Talk:List of Alpine peaks by prominence

Mountains: Alps Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Alps task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Parent peaks?

Why is Mt. Everest mentioned as the parent peak of Mont Blanc? Ed Sanville 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The highest col between Mont Blanc and a peak higher than it is at 113 m and is somewhere in Eastern Europe (Belarus, perhaps?). There are a number of definitions of "parent" (see here), but one of them is that it is the highest peak that can be reached without going lower than that col (113 m in this case) which is, for Mont Blanc, Mount Everest. I hope this is clear. --Stemonitis 08:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that does make sense... just making sure it wasn't some subtle vandalism. Ed Sanville 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mont Blanc prominence col lies somewhere along the Volga-Baltic canal in Northern Russia, at approximately N61/E37. Its exact location is impossible to determine, at least impossible from the information that I have. Viewfinder 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff is pretty crazy and new to me... do they use computers to locate these obscure cols? Ed Sanville 13:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be clarified with links to scientific papers/calculations. Postrediori (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the Volga-Baltic canal is the Mont Blanc col is upheld by [1]. I do not know of any formal scientific papers on this subject, but peakbagger has long been accepted an acceptable source on matters relating to topographic prominence. Viewfinder (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth adding to the text as a source. It looks like the coordinate lies on the Kovzha River. Postrediori (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a stretch of flat canal, that includes large lakes, that lies at a constant 113 m. I have re-checked the above mentioned coordinate, it is along what would would have been a slow flowing river before it was canalised. There are two outflows from this stretch of canal are about 100 kilometres apart. To find the true col, it is necessary to determine the lowest point from where, before the canal construction, a falling raindrop would have had an equal chance of ending up in the Baltic Sea or the Volga river. I do not think the above coordinate is an accurate measurement of that point, but I do not think it would be possible to determine it accurately. Re-examining the topo map, I would place it within a few kilometres of N 60:49 E 37:05. Viewfinder (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've checked there was a lot of construction in the area in XIX and XX centuries with Mariinsky Channel and New Mariinsky Channel. I've added PeakBagger as the source. Maybe adding a note that it is somewhere in Vologda Oblast along the channel. Postrediori (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought someone was messing around too. I'm not sure I completely understand the meaning of 'parent' [[User:JeffKaos71 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Listdev tag

I removed this, because (a) the list is complete and accurate down to 1500m, and (b) the sources are copyrighted, and, apart from the presentation differences and the odd tweak, this list is a carbon copy of its sources. The general extension of this list, without the permission of the source copyright holders, would be improper. The development tag does not appear on other Wikipedia prominence lists, so why should it appear on this one? Its restoration is provocative. I have deleted it again and I will contest this issue if necessary. Viewfinder 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a combative attitude for a small point like this. The fact that other lists are not marked in the same way is not really relevant; we should not repeat common mistakes simply because they are common. If you really feel strongly about it, then we can leave it off (it's not that important, after all), but the list is fundamentally incomplete. The whole range of the Alps contains a vast number of peaks, and this list only contains a tiny proportion of them. We have taken an abritrary cut-off of 1500 m, and listed only those peaks above it. A peak with a relative height of 1499 m is to all intents and purposes just as important as one at 1501 m. So the list is incomplete, but if you don't want the tag, so be it. No provocation was intended. --Stemonitis 10:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more Alpine peaks than anyone is likely to count. I have catalogued more than 20,000, see [2]. So 44 only a small proportion. But if you call up [3] you will see that the list to 1500m is well spread over the entire range (unlike the popular "4000ers" height list), and 1500m is therefore an appropriate general cutoff point. A list to 1500m labelled "incomplete" tends to imply that there are missing peaks above this level. If you wish to add a few more less prominent but well known peaks (like these are added to the worldwide list) then that is OK, but I don't think this list needs further general expansion. Viewfinder 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: anyone who does think this list should be expanded (say to 100 peaks), and wishes to use the list to 589m as a source, can e-mail me. We can discuss the matter, but there are issues involved which I am unwilling to discuss on this site. Viewfinder 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I cannot see any reason for maintaining two separate articles listing European ultras. Regarding the extension of the Alps prominence list to 600m on Wikipedia - possibly contrary to my comments in thr previous section - this is OK with me, if they are broken up into regions, e.g. Dolomites, Maritimes, Pennines, etc. Viewfinder (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok to merge, the only reason why they should be kept separate is if the Alpine list is extended. --Mark J (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could be merged to have a complete List of European Ultras page and then have a seperate list of either the top 100 or down to 600m for the alps.--Greatestrowerever (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge? - this article is in Alpine Peaks, a large subcategory of Category:Alps. And if extemded down to 600m (see above) further subdivisions by regions/ranges of Europe will be required Hugo999 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The alpine area has a characteristic of not being an island... if you merge it with island peaks it will be a strange result anyway.Caumasee (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about ...?

