Talk:Mount Giluwe

Melanesia: Papua New Guinea Low‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as Low-importance).

Volcanoes High‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains C‑class High‑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 articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prominence

Where was this obtained from? Nomadtales 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the info from Peakbagger. Seattle Skier 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This note was on the page:

The prominence is given as 2,507 m, with the elevation of the saddle 1,840–1,880 m, on the "Papua New Guinea Ultras List". Peaklist.org. Retrieved 2007-03-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |abbr= ignored (help)

So mountain elevation - optimistic col elevation = clean prominence

Peaklist gives: 4367 - 1860 = 2507

Peakbagger gives: 4368 - 1880 = 2488

Peaklist uses an pesimistic col elevation which results in an optimistic prominence. WP:MOUNTAINS recommends using clean prominence. I removed the confusing note. –droll [chat] 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First ascent

Should this be first recorded ascent? If the climb is nontechnical then it is possible that there was a much earlier native ascent. I don't know how hard the climb is (that's another thing that would be useful here). Comments? -- Spireguy 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Giluwe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217041344/http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0016-7606(1971)82%5B1605:VAGLOM%5D2.0.CO%3B2 to http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0016-7606(1971)82%5B1605%3AVAGLOM%5D2.0.CO%3B2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]