this way, it has been called "cartographic aggression".) I think that the use of "Kashmir" in this article is in that tradition. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sept 17(AFP): Pakistan protested to India on Monday over its plans to open up the disputed 6,300-metre (20,800-feet) high Siachen glacier to tourists, saying it could hurt an ongoing peace process. Foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam told a weekly briefing that India's deputy ambassador had been summoned on Monday to receive a “strong protest” over the Siachen plan. September 17, 2007

The news certainly has reached Pakistan but NOT Wikipedia. The use of Kashmir as some kind of tradition is bizzare. This is NOT the place to provide vague or wrong information because certain people would edit it to their liking. That is plain wrong, it can always be edited back. de jure ownership??? but none of the parties dispute the de jure ownership of the peaks in each other's territory, there is a dispute about the ultimate settlement of ownership of the entire territory itself, that is why they have line of control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again the current control/location/adminstration of the peaks or physical features is NOT disputed but the ultimate political status of the the former territory which has always been the case. Since this is an aticle about physical features it should go by the actual ground situation, this is an encyclopedia afterall. The explanation about disputes belongs on the pages that detail the territory itself. Now someone has changed it back to the highly inacurate version that was challenged, where some peaks are listed under Kashmir(pakistan) instead of northern areas which is the accurate description as of now and others mostly on the Indian side say just Kashmir. Again where is the Kashmir administration??? or the political entity of "Kashmir", in which country??? as of today there is Azad Jammu and Kashmir(Pakistan), Northern Areas(Pakistan) and Jammu and Kashmir(India). Under which jurisdiction does the peak K2 fall??? Kashmir(Pakistan)??? well there is no such entity as of 2008. There is Azad Jammu and Kashmir but then K2 region is not administered by Azad Jammu and Kashmir administration hmmmmm maybe someone forgot to mention Northern Areas, THAT is where K2 is!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the above editor has persistently refused to sign his or her posts, despite repeated requests, does not help him or her to be taken seriously. It is evident from the above discussion that the changes to the main article that the above editor is making are opposed by the article's main registered editors, who have given their reasons for opposing them. I have therefore reverted these changes, and will continue to revert them until there is a consensus in support of them. Viewfinder (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm not a registered user so what would signing my posts accomplish??? SineBot is there to make sure the edits are accounted for and attributed to the right IP or user.

Now, for the article's "main registered users"! Are they the final authority on this matter??? and they can over rule any edits however correct and closer to facts they maybe because they have a certain POV that is in conflict with factual accuracy, also the most important fact is that the article is giving out inaccurate and vague information about pysical features. Consensus can never be found if people repeatedly ignore to see the logic and cling to certain POV's that might result in false and inaccurate information being put out. If someone points it out then what should be done? keep on putting out wrong info until every single one of them thinks otherwise? If someone is a registered editor, that doesn't make them immune to be challenged or corrected. How can you have consensus on something whose current location is being described here? really!!! The information here should be based on factual accuracy, for example K2 is under the admin of Northern Areas and Siachen is not adminstered by Northern Areas or any entity called "Kashmir". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re signing your posts, see WP:SIG. The reasons for retaining the use of the correct geographical (albeit not political) region "Kashmir" have already been explained. There is no final authority on this matter. Not even three registered editors who have been contributing to this article since its start - and definitely not one unregistered editor who cannot even be bothered to type in four tildes to sign his or her posts. Viewfinder (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove the "regions" column?

The last couple of hundred non- vandal edits have mostly been modifications of the countries' and regions' names. Since the political location is, for everyone but the people in the involved countries, the least notable thing about a mountain and the exact physical location is taken care of by the coordinates with their links to maps and satellite images, I'm considering simply taking the column out to make an end to an endless maintenance job. For the sake of each nation's pride, one can make lists for each country, as has been done for most already. I'll wait for a couple of weeks though to see if there are convincing arguments against it. Afasmit (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Viewfinder (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, practically speaking, although I do think it's nice to have an at-a-glance way to see generally where a peak is (without clicking). E.g. as it stands, someone can start at the top of the list and observe that, for example, none of the top 22 are solely in India, which may be interesting and surprising to that person. Or e.g. Minya Konka won't stand out nearly so plainly as being different. There's no way to easily tell that if we drop the "regions" column. So I'm ambivalent. -- Spireguy (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but the POV edits are continuing. The mountains in question are in the Kashmir region and are not within Pakistan's internationally recognised borders. Therefore, if we retain the regions column, I oppose the removal of the word Kashmir. Please stop removing it until this matter has been settled here. Viewfinder (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Having examined the new version, it seems to me that the Range column, which includes main range as well as sub range, is sufficient. Viewfinder (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture on Article

