Talk:List of highest mountains on Earth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Please add Country Names

I know Kashmir is divided between Pakistan and India but we want to know where most of the mountains are located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:1380:CFC:8DE7:BEA1:C3A5:5C23 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

These were in the original article but they were deleted because of endless edit warring among nationalist POV pushers. Viewfinder (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense- All mountains that require Pak visa should be listed under Pak, and all that require Indian visa should be listed as India. That's how the the individual articles are and that's how its considered in standard country articles as well. Put it in and lock all nationalist POVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:1380:CFC:D451:B0BF:5625:E2C4 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the regions (and/or countries) that each mountain is located in should be listed in the table. In cases of dispute, we can simply add a note. To completely remove relevant information because a pack of juvenile monkeys can't agree is silly. We don't diminish articles because of edit wars... we protect them. Wake up people.

I will let this comment stand for a awhile and see what, if any response there is. But, in the absence of any consensus not to do so, I am going to boldly add this information. - ^theWOLFchild 05:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue may be slightly more complex than you anticipate. For example, the borders with China are also disputed at many places. It's been very peaceful for 7 years, and very few complaints or requests have come this way, so you may also overestimate the desire for country designations. However, the last version with country names was from July 2008 and you're welcome to reintroduce something close to that, if you're up to defending them. In that version, we'd used the designation Kashmir (check the disheartening map on that page) without a country designation for the many mountains around the Siachen glacier, where there is not even such a thing as a "line of actual control". You'll find that many people don't like compromises. If you're tired of it, we can revert to the current, blissfully non-controversial version in a jiffy. Afasmit (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't we should limit or remove information just because 'some people don't like it'. But thanks for the reply, let's see what anyone else has to say... - ^theWOLFchild 03:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We should have places like Kashmir as their own section, perhaps with footnotes saying "(claimed by China)" or "(claimed by India)", or "(claimed by Pakistan)". Basically, in places within Kashmir, we'd do Kashmir as the country, with a footnote saying (claimed by Pakistan and India). DN-boards1 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

New section for countries, fully objective

In light of the various controversies surrounding the sovereignty of the mountains in the Kashmir region of the Indian subcontinent, I have created a new section for "countries" that is fully objective, and respects this situation. Peaks that are disputed are nevertheless shown to be in the country that currently exercises sovereignty over them, no matter the nature of the dispute. I have, however, added a note next to each disputed peak in the "country" section that will state that the peak is disputed, and explain why it is disputed.

For peaks that are disputed between India and Pakistan, and fall within the Gilgit-Baltistan region, I have added this note: <(example)ref group=dp>In Pakistan's disputed Gilgit-Baltistan region, claimed by India as a part of its Jammu and Kashmir state.</ref>

For peaks that are disputed between India and China, and fall within the Trans-Karakoram or Shaksgam Tract, I have added this note: <(example)ref group=dp>In the Trans-Karakoram or Shaksgam Tract, ceded by Pakistan from its disputed Gilgit-Baltistan region to China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, claimed by India as a part of its Jammu and Kashmir state.</ref>

For peaks that are disputed between Bhutan and China, I have added this note: <(example)ref group=dp>Wholly claimed by China as a part of its Tibet Autonomous Region, disputed by Bhutan.</ref>

This took a lot of effort, so if anyone has an objection to any part of it, I would like to request that you kindly refrain from reverting or removing anything without first voicing and discussing your concerns on this page. Thanks.

Regards, Tiger7253 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that;-) I liked my attempt at neutrality a decade ago as well, e.g. by using Kashmir as a location, but the number of back and forth claims by India and Pakistan minded editors drove us to eliminate countries altogether. I have to say I liked the status quo as very few complains were made over the years.

The situation is a bit more complex than you've currently depicted in the Kashmir, as the Siachen Glacier area has been under Indian control since 1984. K12 (61), Saltoro Kangri (31), Sherpi Kangri (74), and Ghent Kangri (69) are on the border of Pakistani and Indian controlled regions, while Singhi Kangri (108), Teram Kangri III (73), Teram Kangri I (56), and Apsarasas Kangri (96) are on the border of Chinese and Indian controlled regions. All three may have a claim at Sia Kangri (63) .... To be objective, you should probably make three different (extra) notes for those 9 peaks, with a link to the Siachen Glacier page. Afasmit (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Afasmit: Thanks for reducing the endless clutter of notes to just three sentences (I had no idea how to do that). You have a point about the Siachen Glacier, although I'll let someone else do that because I'm currently tired of this article after all I just did! Tiger7253 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a try. But we have our tolerance limits.... Viewfinder (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Afasmit: Thanks for adding it. I have to say that the Bhutan/China dispute is the most confusing/complicated of all - it's just two or three peaks but it's especially hard to keep track of the claims in that area. Tiger7253 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that the manual of style discourages uses of flags in table such as this. To quote:

In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

My interpretation is that the purpose of this list is to show mountains, not countries (directly). I suggest that we convert the flags to simple wikilinks. It would also unclutter the table, which I think is getting too wide.

What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: I don't mind. Tiger7253 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, better without flags. Afasmit (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Prominence

That great figure of the concept of topographic prominence might be even more understandable if a topo (top view contour lines) of the same were provided. 2602:30A:2CFC:B1A0:FC96:2E34:849B:FFC4 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

K2 parent Everest?