It has a prominence of more than 2000m.--94.69.128.204 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it falls outside the Alps, Taygetus is listed at List of non-Alpine European Ultras. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Jungfrau? It is known as an isolated peak in the Bernese oberland. That is what has lent it its fame. Does it miss one of the criteria for this page? BeeTea (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does miss the criteria. It is not isolated; high ridges connect it to the higher Finsteraarhorn. Viewfinder (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location of the pass/col

Maybe it would make things more clear if the table would contain an extra column with the location/name of the pass/col. It would help to understand the word "prominence" as well as emphasizing the most important Alpine passes. Especially in the Alps with most of the peaks and cols quite near to eachother this would make sense. Then it would look somewhat like this:

No	Peak	Location	Elevation (m)	Prominence (m)	Col height (m)	Col location	Parent
2	Großglockner	Austria	3,798	2,423	1375	Brennerpass	Mont Blanc
7	Monte Rosa	Switzerland	4,634	2,165	2469	Great St Bernard Pass	Mont Blanc

Thanks. --85.146.209.49 (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very nice proposal. If you have the capacity to add this information, please do do, it would be very much appreciated.

I did not understand the "Col" column directly from the article. I had to look on this discussion pages to grasp that it is really a clearly defined altitude. Before that I was thinking it might be altitude or difference in altitude between the col and the peak mentioned. I was also not sure that it has (at least theoretically) a clear definition as there are many cols around a peak. The Wikilink to the col article did not really help solving these questions. Your proposed addition, however, would be a great help. Especially it would ring a bell for my as to why the Mont Blanc col is so low. Tomeasy_{T C} 08:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the column and will work on the list soon. I am the IP who started this discussion 3.5 years ago. - FakirNL (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Island Parent

I suppose, the island parent of the following mountains is also MB:

Priel, Bondone, Birnhorn, Polinik, Birkkarspitze, Tosa, Zirbitzkogel, Kesch

All these mountains are connected to their prominence parent by a low col. Following the ridge further towards MB, all the next cols are higher:

Priel - 810 - Dachstein - 859 - Grossglocker - 1375 - MB
Bondone - 501 - Ortler - 1952 - Bernina - 1815 - Finsteraarhorn - 1994 - MB
Birnhorn - 969 - Grossglockner - ...
Polinik - 1205 - Grossglockner - ...
Birkkarspitze - 1180 - Zugspitze - 1212 - Finsteraarhorn - ...
Tosa - 1652 - Presanella - 1883 - Ortler - 1952 - Bernina - 1815 - ...
Zirbitzkogel - 894 - Grossglockner - ...
Kesch - 1916 - Finsteraarhorn - ...

This is not true for:

Ortler - 1952 - Bernina - 1815
Antelao - 1529 - Marmolada - 1212
Grintovec - 852 - Triglav - 810
Presanella - 1882 - Ortler - 1952 - Bernina - 1815
Montasch - 1156 - Triglav - 810
Tödi - 2044 - Finsteraarhorn - 1994
Grimming - 833 - Priel - 810
Combin - 2797 - Rosa - 2469

Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stustnop (talk • contribs) 07:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this subject, but after some thinking I guess you are right. The island parent has a clear definition, i.e., the highest peak that can be reached by not descending below the key col. You looked at all the key cols of different peaks, and as long as they are adjacent and ascending, you deduce that the higher col is still on the same "island". I agree to this reasoning.