Picture on this article seems having problem. I tried but failed, someone please fix it please. Thanks Bauani (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC) mount everest is the tallest mountain ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.146.219 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Measurement and undiscovered peaks

It's a bit surprising that the exact heights of all of the mountains are not known from satellite altimetry, or that there is any possibility of tall, undiscovered peaks. How thick does ice and snow get? Is that the only impediment? It would be useful to get an more detailed explanation from a reliable source, if this is the case. -- Beland (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to determine heights from satellite imagery, and where there is snow and ice, stereoscopy is unreliable. The most modern method of determining height is synthetic aperture radar, but this is unreliable in areas of very high relief. Still, SRTM mapped 99.8% of the earth's land surface between 60 degrees north and 56 degrees south. While the remaining 0.2% includes most summits over 7200 metres, these are concentrated in specific areas, and these areas have all been carefully investigated using the sources listed in the article. In other areas, anything over 7200m would have shown up in SRTM derived data as a large mountain or a large void. Viewfinder (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is refering to other Wikipedia pages

This article needs alot of new references, because a few of the current ones refer to Wikipedia. Refering to other Wikipedia articles is not allowed according to Wikipedia:SPS#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_source_information_from_Wikipedia Wims (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Each column is given an external source. Re the individual mountains, I do not think the use of wikilinks to individual mountain pages is a problem, provided that there are adequate external sources on those pages. Viewfinder (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Country

I think the Country should be added to the chart. XRoyalSinx 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a column with that information, but border arguments make the location of many mountains contentious. There were so many edits chaning the location between countries that we decided to leave that column out. See "Should we remove the "regions" column?" above. Afasmit (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Andes and Aconcagua should be in List of highest mountains

Andes and Aconcagua should be in List of highest mountains, and the actual table in this page what are List of highest mountains (of Asia) must move to the article List of highest mountains of Asia --Ferosdc (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Andes is not a mountain. Aconcagua is not in the top 100. kwami (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stem and leaf plot

Imo, this is not appropriate although I am open to persuasion. It is initially unfamiliar and confusing for readers, it will take readers time to understand, and is possibly original research. If these sort of stuff is appropriate for this article, then why not add it to many other numerical lists? For now, I will put this section back to the bottom of the list; if other readers think it is helpful then it can stay, but personally I would rather it were deleted or replaced with a more conventional type of graph or plot. Viewfinder 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Viewfinder. I decided to add the stem and leaf plot as the size of the table is overwhelming, and it provides a good summary/introduction to it. If it is deemed suitable for this list, then I see no reason why it could not also enhance other numerical lists, I admit that it is currently an innovation on Wikipedia.

Some sort of statistical summary of the list is desirable, and the stem and leaf approach is advantageous with respect to a more conventional type of graph as it is both graphical and textual, has a high information density, and allows links to each mountain (and as a side effect, mouseovers allow you to quickly run through the names of each mountain).

I can see that it could be confusing to some readers, but I think an encyclopedia is unique in that readers come to it with an expectation of learning something new, and are thus more open to informative suprises of this nature.

Here is a link to extracts from Edward Tufte's book envisioning information on stem and leafs page 46 page 47 that might be helpful ISBN 0961392142. Temporarily, I would ask that you return the plot to it's previous position, if only to expose more people and get a better guage on what people think of it. --Muxxa 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Muxxa. Yes, the idea is quite interesting and innovative, but I am not sure that Wikipedia is the proper place to push this sort of innovation. I would rather see a bar chart which everyone will recognise. It is in the page index so it should be seen by enough people as it is. Let's see what others make of it. Viewfinder 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I never weighed in on this originally, but I like the stem and leaf plot (see also my response to a recent deletion below). It's not OR, since it just conveys the same information (the distribution of heights in the list) in a different (and completely standard) form. It's not a strange or unnecessary innovation, it's good use of a tool from descriptive statistics. -- Spireguy (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Stem and leaf plot - more

