|Aconcagua has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 Height
- 2 Volcano??
- 3 which country?
- 4 Co-ordinate discrepancies
- 5 Is it a Volcano?
- 6 Ranking
- 7 Pronunciation people ?
- 8 The Aconcagua.
- 9 The Aconcagua River
- 10 External links
- 11 Pedro the Aeroplane
- 12 Small changes
- 13 Main Picture
- 14 Near Chile?
- 15 Youngest ascent
- 16 Move
- 17 Alternate spelling?
- 18 Why no "Mount"
- 19 Bad math in the number of climbers (cited source has the same problem)
IMO, the height of a mountain peak is one of the most interesting pieces of data, and thus IMO it should be one of the first things mentioned in the article, like "Cerro Aconcagua (xxxx m) is a mountain peak in ...". For some reason, height is not mentioned in any of the opening paragraphs, and it's the same with a lot of other articles on mountains, so I'm not going to just change this, but rather, I'll ask: why? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get this is a Vocal?? I believe it's not. --Marianocecowski 15:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Darwin wrote he "heard" it was active in Chapter 14 of his Voyage of the Beagle, but Chileans and Argentinians know otherwise (1, 2, 3). It may have been a lightning storm. I've searched everywhere and found no records of an eruption other than the one Darwin proposed. --Dr. Funko 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is a big infobox on the right that says "Mendoza, Argentina". :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
"This member of the Andes mountain range covers 59°-68° W and 32°-39° S with its boundaries marked by the Valle de las Vacas to the north and east and the Valle de los Horcones Inferior to the West and South"
Okay now that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Could somebody tell me what the hell it's meant to mean? Anyhow, I'm removing it regarless, as it is unintelligible.
I also had to change the co-ordinates as when mapped they were found to be wrong. The correct longitude is 70'00W not 70'14W; if the longitude of 70.14 were taken to be correct then the peak would be in Chile. I have checked Google Mapping and confirmed that the correct longitude is in fact 70.00W.
Is it a Volcano?
There are a number of sources on the net that either claim this mountain is an extinct volcano or of "volcanic origin". However a recent edit claims that "Aconcagua is NOT and never was a volcano". Is there any verification for this? Road Wizard 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the mountain consists of Miocene volcanic rocks, uplifted later to their present height. I've cited one source for it not being a volcano in our article; here is another site giving more detail. There is also some discussion of this in our Volcanic Seven Summits article. -- Avenue (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Puede ser un Volcan pero solo cuando haya un calentamiento de el sol muy fuerte ya que esta recubierto...Digamoslo nieve o hielo. :) 8D ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there a commonly accepted ranking for Aconcagua among the world's highest mountains? The list of highest mountains gives the 100 highest peaks in the world, all of which are in Asia. As Aconcagua is the highest mountain outside of Asia, it would be interesting to know its ranking. For example, if Aconcagua is the 128th highest mountain in the world, then the world's 127 highest peaks are in Asia, which is an interesting factoid. —Bkell (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you have said. Aconcagua IS NOT Ranked 2nd Bcartolo 18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The ranking depends on the cutoff (such as by topographic prominence) used. If one uses the 500 meter prominence cutoff used on the list of highest mountains, I believe Aconcagua ranks somewhere between 300 and 500. It would indeed be interesting to nail down the number and include it in the article. -- Spireguy 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Pronunciation people ?
- I don't do the IPA gibberish, but I can tell you in plain English: ah-cone-CAH-gwah. Colloquially, some also say ah-cone-CAH-wah, as if the "g" weren't there. Wahkeenah 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The Aconcagua is on the Argentinian side of the border with chile. Mendoza is the nearest province in Argentina which has become the launching point for endless streams of adventurers seeking to conquer this magnificent yet unforgiving mountain. Anyone seeking to climb this mountain should contact the Argentinian mountain experts in Mendoza. An internet search for mendoza aconcagua tours will return relevant information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
The Aconcagua River
The Aconcagua River doesn't rise in the Acongacua Mount. The whole mountain is in Argentina and the river is entirely in Chile so, they only share its names. Please see the spanish article of Aconcagua River where is a map with the river and the international border line. Regards Luiscardo 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Pedro the Aeroplane
Wasn't he in Saludos Amigos first?