I will add MB as the island parent for the cases you indicated as such. If somebody knows the topic better and can proof me wrong, feel free to revert.

Unfortunately, the definition of the "prominence parent" is less clear to me. Perhaps that has someting to do with arbitrarily chosen regions to partition the alps. (Why is Finsteraarhorn the parent peak Zugspitze? Just because it is closer to Zugspitze than MB? Why not Grosklockner then which might be even closer?) Since I obviously do not understand this term, I leave the "prominence parent" as it was and just add MB as "island parent". Tomeasy_{T C} 09:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I agree that the notion of island parent is perfectly clear, while the definition of prominence parent is more obscure. Finsteraarhorn is probably regarded as such in relation to Zugspitze, because their connection follows partially (until the triple divide of Swiss cantons TI/UR/VS) the same ridge as the one to MB, and the col is very likely also the same (west of Fernpass, according to peakbagger.com), but it is nearer than MB. Direct distance to Grossglockner is surely shorter than that to Finsteraarhorn, but this might not be the case for the connecting ridge which has to go a long way around Tirol and Engadine, while the col is very likely also Fernpass. This might be the explanation, but I'm not sure about that. Stustnop (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine prominence rankings

Several of the top peaks in this list contain the link ranked Xth in the Alps in their page's infoboxes, see Finsteraarhorn for an example. I wish to remove this wikilink from the individual article's infoboxes for no other reasons other than it will look better with a cleaner appearance in the infobox (aesthetics), and we don't do it for other ranges (consistency). Any objections? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree that the Finsteraarhorn wlink is untidy and needs cleaning up but most others are imo OK. Do you want to remove the height and prominence rankings from K2 infobox, for example? Or the prominence ranking from Càrn Eige the second most prominent summit in the UK? Viewfinder (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Remove the link at Càrn Eige but keep the links at K2. I see your point and had forgotten/wasn't aware of the UK rankings. The overall prominence and height "world" rankings are fine. In fact, I have added many of those myself. I am only taking about removing the Alpine prominence rankings. I think there would only be about ten or so pages affected, (the top ten peaks in the Alps by prominence), but I would have to double check exactly how many. The rational is we dont have prominence nor elevation rankings specific to the Andes or Himalaya ranges and unless Im mistaken it would not be desirable to have those. The Alpine ranking is uneeded clutter imo.

Also it would only be that link I'm removing; and if that link is the only link to this list, then I will be adding it to the See Also section or somewhere else in the article.

Personally I would like to remove any county, region or range rankings from the infoboxes, with the only exception being world rankings for elev. and prom.

If you feel this is unacceptable, I can live with keeping the links and I will instead go through and format them a little better. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remain of the view that if it is OK to keep the K2 wlink then it should be OK to keep the Càrn Eige link. I see where you are coming from re clutter, but I do not think we have reached the stage where this is a problem. Where we have lists of mountains by height or prominence, I think it is OK to link to them. If a summit is the fifth highest or most prominent in the UK, for example, for some of us it is interesting to be able to see which summits are higher or more prominent. The link text is small and reasonably discreet, so unless it is repeated in the main text, the information can be easily ignored by those who are not interested. As far as I know this issue has not been raised before. Viewfinder (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. I'll just tweak 'em a little then. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Blanc col location and height do not match

The col height for Mont Blanc is given as 113m, and the col location is Little St Bernard Pass. Is it just me or it's an obvious nonsense? Johnnyjanko (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The col for Mont Blanc is at 113 meter somewhere in Russia. This is changed very often, presumably because it's very counterintuitive. - FakirNL (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That a claim may appear counterintuitive to some people does not necessarily imply that the claim is incorrect and definitely does not imply that the person making the claim is a "moronic troll" or "stupid". Please can we keep our edit summaries civil. Viewfinder (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]