Talk:List of highest mountains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mountains (Rated List-class, Top-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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


I have not checked everything on this list but my in initial impression is that it is very good and does not contain many of the errors on other internet lists, especially the falsehood that Kula Kangri is in and the HP of Bhutan. I particularly like the map. I am not sure who the authors are but well done anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-11-09t10:18:57z (talkcontribs) Viewfinder

I am sorry about the FLC failure. This seems to mainly design related, and I am no expert on this. Map download time could be improved by whiting out irrelevant areas but that would probably annoy the judges even more. Re accuracy, many of the prominences and coordinates seem to come from [here] so if any of these are wrong then sorry! But I think they are generally accurate to 10" and are better than the coordinates [here], where even Everest is 20" out and many are much worse. Some of the topographical info on that Alpine-club site looks to be poorly researched, for example it has 6950m for Zangser Kangri which is poppycock and the coordinates are equally crazy. (obviously no contributor has bothered to check public domain SRTM data or a GPS reading by two Germans who climbed it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-11-10t15:34:07z (talkcontribs) Viewfinder

Thanks. Most of this stuff is from a list going down to 6600m that I put together a few years back, but all prominence info of >1450m prominence mountains I indeed simply copied from your viewfinderpanoramas site (referring to the general prominence site, as I'm sure you'll soon put your data there). The location of the peaks was fine-tuned, if necessary, using the terrafinder site and topo maps. I think an accuracy to at the least 5" is possible, except when there are clouds in the way of course. - Afasmit 01:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I will be publishing similar lists to the above, to 500m of all 7000m+ areas quite soon, which would help, but the problem is SRTM no data areas. For high prominence areas these were fixed by 3D bridging vectors. To do this down to 500m would be possible but I decided instead to try to fix these areas by more thorough means (see [here]), which I need to do for my panoramas. It is taking time, but I am getting there. Still, if it would help with FLC acceptance (I'm not sure if it would) I should be able to find more accurate prominences and coordinates for the <1500m currently listed by lower tech means. Viewfinder 15:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, your expert input would be wonderful. It would be fun to have this to be the most accurate "heightist" list on the web. - Afasmit 01:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to clean up the coordinate layout, it is a mess. The problem is (a) superfluous spaces and (b) a hard carriage return after the longitude degree symbol. I tried meddling with the Wiki "coor dms" template page, this cleaned up (a) but not (b). Finally I decided to revert all my changes. Are you familiar with these coordinate templates? Viewfinder 01:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Significant digits, new peaks[edit]

There are some peaks in various other lists that didn't show up here; the numbering wasn't consistent; and the peak heights were given with great precision despite the warning in the intro.

I updated the intro a bit, added notes that it was not quite a complete list, and capped the significant digits at 3.5 (meters) and 4 (feet) for all but the top ten.

Ideally, we would have ranges for heights for each peak; since not all peaks have the same variance in height-measurements. For the time being, rounding to the nearest 5 makes it clearer that these aren't precise numbers.

Missing peaks that I added : Zemu Gap Peak and Kangbachen (needs a Kangbachen article). +sj + 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to revert these changes, for two reasons.

(1) Kangbachen has not been included, and should not be included, because its prominence is only 122m and it is therefore part of Kangchenjunga, not a separate mountain. Similarly, if there is a 7780m summit in the Zemu Gap area, it has a similarly low prominence and is also part of Kangchenjunga. A prominence of 500m is required for full inclusion in this list of mountains, although a few such summits with slightly lower prominence have been included but have not been ranked.

(2) There may be some logic to the rounding up of summit altitudes on the basis of their accuracy, but this is not topographic practice and no authority that I know of does this. Viewfinder 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