Everest is K2's parent Mountain? I don't think so...unless Everest has misteriously moved to Karakorum. David 11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Everest is K2's parent mountain. See topographic prominence, especially the definitions and parents sections. Viewfinder 11:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Although Everest is K2's parent, they have been distant for many years. They don't talk, they don't write... Their relationship is icy. Wahkeenah 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition of parent for the purposes of topographic prominence does not include distance restriction. The parent of Denali is Aconcagua. You might like to suggest a better term. Viewfinder 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're talking icy. Wahkeenah 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David, there needs to be some common sense applied here. While the definition of prominence (at least, the one given here) does not technically include distance the usage of the measure clearly indicates its importance. There needs to be a clause stating something along the lines of: "For the parent relationship to hold the lowest point between the peaks must be above the base of both mountains." Delius1967 13:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The notion of "parent" does raise a lot of issues, some of which are addressed at topographic prominence. It is true that when the parent peak is far away from the child, the relation is more tenuous (as humorously emphasized by Wahkeenah above.) However the definition used here has several advantages. It is the simplest definition; it requires no complicated further clauses, as suggested; and every peak has a parent. If one added the clause suggested by Delius1967, then K2 would have no parent at all. Identifying the parent as Everest gives more information. Also, the notion of the "base" of a mountain is not well-defined, so adding such a proviso to an otherwise clear-cut definition would be very problematic. -- Spireguy 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for putting the comment in the table entry for this. It certainly prompted me to look instead of blindly changing the entry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.196.8 (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When a definition, however convenient, yields ridiculous results, the definition must change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.194.17 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are all not considering that topics such as "parent" and "prominence" have different or multiple meanings. Even Wikipedia's own page on topographic prominence lists 3 different ways to measure the parent peak, such as encirclement, prominence, or by line. The real goal is to determine both prominence but also proximity for sub-peaks to determine which are independent peaks. Nobody would confuse K2 as a sub-peak of Everest, it is in an entirely different range. Entirelybs (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The way I understand it, in this case, K2's parent is Everest by all three of the different definitions you mention. The note you have added in the article mentions specifically line parentage. The definition given at linked article states:

Line parentage, also called height parentage, is similar to prominence parentage, but it requires a prominence cutoff criterion. The height parent is the closest peak to peak A (along all ridges connected to A) that has a greater height than A, and satisfies some prominence criteria.

By this definition Everest is certainly the closest peak to K2, along all ridges connected to K2, that has a greater height than K2. It is the only peak higher than K2. The only other criteria, is that it must satisfy some prominence cutoff. By convention and its special case definition, Everest is the most prominent peak on earth, so it would certainly meet any such minimum prominence requirement.

What is happening here is that most readers have a preconceived notion of what the term "Parent peak" should mean. Unfortunately the actual definitions of parent peak and the resulting parentage for certain peaks, often contradicts this intuition. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What pedantic enforcement of this term has done is render it utterly useless. A relevant and useful measurement would be to use something that defines a secondary peak of the same mountain. Listing anything that definitively connects K2 and Everest or Denali and Aconcagua is completely pointless. Unless it can be defended as useful it should be deleted from the list.<120.17.65.50 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)>

there is no possible definition than can be formed using objective criteria that excludes Everest as a parent Peak to K2. Just try it: First - adding "in the same range" to any of the prominence definitions will bring up questions of what a range is. now I know it's not really mentioned on Wikipedia, but I have seen sources that list Karakoram as subrange of Himalayas - this will rise another discution, and won't remove the quetion. It will only rise questions what is a separerte range, with answer always being arbitrary rather than objective. So maybe distance? but it gets worse - what distance would be acurate? and before this - what unit it should be mesured in? Kilometers? Nautical Miles? the same problem would be adding the criterium of how low the lowest col shuld be. All we can do is accept the definition, and live with the fact that, when applied to absolute extremes, it gives us somewhat counterituitive results simply because it's the only way definition can function with objective rather than arbitrary criteria 159.205.255.217 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

Sin hg de sai —197.99.96.14 (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If this was a serious request for a coordinate fix, there doesn't appear enough information here. Afasmit (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm closing the "request". If the OP thinks that there is an error, he or she will need to provide an explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You might as well rename this to list of highest peaks in the Himalayas, it's useless

For anyone coming here and expecting to see where Kilimanjaro, Denali, Rainier, Chimborazo, etc rank this list is absolutely useless. Is there another page without all the sub-peaks from the Himalayas? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If you'd expand this list Aconcagua clocks in at #188, battling it out with Ogre II for that position. This list does not contain "sub-peaks", unless you consider the Matterhorn a sub-peak of Mont Blanc. What you're looking for is either the list of mountain ranges, which gives you a top 10 (Denali is at #10, the rest is not there) or the list of peaks by prominence. The latter shows mountains that are separated by more than a 2.8 km dip from the next higher mountain. You can sort it by height: Chimborazo is #28, Denali #29, Kilimanjaro #31, and Tahoma is #63. With a little effort, you could have found these lists under the heading see also on the page.Afasmit (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat, I think this list might be what you are looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_by_elevation Vontheri (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If you come here looking for where Rainier is, you'd be disappointed. By the rules of this list, it's only the 17th highest mountain in the US. Even if you crank the prominence requirement to 1000 meters, Aconcagua, tallest outside of Asia, still only hits #115. At which point there are only 14 mountains in Colorado. To get Rainier to be in the top 50, you'd have to crank the prominence up to 10,000 feet (3000 meters just barely doesn't cut it), at which point there's 86 mountains in the world, and of the 10 in the US, six are in Alaska, two are in Hawaii, one is in California, one is in Washington, and zero are in the US Rocky Mountains. That's quite an extreme definition of "mountain".--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Link for 41 is wrong, should be this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daxue_Mountains

---

98.151.119.44 (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fixed now. Afasmit (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)