Talk:Trisul

India: Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Mountains Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

South side ascent

I added a revision regarding alternative ascents. Prior to my edit, the text said that the west side was first ascended in 1976 and that the south side was ascended at some unspecified time, without any citation given. I revised to write that the south side was ascended in 1976. This was based on the first-hand testimony of Pavle Jevremović, who participated in the 1976 Yugoslavian expedition and reported about it in his 2001 book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.186.90 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revisions

Two notes on the recent revisions I did: (1) I added a {{fact}} tag to the claim about the porters, partly because it didn't make sense as written: porters don't climb mountains, they just ferry gear to the base camp. A clarification and a more specific citation would be welcome. (2) I deleted the long list of routes, since it was not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Since it was just a list of names, with no context or explanation, it would be inscrutable to the average reader. Also, it was largely redundant for Trisul I, since it was mostly slight variations on the first ascent route. I think that the current amount of information in the climbing section is appropriate, but if there is notable information that should be added, feel free. -- Spireguy 02:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Summit

The name of the summit, may better be changed to Trishul, as it sounds the exact pronounciation in Hindi. Although it is evident that Trishul may be coinciding with the armour of Hindu Lord Shiva. That way the name may be changed to Trishul summit, Trishul mount or Mount Trishul, Trishul, Himalaya, etc. Trisul may be redirected here. --आशीष भटनागर (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article should correspond with the most common version of the mountain's name in English. As far as I know, when it is rendered in English, it is usually as "Trisul", so I would say that the name should stand. Feel free to produce sources that say otherwise. -- Spireguy (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me it doesn't matter what its commonly referred to as in english, Trishul is a hindi word and its english rendition is Trishul. We must use a 'h' here.--Mpant05 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, feel free to produce reliable sources confirming that the name of this particular peak is rendered, in English, as "Trishul." -- Spireguy (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trishul risk level?

I think the article could discuss if this peak if considered particularly dangerous or only average risk among the 7km mountains? For example:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/hungarian-trekker-goes-missing-from-mt-trishul-search-op-launched/articleshow/71380436.cms

Hungarian trekker goes missing at 5000 meters in Mt Trishul avalanche, search op launched. 80.99.111.252 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]