sj: There are currently some inconsistencies in the numbering because I haven't updated the figure yet. With the help of some experts in the field, Viewfinder and I have checked the data carefully, resulting in some peaks moving around on the list. We're almost done. Once the numbers stabilize, I'll update the numbering and figures. As mentioned in the intro, some other "inconsistencies" are intentional; some interesting peaks that do not have 500 meter prominence are included but are not numbered. Afasmit 15:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the entries for the peaks in the Batura Muztagh. I have created pages for Batura Sar, Shispare, and the Batura Muztagh, so I linked to those pages. I also fixed the ranking around 23-26 to be consistent with the current heights (I now see that these are still in flux, but it was bugging me). I changed a couple of things: Ultar is now listed as Ultar Sar, which is the more current name than Ultar II, and I changed the number of ascents to 2, since the HI lists two separate ascents in 1996 (perhaps by different groups in the same expedition; I can look it up in the AAJ if necessary). Oh, and Viewfinder, one guess as to who I am: --Spireguy 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Afasmit please explain why you undid the changes about Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir is the official name of the disputed entity and still used by India and Pakistan officially. Kashmir is the name of the Vale in the middle of the state, there is no official political entity named only Kashmir. Indeed, none of the peaks mentioned are in the vale itself, the pakistani entity is split in two i.e Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Northern areas. Please, stick to official names. I would suggest changing it to Northern Areas where ever appropriate. How would someone find K2 if they trying looking for it on a map in Kashmir(pakistan) on a map of Pakistan for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Other project : alternate spelling redirects[edit]

We need 4-5 alternate spellings for many of these peaks. Anyone interested in helping with that subproject, might get in touch with a larger moutnains project and try to formulate policies and sources for various spellings. I have a hard time figuring out if uncategorized mountains already exist somewhere in wp or not... +sj + 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to go about this is to create redirects to existing articles. I've been doing that to get rid of "broken links" in the list. Eventually I may get around creating stubs for the remainder. The issue of the preferred name for a peak, to be used as the name of the article, is tricky and probably unresolvable for many peaks, given the frequent location of summits on borders, names in the local language or the offical language of the country. Afasmit 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Bei Tip"?[edit]

"Bei Tip" is listed on this List of Mountains in Pakistan as "Bei Tip - (7912 m) - Karakoram, Masherbrum Mts.". Apparently no information is available online for any peak named "Bei Tip".

Is it considered a separate peak? If so, it should be listed in List of highest mountains, otherwise it should be removed from the List of Mountains in Pakistan list as well. Please comment.Waqas.usman 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Waqas! To be listed here, a mountain should have a prominence of at least 500 metres, although some well known peaks have been listed but not ranked. Bei Tip has a prominence of about 100 metres. It is about 0.5km north of Gasherbrum IV. Viewfinder 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Viewfinder, thanks for the info. Do you know more about it? Please write about it on Bei Tip. Also, what is your source? Google search on "Bei Tip" literally gives no results related to this peak, except for the wikipedia article on List of Mountains in Pakistan. Waqas.usman 03:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no further information about Bei Tip, other than the source 100k Chinese topo map by Mi Desheng which I am not free to upload. I do not think it needs a Wiki page of its own. Viewfinder 08:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Bei Tip is quite minor and doesn't need its own page. As Waqas has discovered, it is very obscure. Also, its entry on the List of Mountains in Pakistan is inaccurate, having it in the Masherbrum Mountains; I will change that to Baltoro. -- Spireguy 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

two mounatins are #15![edit]

Hi, would someone mind explaining to me why two mountains (Gyachung Kang and Gasherbrum III) are both written as number 15? Thx Jonathan talk 30px 16:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Only one mountain is number 15 - Gyachung Kang. The other is unranked because it has insufficient prominence to be classified as a separate mountain. Viewfinder 16:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I also had that reservation.Waqas.usman 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you identify these?[edit]

Please take a look at these unidentified peaks at If you recognize any of these, please update their description and category and notify me. Thanks! Waqas.usman 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir border dispute[edit]

Although there is no defined border between India and Pakistan that is internationally recognised in this area, it has become the established practice on Wikipedia's mountain pages to regard the line of control as the border, rather than fill mountain pages with links to complicated detail about the situation. Anyone who disagrees with this practice should add their views to the talk pages rather than edit the main article. Viewfinder 11:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:K2:

I have reverted the edits by I reverted the earlier edits because they unnecessarily re-emphasised that K2 is in Pakistan, when infact, although it is on the Pakistan side of the line of military control, it is claimed by India. It is already stated in the article that K2 is in Pakistan. Viewfinder 16:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems that some Pakistani editors are unwilling to accept the above and are continuing to revert to a version which has K2 wholly in Pakistan. I do not know if this reflects the official Pakistan position; I realise that these areas contains many unsettled territorial claims. But as far as I know, every Wikipedia article that lists K2, and every other mountain list that I am aware of, has K2 on the Pakistan-China border, so listing K2 as being on the Pakistan-China border has become established Wikipedia practice. Therefore editors who wish to challenge this should do so on this and other talk pages, and not make unilateral POV edits to the main articles.