I removed this because it was unsourced OR and it used a sentence with "you" in it. Seriously, think about it. Does any decent article here use third person? Why should it use third person? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. First, it's just a convenient way to display exactly the same information. It doesn't depend on any calculations or other info that's not in the article, so it's not OR. Second, although I agree that the opening paragraph should be copyedited to make it more encyclopedic, I suggest that TenPoundHammer should review the notions of second person (which is what is being objected to) and third person. I'm going to put it back in with some copyedits. Any other opinions on this? -- Spireguy (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "you" is second person, not third person. Regardless, "you" is incorrect usage in an encyclopedia, although sometimes it's useful when it's a dead giveaway that something was a copyright violating cut-and-paste. The primary issue with that chart (which I could not make much sense of, FYI) is that it could be argued to be "synthesis". However, I think that complaint is fueled by the "as you can see" part. If the information were simply presented, with an appropriate explanation of what it is, then it might be more acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was shooting for: the "as you can see" and the synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is already a list of the top 100 mountains, how does graphing them qualify as "synthesis"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's just a different arrangement of the data presented above. But is it really necessary? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hard telling, since I couldn't understand the graph. I think his point was that there is a cluster of mountains above a certain height and then a gap before the next group starts in an ironically mountain-shaped form. So maybe it is synthesis, if he's trying to "prove" something. However, that could be accomplished by a one-line statement of fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I took care of many of the above concerns with the copyedit of the text paragraph. (I don't think that the original contributor was trying to synthesize or prove anything in the paragraph, rather, the point was to clarify how to read the plot. Hopefully that's clearer now.) Regarding the plot itself, I think some kind of visual representation of the distriibution of peaks is quite valuable. As noted by the original contributor, a stem and leaf plot is a very efficient way to get such a visual display. (A quick look at Stemplot is enough to figure out how to read such a plot; also, hovering over each (linked) letter is helpful, to see how each number represents a peak.) I would be OK with replacing it with a histogram, if the consensus was that such a chart were more commonly understandable, but that would lose the links. In the absence of a histogram, I think the stemplot should stay. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The numerical information presented in the Stem and Leaf plot is not immediately clear. For example: "The two digits to the left of the line are the first two digits of the mountain's height (meters). The first thought is ah "88 meters". Then - "and each digit to the right of the line represents the third digit of the mountain's height" .. so 884 meters then... But no then we get a "the height of one of the mountains (namely Mount Everest) is 884x meters." My point is that if the if the second sentence was changed to: "The two digits to the left of the line are the first two digits of the four digit number for the mountain's height (meters)" OR TO: "The two digits to the left of the line represent mountain elevation values in thousands and hundreds, respectively. (meters)" ... At least then the last sentence would be less annoying. Cheers. Change...?

Dhaulgiri must be parent of Annapurna, not Cho Oyu

As the subject says...

Cho Oyu is very far from Annapurna I. Since Dhaulgiri is across the next valley, it must meet the definition of parent.

10 Annapurna I 8,091 26,545 Annapurna Himalaya 28°35′43″N 83°49′11″E / 28.59528°N 83.81972°E / 28.59528; 83.81972 2,984 Cho Oyu 1950 36 (47) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cklatt (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not so. Parentage in the sense of topographic prominence---which is what is referred to on this page---is not determined by pure geographic distance. (It is not the same as "nearest higher neighbor", in other words.) See topographic prominence for the careful definition and further discussion. If you want to raise the larger issue of what kind of parent should be listed here, feel free. But given the notion of parent currently employed, Cho Oyu is correct as the parent of Annapurna I. -- Spireguy (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. They may be nearby, but the pass between them is at the north end of Mustang on the Chinese border, a mere 4594 meters ASL. There's nothing lower east of K2 until the far border of what used to be Sikkim. According to Viewfinder, Dhaulagiri's parent is K2 and they are connected by a 4810 meter pass at 32d8'N, 85d44'E which is in western Tibet. LADave (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ascents (attempts).

Can someone please clarify these numbers? The source is not to specific pages, and I'd think there'd be more attempts than ascents. Can it also be changed to "Ascent expeditions"? How about also adding an individual ascent column, e.g.

• Everest with 3681 ascents[1] (? climbersXLS) as of 2008-04-17.
• K2 with 302 ascentsPDF (298 climbersPDF) as of 2008-08-01.
• Kangchenjunga with 209 ascentsPDF (199 climbersPDF) as of 2007-12-31. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-30t09:43z

