Talk:Mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mountains (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geography (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Redundant article[edit]

I think that this page is rather redundant with Colorado mountain peaks, since there's only one non-Colorado peak in here. In fact, with the current title (not something more specific such as "Table of highest Rocky Mountain peaks") it's a bit misleading, since many people will expect some sort of wider coverage of the range. There are an awful lot of not very notable summits on here by the standards of the entire Rocky Mountains. Is there an intention to soon include important peaks defined by other criteria, e.g. Mount Robson? If not, I would suggest deleting this page, and putting a note on Colorado mountain peaks about Gannett's being the lone non-Colorado peak in the Rockies top 100 by elevation. -- Spireguy 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is just a temporary title. I'm working on a table of Rocky Mountain peaks by prominence and a table of Rocky Mountain peaks by isolation. --Buaidh 02:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, definitely not redundant anymore. I'd be tempted to put the "major peaks" table first. It has more notability density. Is that table complete?
Also---you might want to check peaklist to doublecheck the high-prominence peaks. (Disclaimer: I am associated with the site.) -- Spireguy 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eminent peaks[edit]

I agree with the change from E+P to E*P. That's one way I often rank peaks for myself. -- Spireguy 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the top 100 peaks should still be included, but with an added list of other prominent peaks. However, even the first list, of the highest peaks is COMPLETELY INACCURATE. Colorado has 54 mountains over 14,000 feet, but after the top 20 something, mountains LOWER than this are listed in the top 100. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.171.117 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I put in a note explaining why the first list (by height) does not include many standard fourteeners, namely, that the list uses a large (500 meter) prominence cutoff. -- Spireguy (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In the second and third lists, shouldn't the mountain range for Pikes Peak be the Pikes Peak Massif (not the Front Range)? Eitoki (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Pikes Peak massif and the Longs Peak massif are considered part of the greater Front Range. The Mount Elbert massif and the Mount Massive massif are considered part of the Sawatch Range. The Blanca massif is considered part of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)