By the way, I have reverted several pro-Indian POV edits to this and similar articles, and will continue to do so. Viewfinder 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Following these comments, some edits to K2 and other pages were made by User:Deeptrivia, adding footnotes about Indian claims. In response, I added the following to User Talk:Deeptrivia:

Hi, I refer to your reference edits to K2 and some other Kashmir mountains. While what you added is absolutely correct, I am concerned about the proliferation and multiple repetition of these references, on both sides of the Kashmir line of control. Pakistan claims many places currently under Indian administration. K2 is listed as being in Pakistan on many Wikipedia pages. Please see Talk:List of highest mountains#Kashmir border dispute. Viewfinder 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

A response was posted on my user page User Talk:Viewfinder.

I fully agree that it's a bad idea to clutter these pages with details of disputes that few people will be interested in. I feel however, that adding a ref-style note, which just adds a superscript number on the main sentence, and puts the explanation on the bottom, shouldn't distract an uninterested reader too much, and at the same time conform with NPOV. Simply saying these peaks are in Pakistan/India without any hint of the dispute (well, even "dispute" is somewhat POV because India maintains there's no dispute, just illegal Pakistani occupation), will be too much of a POV. Also, we have to put the disclaimer on all these articles simply because most readers will only be landing up on one odd article, leaving with the impression that there's no dispute about the concerned mountain being in Pakistan/India. We can't expect the reader to somehow reach the sole page with the explanation. Looking at it this way, I don't quite know how to avoid the repetition of this note. deeptrivia (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Points taken, Deeptrivia, but, rightly or wrongly, the practice of regarding the line of control as the border, and listing these peaks in Pakistan/India accordingly, without footnotes, has become established in Wikipedia, and I do not think it should be changed without more discussion. Therefore I remain unhappy about your edits, and I may consider reverting them to prevent them from snowballing throughout the vast disputed Kashmir region, and onto mountain pages in other parts of the world.

What do other mountain editors think? Perhaps this discussion should have its own page, but I am not sure of the proper procedure for creating such a page. Viewfinder 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I notice the recent change on Changtse from "Khumbu" to "Rongbuk". Neither is really correct: the range name is the Mahalangur Himal. Any objections to my making the change for the peaks in this range (Cho Oyu through Makalu)? -- Spireguy 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No - but I changed the elevation back to 7543m, correct on Chinese snow map and Guide to Mountaineering in China. I also changed the elevation on the Changtse main page. Viewfinder 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but I'm wondering why you trust the Chinese map more than the Washburn map. That has always seemed to me like the gold standard for the Everest region. -- Spireguy 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that the Washburn map was the source of the 7583 m elevation. The authors of the highest mountains list regarded the Nepal Finnmaps and Chinese snow maps as the local gold standards. I don't have the Washburn map so I cannot comment on it specifically, but I will get it and then comment further. I would be interested to know if its authors carried out their own accurate survey throughout its coverage area, or if they copied data from older surveys. As far as I can tell the Washburn name seems to be synonymous with the National Geographic society, who seem to me to trade on their past glory and give seriously in error elevations for Orizaba (5747 m) and Khardungla (5682 m). See my comments on Talk:Mount_Everest#Measurement and Talk:Khardungla_Pass (section 6). Viewfinder 07:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No no no! You need to revise your opinion of Bradford Washburn. Your general opinion of the National Geographic Society is, I think, well founded, and Washburn has long been associated with the Society, but do not associate him with their errors. Washburn has a very long history of making excellent, careful surveys and maps. The Everest map was based on new aerial surveys and careful cartography. (Washburn himself did some of the aerial photography, in an open plane, in his 70's.) I am not completely sure that all of the spot elevations on the map come from this survey, or whether they used previous spots; however I would trust their judgment about those elevations as much as or more than I would trust the Chinese map. And yes, you must own this map. You will see how much care was taken on this project. -- Spireguy 16:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to point the finger at Washburn personally. No further comment until I have the map. Viewfinder 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several NGS maps of the Everest area in the catalogue. Can you give the title and scale of the map you recommend? Also did Washburn get permission to overfly Chinese territory (i.e. Changtse) in the 1980's, as implied? Viewfinder 16:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if there were any restrictions on the overflights. I attended a talk by Washburn dealing with the project and I don't remember him mentioning it one way or the other. My feeling is that the flights were over both China and Nepal, but I can't be sure. However Changtse is close enough to the border that I would think that good observations could be made from the Nepal side.
The title of the map is "The National Geographic Map of Mount Everest", Second Edition, 1991, ISBN 3-85515-105-9. It might also be labeled with "Boston Museum of Science" and "Swiss Foundation for Alpine Research," which were more closely associated with the actual production of the map. The map also has detailed route and ascent information, BTW. -- Spireguy 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I now own the above Washburn map (WM) and I have studied the Changtse area, and found that it is fairly consistently 40m higher than the Chinese Desheng snow map (DM). Not surprisingly, there is no SRTM data for Changtse summit, but I have checked out Beiao La, between Changtse and Everest, 7020m on DM, 7066m on WM, and Rapu La, 6501m on DM, 6548m on WM, against SRTM. Rapu La, in particular, is a broad saddle where I would expect SRTM to be very accurate - and it is near enough spot on with the Desheng map. SRTM comparison of Beiao La and Khartaphu Peak also supports the DM. I therefore conclude that the DM is almost certainly more accurate for Changtse summit also, and for Chinese territory generally.