I would propose to simply remove this column, as it is outdated (source is from 2004) and often very unacurate.--Pseudois (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For all the work that I put into it, and the interest of showing that some mountains hardly ever and other constantly are ascended, it's a pity that the Himalayan Index hasn't been updated since 2004. I don't know of any other source of ascents. Otherwise, we have two alternatives: abandon the column, or make it even more explicit that these are "historical numbers" that also have the caveat of being wildly off for the most popular peaks. Jonathan/Viewfinder, would you know of another source for ascents and attempts? Afasmit (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that there is a lot of work behind, but as many numbers are inaccurate, I still think that it is better to drop this column. For peaks within Nepal (or at the border with), the Himalayan Database by Elizabeth Howley and Richard Salisbury has the most accurate and updated information, as virtually ALL expedition in the Nepal Himalaya are recorded. I just checked a couple of peaks and found the following errors: a) Gyachung Kang 14 attempts and 6 successfull expeditions (versus 5 and 3 in the current list); b) Jannu 50 attempts and 17 successful expeditions (versus 17 and 12 in the current list); c) Changtse 18 attempts and 9 successful expeditions (versus 9 and 9 in the current list). The difference with the Himalayan Index is not only because it hasn't been update since 2004, other previous expeditions are also not registrated. For peaks outside Nepal, the data are probably even much less accurate; just to give one example, Noijin Kangsang is reported with 4 attempts and 1 successful summit, while commercial operators offer this peak every year on routine basis, so the number of successful ascent is probably a few dozens. My conclusion: better to drop the column rather than keeping unaccurate information.

On a side note, I understand from the talk page that there was heavy discussions on keeping/dropping the "country" column due to some border dispute. I still do believe that reintroducing the "country" column would provide useful information for the average reader (may also be called "administrated by" or "controlled by" in order to keep sentitivities).Pseudois (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge request removed

The request to merge this article with List of mountains by elevation has been there a few months although I couldn't find the original requestor's comments on their reasons. While there is some duplication of table data in both articles, the "by elevation" list is strictly just a listing while this article goes into greater detail about the top 100. Therefore, I do not believe merging the two would be the right choice at this time. Perhaps in the future if the "by elevation" list gets too lerge and it is split into more articles, a merge can be revisitied. RedWolf (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Labuche Kang III/East

This article shows the first ascent of Labuche Kang III/East {#94) occured in 1987, but then has a question mark for number of ascents. The article for highest unclimbed mountain mentions this peak as "reportedly unclimbed". Anyone know whats going on here? Should we change the "1987" to "unclimbed" in this article? Racerx11 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the change because the article Labuche Kang states that it was climbed in 1987. However, since it was appearently only Labuche Kang I that was climbed (?) I have now undone my revision. Cheers --Anthony Blunt (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Makalu

I have started a discussion at Talk:Makalu on the elevation of the mountain. Different Wikipedia articles disagree on the elevation and I can't find anywhere where we provide a source for the figures. Road Wizard (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned under "references", for mountains in Nepal all peak and saddle heights we took from "Nepal Topographic Maps" by the Finnish Meteorological Inst. Afasmit (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

List formatted incorrectly

The top of the list on this article is formatted improperly. I would fix it, but I don't know how to do lists yet. AFisch99 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair2 PLW edit.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair2 PLW edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 2, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An aerial view of some of the world's highest mountains as viewed from the south. In the center is Mount Everest, the highest peak on Earth. It rises over Lhotse (#4), while Nuptse is the ridge on the left. The Himalayas, of which these mountains form a part, are home to most of the world's highest peaks.Photo: shrimpo1967 on Flickr; edit: Papa Lima Whiskey 2

Andes

Hi, anyone have knowledge of heights in the Andes, or is that on another list? I have seen two different heights for Huayna Potosí in Bolivia - 19,996ft and 19,974ft. What are the issues with the maps in Bolivia? --csearl

See Andes, especially the last two external links. Topo maps of Huayna Potosi show 6087m, but recently a German correspondent told me that last year he had measured it at 6097.5m±2m using GPS. Viewfinder 17:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So what are the net results of that survey, updated official heights for the peaks in the area? --csearl

I do not think he measured any other peaks; also I am surprised about the 2m accuracy claim. Viewfinder 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so is that latest GPS survey the new "official" height. That 6,097 figure puts HP right at 20,003ft, an important metric to some. --csearl

No, I do not think it is official, it is an amateur GPS reading. I think official is still 6087m. But it may be more accurate. Viewfinder 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With a peak elevation of 6,268 metres (20,564 ft), Chimborazo is the highest mountain in Ecuador. It is the highest peak in proximity to the equator. While Chimborazo is not the highest mountain by elevation above sea level, its location along the equatorial bulge makes its summit the farthest point on the Earth's surface from the Earth's center. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chimborazo Another consideration is how sea level is measured at points far from the sea.

Consider also this based on measurements in National Geographic Atlas of the World. Sixth Edition. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 1999. "The highest point is Mount Lamlam with an elevation of 1,334 feet. The Peak of a submerged mountain, Guam, rises 37,820 feet above the floor of the Marianas Trench, the greatest ocean depth in the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:A500:12BE:3488:252A:50C8:AAB9 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)