Talk:List of Colorado fourteeners

Untitled

I created this page to have a convenient list of only the Colorado fourteeners. Feel free to comment about whether it needs to exist or not---but it is certainly useful for me in editing the individual fourteener articles. -- Spireguy 04:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, what's going on here? I think this move should be reverted because the original article that I created several months ago has a much better looking table, etc... and has been around longer. I haven't been on in a while because of school work, so I just saw this.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 03:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The tabular format of the other article was pretty good, although I would probably reverse the columns. In fact I would like to have more columns, e.g. Name--Ht (ft)--Ht (m)--Range or something like that. However it would make more sense to first change the list on fourteener and then export that. Obviously "Colorado" on this page is redundant, so that can be removed; that's an artifact of it still being new and me being slow.

Now, as for why I merged this way and not the other, despite the nice tabular format of the other one: (1) This page is derived from the fourteener article, so it is more consistent with it. (2) It has more information, specifically about marginal fourteeners. (3) The other page had bad links, some because of misspelled peak names ("Shivano", "Lindesy"). I think these are sufficient reasons; however the current article could certainly be improved. Again, I think edits (except for deleting "Colorado") should be done to fourteener and then exported to this page, to maintain consistency. -- Spireguy 13:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now it's in a tabular format: I redid the main fourteener article and then re-exported the list to this page. Note also that Elbert now has its new NGS value, see Mount Elbert for clarification. Hope this looks good; comments? -- Spireguy 05:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mount Shasta

Please remove Mount Shasta from your Colorado Fourteener list.

-Scott W. (Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado)

Oops! So much for careful proofreading. Done. -- Spireguy 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the recent revisions

Some comments/questions on the major recent revisions, done with good faith and obviously a lot of hard work, by Buaidh: (1) I'd like opinions about whether the table needs the prominence and isolation columns. They certainly add more information, but they make the table rather overwhelming, especially with everything in both feet and meters (which is in itself probably necessary) and with all of the inline cites (which may not be necessary?). Isolation, in particular, while somewhat interesting information, is not crucial, even to the issue of the cutoff, since the cutoff used is a pure prominence one. (2) I think it's a good idea to keep this table consistent in content and format with fourteener and list of California fourteeners, so the same questions apply to those tables as well. (Or someone can suggest why the formats should be different.) (3) A more specific comment about range names: some of the changes from larger to smaller ranges, such as the San Miguel Mountains instead of the San Juan Mountains, may make sense, but in most case I think the larger ranges that were in place previously are more informative to the casual reader. Three in particular stand out as ones I will go ahead and change: The "Long's Peak Massif", the "Pikes Peak Massif" and the "Sneffels Range", are Greg Slayden's inventions for peakbagger.com, not official names, and besides, they don't give any information, so I'll change those back. The "Crestone Group", which I'll change to "Crestones", is a dubious one; the usage is standard (if not official), but saying that Crestone Peak is in the Crestones is not that informative. Anyway, those are my two cents, I'd like others' comments, including especially Buaidh, of course. -- Spireguy 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern was to update all peak elevations from NGVD 29 to NAVD 88. I share your concern about data overload. Almost all data presented here is also available at the Table of Rocky Mountain peaks. I think prominence and isolation are interesting, but I could easily discard those columns.

The Pikes Peak Massif is a geologic term of great antiquity. Peakbagger.com actually includes Pikes Peak in the Rampart Range, which seems absurd. The Longs Peak Massif is more questionable, but it does group Longs Peak and Mount Meeker together. I think smaller range names are more useful to most climbers. The San Juans can include just about all of southwestern Colorado. I'm happy to go with consensus opinion. Other comments please. --Buaidh 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Colorado mountain ranges for my take on the hierarchy of Colorado mountain ranges and subranges. I would appreciate your comments. --Buaidh 22:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and for letting me know what peakbagger.com says about Pikes Peak. I agree that it is not in the Rampart Range. However I still think that "Pikes Peak Massif" is not useful since it conveys no information, even if it is a known geologic term. As to the general issue of large versus small ranges, I'll just note that Wikipedia is not meant for climbers, it's meant for the general public. That might tilt things toward a more general range name, even if it doesn't pin down the location as precisely. That's especially true if the more specific range name is currently a redlink. I'll take a look at Colorado mountain ranges as well and give comments. -- Spireguy 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The bible of Colorado mountaineering is the Guide to the Colorado Mountains written by Dr. Robert Ormes of the Colorado College and first published by the Colorado Mountain Club in 1952. Ormes described the major mountain ranges of Colorado and included the Pikes Peak Massif, the San Miguel Mountains, the La Garita Mountains, and the Sneffels Range. Ormes did not use the term Longs Peak Massif, but included Longs Peak and Mount Meeker in the Front Range. --Buaidh 04:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly if Ormes used the terms, they are verifiable. Thanks for looking them up; citing Ormes, and not just peakbagger, would be a good idea if we use the terms, especially Sneffels Range, which is not in the GNIS. However, I still think that "Pikes Peak Massif" and "Sneffels Range" convey no information, so I would still say that they are probably not the best ranges to use in the table. (Especially as redlinks.) -- Spireguy 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mount Bross

Mount Bross has a prominence between 292 and 330 feet (Roach lists it as 312 ft., for example). All other articles about 14ers give a range of prominences - by giving only the minimum, it seems like we're not providing all the information it could. I suggest putting Bross in the main list.

Irregulargalaxies (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean Prominence?

No one in Colorado uses clean prominence (the list should have 53 Ranked 14ers based on 300' interpolated prominence). This has been the convention in Colorado since 1968 (Bill Graves). The CMC list for 14ers doesn't rely on prominence, however, the accepted list of all 637 peaks 13,000' and higher is based on 300' interpolated prominence. Jkirk 14 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean prominence is merely a simple way to estimate true topographic prominence. For example, if a summit is 14,100 feet and the key col lies between the 12,000 and 12,080 feet topographic lines, the clean prominence is the difference between the summit and the higher topographic line, or 2020 feet. The true prominence is somewhere between 2020 and 2100 feet. Many mountaineers (and I) prefer to use the average of the bounding topographic lines for the key col, which yields a prominence of 2060 feet. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)