I would be careful about assuming that the La altitudes are correct. Often they are choked with ice and snow, especially, Beiao La/Chang La/North Col. It is also a fairly large area. From various photos over the years you can clearly see that it is always heavily corniced with ice and snow 60, 70 or 80 feet in height. I can't see how any accurate surveys could be done until the snow and ice are completely melted. So I can't fully agree with your conclusion here. csearl 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTM)
I have been working with SRTM data for some time now, and, unlike satellite and photogrammetry surveys, SRTM is good at measuring the heights of perennial ice fields. Of course, ice thickness rises and falls, so permanent high precision ice cap elevation measurement is impossible (ditto summit of Mount Everest). But the fact that two modern and completely separate sources, SRTM and Chinese mapping, are significantly closer to each other than to Washburn, strongly suggests that they more correct, despite the latter's reputation. Despite their implicit claims, I don't think that Washburn's guys got adequate access to the Chinese side, or if they did, they surveyed it less accurately than the border and Nepal side. Viewfinder 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed on the WM that permission to carry out photoflights was obtained from the governments of Nepal and China, and they were carried out at 10,500-13,000 m ASL in December 1984 by Swissair (this seems to contrast with Washburn open plane) and that the cartography was carried out by the Swiss Federal Office of Topography. But it is also states that some points of control were taken from earlier mapping. It seems likely, therefore, that the Changtse summit height was based on earlier mapping.

Conclusion: the Chinese Desheng snow maps, where available, should be the gold standard for Chinese territory, and the 7543m elevation for Changtse summit should stand.

Aside: the Chinese claim to have surveyed their entire territory at scale 1:50,000. Unfortunately only small amounts have been released, in the form of the Desheng maps and local topos in the Chinese Mountaineering guide, and some spot heights published by Ken Nakamura in the Eastern Himalayas Japanese Alpine journal. But these agree closely with SRTM, which suggests the Chinese survey work is good. If China ever releases its DEM data generally, it would certainly enable me to fill many of the SRTM data voids more accurately than I am able to do from Russian topos, which are currently the best and only detailed general topographic source available for Chinese territory. Maybe some day.... Viewfinder 16:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Viewfinder, what are the given heights then of the South and North Col of Everest? Are the heights on their pages South Col and North Col correct?
  • South Col: Chinese map 7,907m, Washburn map 7,906m. No SRTM data. This is a border col which Washburn's guys likely to have surveyed well.
  • North Col (Bei'ao): Chinese map 7,000-7,040m; Washburn map 7,066m, SRTM 7,000-7,010m.
  • Rapu La (NE col)aa: Chinese map 6,501m, Washburn map 6,548m, SRTM 6,505m.

