Talk:Ultra-prominent peak

Untitled

A severe edit like I just made begs for an explanation; here it is. I deleted the material on "the top three" because: much of it was factually wrong; much of it was grammatically incorrect; and what was left over duplicated information already in the relevant articles, which the interested reader could click on. The list itself, naturally, duplicated the top three entries in List of peaks by prominence.

A bigger issue is whether this article should exist at all. The concept of "ultra" is one of recent and limited usage, so it is not clear that it satisfies the requirements for notability, namely two independent, reliable, verifiable sources. Note that there is only one reference. Disclosure: I did some of the early work that eventually became the ultras list on peaklist.org, and I think it's an interesting concept and an interesting list. But it perhaps needs to wait for a little more general acceptance before being notable by Wikipedia's standards. It might be better to merge this into topographic prominence or just delete it. Feel free to disagree/comment. -- Spireguy 03:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The page is not really breaking new ground, in that there are sufficient links to peaklist from other pages. There is another source, [1] (mine) but the independence of this may be questioned, and there is a notability question. Still, as another of the authors of the ultras list, I hope and believe that it will become more notable, in which case a page similar to Marilyn (hill) would be in order. There has been interest in the list at Google Earth. My vote would be to retain the article but then I am not a neutral party. Let's see what others say. Viewfinder 11:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just come across this article, and I'm not sure the subject is sufficiently notable. I think the information could be used for a new section in topographic prominence, but the concept of ultras is basically restricted to a single site and, apart from listing them, there's not a lot to say about them. They're big mountains; they occur chiefly in mountainous areas; er...

Another possible location would be in the introduction to the list of peaks by prominence. Perhaps both. (Also, the current title has too many capital letters and one hyphen too few, but that's just nitpicking). --Stemonitis 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This subject does not require a separate article. The entire concept of an 'ultra' appears to be based solely on the internet source cited, which is in itself of questionable encyclopedic value; it seems at best a methodological tool for investigating prominence. All of the matter contained here could easily be accommodated under a subheading in the parent article on prominence. There is no need for such minute sub-divisions when the article in question is so flimsy. Gunstar hero (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While retaining my openness to persuasion on whether there should be an ultras page, I must point out that, although the ultras are listed on a single unifying site, the lists of ultras were compiled by several researchers, and their primary value is not as an investigation tool; they provide material for prominence based peak bagging, or anyone looking for high points in geographical areas. Viewfinder (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose that there is now a consensus to merge this article into either Topographic prominence or the List of peaks by prominence. I would propose the latter. I'll do it myself if there is no objection. -- Spireguy (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting notability/merging/importance

From what I see above, I still see a consensus that the Ultra concept is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article, or at best, is only barely notable enough. It's my fault that I didn't go ahead and do the merge I proposed back in February, but that option is still on the table.

However, that contrasts strongly with the recent re-assessment of this article as High importance, as well as the widespread insertion of the concept into mountain infoboxes. The authority cited in the edit summary for this talk page was Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Assessment, but I think that has been misinterpreted. The importance criteria there were designed (I believe) to apply to individual mountains and ranges, not to whole lists of mountains or the concepts used to generate them. Certainly, the list of Ultras contains many, many hugely important mountains, but that does not make the concept notable. I can think of many arbitrary and non-notable ways to produce a list including many individually notable peaks. To make this concept notable requires that the concept itself be subject to the usual criterion: two independent, reliable sources. To make it have High importance, and to make it appropriate to insert into the infobox for each individual Ultra peak, would (I think) require even more.

Note that I'm not particularly against the notion of Ultras: I've always liked prominence and have personal connections to most of the experts, and I like the Ultras list (mostly). But I still don't think that the concept of Ultra is of the level that has recently been claimed for it. Comments, please. -- Spireguy (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I must declare an interest: I am one of the principal authors of the lists of ultras. If they appear on Wikipedia then it will help to promote these lists. We all want to see our work promoted.

Much as I would like to, I am unable to defend the "High Importance" claim - at least not yet. Infobox insertions for each individual peak may also not yet be appropriate. But given that the prominence field, and lists of mountains by prominence, have long been accepted by Wikipedia, it seems logical that we should accept more prominence lists for more specific parts of the world (e.g. Europe, Africa, Antarctica). For the purposes of many of these lists, a 1500m prominence cut-off level seems reasonable.

Given the level of antipathy towards prominence, I do not think there should be information about prominence featuring prominently in the individual peak pages; it should be confined to the infobox prominence field where it can be easily ignored by those who choose to ignore it. But within that field, alongside the prominence value and in small text, there should be links to worldwide and local prominence lists; these are becoming quite common and are not being opposed. I think that the case for the "ultra-prominent peak" page, linking these lists, can me made. If a determined editor sets out to get it deleted on the grounds that the ultras are non-notable, he may succeed. But I would regret that, because I don't think the ultras page is doing any harm, and there are a significant, albeit small, number of Wikipedians and hikers who are seriously interested. It seems to me that Wikipedia would be a good repository for the ultras lists, where anyone can update them; recently, the author of peaklist has been slow to update it per new information. I see no reason why the ultras should not grow in importance at least to match the Marilyns; they are, after all, ten times as prominent and not confined to one country! Viewfinder (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to high after reading the criteria on the wikiproject page, on reflection, and after checking the rating for munros i think that maybe mid importance is more correct for this page. I accept responsibility for addind ultra to the listing section of a fair number of ultras. This is again in an effort to achieve consistency with listings such as Munro, Marilyn, Corbett etc.. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the importance to "Mid". I pretty much agree with Viewfinder's feelings on the matter, so I won't press for deletion/merge of the article or removal of the infobox info. Since this article still needs another source, I'll provide one now. -- Spireguy (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to my above comments, I have noted that there is an infobox listing to Ultras at Mount Everest, which is widely seen. Unless I have missed something, I cannot find any objection to this, at Mount Everest or any other page about an ultra. Therefore I suggest that the adding of "ultras" to the "listing" field in the infobox has become accepted and established. But keep this within appropriate specific infobox fields; don't add "(mountain peak) is an ultra" to article prose. Viewfinder (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Map Deletion