The elevation was changed from 6962m to 6963m but no source was given. I don't think that the 2007 expedition surveyed Aconcagua, and unlike the previous Monte Pissis and Ojos del Salado elevations, the 6962m elevation had become well established and widely quoted. Please can we avoid making small (<10m) elevation adjustments each time there are new surveys, unless such changes are confirmed by multiple surveys, or are formally recognised by the appropriate national survey agency. Such changes generate undesirable inconsistencies within Wikipedia and among sources generally. Viewfinder 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The elevation of Nido and some other places are wrong in Secors book (-200m) and many other sources. The present numbers are based on several GPS measurements during 10 years of expeditions to the mountain. Various other sources exists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnlantz (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The main picture is somewhat confusing. The main mountain in the picture does NOT appear to be Aconcagua. This is obvious because all other pictures show the mountain as an elongated ridge with several peaks. PLUS just look at the timberline! Trees are almost at the top. This is a 22,000+ ft mountain. It looks to me that Aconcagua is actually the mountain in the BACKGROUND. Just compare it to the other pictures. I think this needs to be changed immediately. can anyone identify the actual mountain in the picture??
- Yes, this is suspicious, well spotted. There is no sign of the south summit or the Polish glacier. I replaced the image, but if anyone cares to attempt to identify the old one, it is here. Viewfinder 10:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm quite positive the old picture is Aconcagua as well. The picture is taken from the west, which is why you don't see the east-west summit ridge or the Polish Glacier. You can see the scree slopes from BC to Alaska/Nido to the left, and parts of the south face to the right. The green stuff that appears to be trees is just due to incorrect colors in the image. The new picture is not familiar to me, I assume it's from the Vacas/Polish Glacier base camp. I would prefer the old one to the new, but neither of them shows the "classical" view of the mountain. —Gsv 10:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gsv, thank you for your contribution. I looked at this again with the help of Google Earth and concluded that you are right. Infact it is from the south west, so the south and main summits line up and appear to be indistinguishable. The GE terrain is not 100% accurate due to the lack of a decent source topo map to fill the Aconcagua SRTM void, but I think this shows a reasonable likeness. The background mountain on the right fooled me for a time, GE is not good for longer distance stuff, but by moving the eye around a bit, I got this, and there is a reaonable likeness to the Cordillera del Tigre (HP Cerro Tambillo 5680m), 50 km to the north east, shown at 040 from Aconcagua summit here. Sorry about my prevoius post! Viewfinder 13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I was the original poster of this, and after reading your responses, I realized that you guys are correct. The color of the original picture was the main thing that was causing me confusion. Upon very close inspection, the "trees" are just rocks in shadow with a strange green tint (possibly an artifact of an older photograph scanned into a computer?). Converting the photo to greyscale instantly stops the illusion.
The area of Argentina is 2.8 million km². The summit of Aconcagua is situated just a few kilometers from the Chilean border. Hence the information that Aconcagua is "near the border with Chile" is not at all irrelevant.
NOTE: The Chile-Argentina limits are defined by the highest peaks of the mountains. Therefore, Aconcagua is technically the limit between Chile and Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not. The limit is defined by the water-divider line, and as a stream flowing east commences west of Aconcagua, the peak is wholly within Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- From what I'm seeing, it seems customary to call the Andes peaks by just their names and not with the prefix "Mount". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Acongagua" gets 9,900 hits on Google (compared to 2,000,000+ for "Aconcagua"), so maybe yes. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Why no "Mount"
Bad math in the number of climbers (cited source has the same problem)
According to the text, most climbers are from the US, followed by Germany and the UK. However, the text also states that 25% of climbers are Argentineans. Logically, it follows that more than 25% of climbers are from the UK, Germany, and the US each. Together with the Argentineans, this adds up to more than 100%.
Clearly, Argentineans must be among the top three nationalities of climbers if the 25% is correct. However, since the cited source contains the same mistake, it is not clear whether they rank first or not.