There is room for improvement to both the North and South col page heights, if you have no objection I will edit them. Viewfinder 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


There are still some outstanding inconsistencies in this list with other Wikipedia pages. I hope to clear this up soon. Viewfinder 08:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Precision elevations[edit]

Some time ago I restored the elevation of Everest to 8,848m. The reasons are stated in at Everest#Measurement. Since then it has been changed to 8850 m several times and changed to 8844.43 m several times, usually with no explanation at all. I have reverted all these changes and I will continue to do so until a convincing case for a new elevation is made. There have been several recent surveys of Everest and K2 claiming precision to less than a meter, some giving higher figures than the traditional 8,848m and 8,611m, others giving lower figures, and the spread of these exceeds their claimed accuracy. They should therefore be regarded as publicity seeking and should not be used until a clear pattern shows any of them to be more accurate. In reality, the Himalayan geoid has not been determined with sufficient accuracy to allow such precision. A further point with regard to the recent Chinese survey: according to the Mount Everest page, the geologic height was measured, not the height including perennial snow and ice cover. The logical extenstion of this would demand that the elevation of Mont Blanc (which varies seasonally) be lowered by 10-20m, Khan Tangiri Shyngy to 6,995m and the South Pole to around or below sea level. Until several independent measurements show a consistent error margin, the elevations of Mount Everest and K2 should stand at 8,848m and 8,611m, and confusing alternatives should be rejected. Similarly establlshed elevations of well known mountains should also stand until it becomes clear that new elevations aremore accurate. Viewfinder 10:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Stem and leaf plot[edit]

Imo, this is not appropriate although I am open to persuasion. It is initially unfamiliar and confusing for readers, it will take readers time to understand, and is possibly original research. If these sort of stuff is appropriate for this article, then why not add it to many other numerical lists? For now, I will put this section back to the bottom of the list; if other readers think it is helpful then it can stay, but personally I would rather it were deleted or replaced with a more conventional type of graph or plot. Viewfinder 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Viewfinder. I decided to add the stem and leaf plot as the size of the table is overwhelming, and it provides a good summary/introduction to it. If it is deemed suitable for this list, then I see no reason why it could not also enhance other numerical lists, I admit that it is currently an innovation on Wikipedia.
Some sort of statistical summary of the list is desirable, and the stem and leaf approach is advantageous with respect to a more conventional type of graph as it is both graphical and textual, has a high information density, and allows links to each mountain (and as a side effect, mouseovers allow you to quickly run through the names of each mountain).
I can see that it could be confusing to some readers, but I think an encyclopedia is unique in that readers come to it with an expectation of learning something new, and are thus more open to informative suprises of this nature.
Here is a link to extracts from Edward Tufte's book envisioning information on stem and leafs page 46 page 47 that might be helpful ISBN 0961392142. Temporarily, I would ask that you return the plot to it's previous position, if only to expose more people and get a better guage on what people think of it. --Muxxa 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Muxxa. Yes, the idea is quite interesting and innovative, but I am not sure that Wikipedia is the proper place to push this sort of innovation. I would rather see a bar chart which everyone will recognise. It is in the page index so it should be seen by enough people as it is. Let's see what others make of it. Viewfinder 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I never weighed in on this originally, but I like the stem and leaf plot (see also my response to a recent deletion below). It's not OR, since it just conveys the same information (the distribution of heights in the list) in a different (and completely standard) form. It's not a strange or unnecessary innovation, it's good use of a tool from descriptive statistics. -- Spireguy (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, anyone have knowledge of heights in the Andes, or is that on another list? I have seen two different heights for Huayna Potosí in Bolivia - 19,996ft and 19,974ft. What are the issues with the maps in Bolivia? --csearl

See Andes, especially the last two external links. Topo maps of Huayna Potosi show 6087m, but recently a German correspondent told me that last year he had measured it at 6097.5m±2m using GPS. Viewfinder 17:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So what are the net results of that survey, updated official heights for the peaks in the area? --csearl

I do not think he measured any other peaks; also I am surprised about the 2m accuracy claim. Viewfinder 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so is that latest GPS survey the new "official" height. That 6,097 figure puts HP right at 20,003ft, an important metric to some. --csearl

No, I do not think it is official, it is an amateur GPS reading. I think official is still 6087m. But it may be more accurate. Viewfinder 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With a peak elevation of 6,268 metres (20,564 ft), Chimborazo is the highest mountain in Ecuador. It is the highest peak in proximity to the equator. While Chimborazo is not the highest mountain by elevation above sea level, its location along the equatorial bulge makes its summit the farthest point on the Earth's surface from the Earth's center. Another consideration is how sea level is measured at points far from the sea.