I've listed the map for this article for deletion in commons since it has a suspect license. If anyone watching this article would like to provide more details about the map then it may not get deleted --Ozhiker (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the basemap needs to be clarified, but the source of the data shouldn't be relevant; one could use even copyrighted data to produce a totally different product, e.g. a map, correct? -- Spireguy (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how the point data was applied to the base map. If a whole copyrighted data file with the point locations listed in it was processed automatically by a program which gave the new map as an output, I would think it would still be covered by the copyright. For example: If you took a copyrighted vector map file from a mapping agency, and produced a map with a different projection, the output would still be covered by the copyright --Ozhiker (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope this has now been cleared up over on Commons. There is no copyright violation with the map as the data used to generate it was open-sourced. — ras52 (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Aaron Maizlish, the author of the main (and almost sole) source for this article, has pointed out that large portions of the text of this article were lifted verbatim from his Ultras page. So all of that is in violation of copyright, and hence needs to be rewritten or deleted quickly. Sorry for not checking myself sooner. -- Spireguy (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have all of the text that seems to have been copied. I think it's best to start from scratch rewriting those parts, rather than attempting to modify the wording of the existing parts. — ras52 (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

There seem to be some discrepancies between the Peaklist page for Mexico and the list currently at Most prominent mountain peaks of Mexico. Not only are most of the promiences different, but the Wikipedia list includes two extra summits! Mark J (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most prominent unclimbed peak

I revised the part about the likely candidates for most prominent unclimbed peak, based on the detailed discussion in Helman's book. (Disclosure: I am cited therein as the originator of the search; however Helman went much further.) The earlier claim in this article that Mount Miller (in Antarctica) was a contender was based on a misreading of the Maizlish reference about Antarctica, which only claims that Miller is the most likely contender (if Mount Siple has had an unrecorded ascent) for most prominent unclimbed peak in Antarctica. -- Spireguy (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the mount miller you have linkied to the same one mentioned in the book? It has an ascent listed in 1996 which would make your source well out of date. Also it only has a prominence of 1616 m which is considerably less than Gangkhar Puensum for example. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the Mount Miller in question is in the Antarctic; the one in this article is in Alaska. However, Spireguy is quite right that the information was wrong. I clearly misread or misunderstood the peaklist page when I wrote that sentence. Sorry for the confusion. — ras52 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad for wikilinking Miller above (now corrected) without realizing that, of course, the Alaskan peak would be the target article. Sorry! -- Spireguy (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How many Ultras?

The numbers are going a bit haywire at the moment! I've added the South American ones to finish the listing off, and noticed that the intro says 1,524, the distribution section says 1,519, but adding up the numbers in all the lists gives 1,514 (unless I've miscounted). Which is correct, and does it mean there are some peaks missing from the lists? Mark J (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be some duplication, on peaklist some ultras appear on more than one list. The exact number will fluctuate as new data becomes available, I think a few ultras here and there have been added or removed but the overall total not updated. By the way, yesterday I discovered a new ultra on East Greenland which had escaped my notice earlier. I intend to re-examine and re-count all of them soon. Viewfinder (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest point on a great circle

Portal talk:Geography#Highest point on a great circle is my new concept for a mountain rating system. Jidanni (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry?

A cursory Google couldn't find any mention of an earth scientist sharing Stephen Fry's name. Jogloran (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the reference given in the article. Here, for your convenience.--Gorpik (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is "Ultra" capitalized? It doesn't seem to qualify for any of the reasons listed at MOS:CAPS. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is really odd. Even the term "Ultra" is more confusing than to say "ultra-prominent summits" - I would even argue WP:PRECISE as Ultras leads to a term for futbol fans. – The Grid (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Confusing wording

There is confusing, if not actually incorrect, wording in the basic definition. "The prominence of a peak is the minimum height of climb to the summit on any route from a higher peak, or from sea level if there is no higher peak." The confusion is in the defining in terms of "a higher peak". Surely "ultra-prominent" is not defined in terms of a path from some other higher peak. If it is, then it needs more explanation to make sense to the lay reader.--Ericjs (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

After reading Topographic prominence, I understand how this wording is not incorrect, though I think it is still confusing to the lay reader. The concept seems a bit tricky to define succinctly but technically correctly. I may take a crack at it. Ericjs (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Mont Blanc and Mount Olympus are not amongst 'the world's highest mountains'

Listing Mont Blanc and Mount Olympus as being amongst 'the world's highest mountains' is weird and misleading in the 'Distribution' paragraph. There are many thousands of mountains higher than these.

I don't know what someone was trying to say here but this needs rewriting. Most famous, perhaps? 2A01:CB15:B1:B100:4DA1:F786:6698:9FB9 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Do submarine ultras exist?

Or ultras that reach from under sea level and rise above the water surface. Helium4 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Who knows? ParizakiIfantis (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)