Consider also this based on measurements in National Geographic Atlas of the World. Sixth Edition. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 1999. "The highest point is Mount Lamlam with an elevation of 1,334 feet. The Peak of a submerged mountain, Guam, rises 37,820 feet above the floor of the Marianas Trench, the greatest ocean depth in the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:A500:12BE:3488:252A:50C8:AAB9 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Zemu Gap Peak[edit]

I reverted the addition of Zemu Gap Peak. Not only was the addition put in place of the header row of the table, it's very unlikely that this peak has 500m of prominence. If anyone wants to discuss this please do so here. -- Spireguy 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

German 150k Sikkim topo map suggests it has no prominence at all, merely a shoulder on Kangchenjunga's SE ridge, although I don't doubt that it looks prominent when viewed from parts of Sikkim. Some <500m prominence summits are included but not ranked, but I don't think this one should be included. It's not a separate mountain. Gangkhar Puensum is generally considered to be the world's highest unclimbed mountain. Viewfinder 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a page that lists unclimbed subsidiary (but named) summits, expanding on Highest unclimbed mountain? (Or maybe the list could go there?) For example before Lhotse Middle was climbed, it was notable as the world's highest unclimbed named summit, even though it did not have enough prominence to be an independent peak. (I'm not suggesting the creation of separate pages for all such summits; any info about them could go on the parent peak's page, as in the case of Lhotse Middle.) The UIAA list could be a start. -- Spireguy 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

K2 parent Everest?[edit]

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 (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When a definition, however convenient, yields ridiculous results, the definition must change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 meStalk me 22:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Elevation inconsistencies with mountain pages[edit]

I am concerned about some 8000er discrepancies with the individual mountain pages. I propose that, unless there is clear contrary evidence, the heights given on best topographic maps should be used. For Nepal, the official Nepalese Finnmap series is the best; for other areas, the Chinese Desheng Maps are the best. Viewfinder 12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kashmir border dispute, continued[edit]

Afasmit please explain why you undid the changes about Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir is the official name of the disputed entity and still used by India and Pakistan officially. Kashmir is the name of the Vale in the middle of the state, there is no official political entity named only Kashmir. Indeed, none of the peaks mentioned are in the vale itself, the pakistani entity is split in two i.e Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Northern areas. Please, stick to official names. I would suggest changing it to Northern Areas instead of Kashmir(Pakistan) where ever appropriate. How would someone find K2 if they trying to look for it on a map in Kashmir(pakistan) on a political map of Pakistan for example when no such official political entity exists. It would even be more helpful to list the regions they are located in i.e Ladakh, Baltistan, Gilgit etc. but that is not possible here. So, the bare minimum we could do is avoid creating confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The current labeling has been in place for 2.5 years, seems as neutral as possible, and is explained in footnote 2. I had actually considered using only more refined regional labels, like Gilgit etc., instead of country labels, but most readers probably would like to see something they are familiar with in the table. Like the wikipedia article, Kashmir refers to the geographical region of greater Kashmir, which includes all regions disputed between Pakistan, India, and China. Note 2 also explains why mountains around the Siachen glacier are labeled neither India nor Pakistan. My experience is that if I leave your edits, a person "on the other side" will not only undo them, but go a step further.Afasmit (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to continue to challenge the version that has stuck for 2.5 years then please do so here, not by continuing to edit the main article. See WP:BRD. Viewfinder (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone from the other side would change Nanga parbat from AJK to J&K or the location of k2 for that matter. Its just creating confusion where there is none. This is not an article about neutrality, the purpose here is to provide acurate information about the accurate location of certain physical features and the present political entities they are in. Kashmir region exists only as a convenient term for policy discussion it has nothing to do with actual location of places and peaks. There aren't many refrences to K2 in Kashmir or Siachen for that matter, we're pointing out the exact location and under what administration or political entity at the present time the other side can diagree all they want, but you can't move K2 from where it is today or saltoro kangri for that matter. Also, if someone points out with good reason that it is inaccurate they can edit it. Just because it has stuck around for 2.5 years doesn't make it correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


  • sign your posts using four tildes
  • supply a reliable source in support of your claim that the Siachen summits should be placed within India
  • read WP:BRD and do not edit the main article again until consensus has been reached.

Viewfinder (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The regional indications are only a general guideline and should not be used to find the peak on a map. You'll find the (exact) location without any confusion by clicking on the coordinates and entering, for example, google maps. You can zoom in to within a few meters.
The use of the historical Kashmir region is appealing for its recognizability (because of the use of its name for the conflict, far more people have heard of Kashmir than of Gilgit-Baltistan or Jammu) and its apparent neutrality (though if it turns out to be offensive to most local people it probably should be changed). Another benefit is that the historical region contains the high mountain ridges, rather than border on it. As an extreme example, Sia Kangri at the tip of the Siachen glacier is, according to probably most, on the border of Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu & Kashmir, and Sinkiang, which is a mouth-full to put in one cell. Others see it just on the border of Gilgit-Baltistan and Sinkiang, a few see it on the border of Gilgit-Baltistan and Jammu & Kashmir only, some Pakistani see it entirely in Gilgit-Baltistan, and you changed it to be located entirely in Jammu and Kashmir (India). I venture that the label "Kashmir" with the associated footnote is not so bad. Likewise, Sajjadbeeg just changed K2 and all other mountains that are on the most commonly accepted border of Pakistan and China within Gilgit-Baltistan, as if that political region overlaps part of Sinkiang.
With the Tibet issue in the news there should be more coming elsewhere. Perhaps we should take the entire "region" column out. Afasmit (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How others see it, doesnot warrant the confusion in an article about physical features to be vague about who administers it at the present moment. Indians are allowing expeditions to Siachen peak as of 2007, obviously they are the ones who control it, Other wise Pakistan will be giving those permits, not even Pakistan disputes the location and control of Siachen peaks(or for that matter Indians in case of Northern Areas) so why should this article? Political dispute is a different matter altogether.

"The use of the historical Kashmir region is appealing for its recognizability"........This is your POV not the ground situation. If for example if someone wants to access teh peaks in Northern areas, they have to obtain permission from Islamabad and not the Azad Jammu and Kashmir administration while for the Siachen expeditions there is an involvement of both India and Jammu and Kashmir governments.

Please can you supply a reliable source in support of your claim about Indian de facto control of Siachen Peak and the access permit situation there. Viewfinder (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The key dispute here is over whether this article (or by extension any geographic article) should focus on a statement of who is de facto in control of a certain feature, or instead use a more neutral descriptor, which does not explicitly give such information. I think that both ideas have merit. The anon IP editor notes that, for example, someone interested in climbing one of these peaks (or in just knowing about the details involved in climbing) would like to know the de facto control. (However, such info could be relegated to each individual peak's article.) This editor is correct in saying that putting the de facto control info would be more specific than the current statement.

However, that does not make it obvious that the current statement is inappropriate or that the article is being needlessly vague. The main "fact on the ground" here in Wikipedia is that this is a hugely divisive issue, causing many, many edit wars on various pages, and a solution that is relatively stable and has a wide consensus is a very valuable thing. Making the information more specific in the way that the anon IP editor suggests is an invitation to that kind of edit warring. I gather from the editor's comments that the editor believes that few people would quarrel with a statement of who is in de facto control of each peak, since that is different from a statement of ownership or a judgement on the legality of such control. I strongly disagree, based on much experience on Wikipedia with these peaks. Any location information that assigns a peak to one political entity or the other is seen by many readers, and many editors, as an implied statement of de jure ownership. It's very hard to make that distinction at all, and it's impossible in a tiny box in a table.

Note that cartographers often go out of their way to avoid giving the impression of siding on one side or the other of such a dispute. (When they are not careful in this way, it has been called "cartographic aggression".) I think that the use of "Kashmir" in this article is in that tradition. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sept 17(AFP): Pakistan protested to India on Monday over its plans to open up the disputed 6,300-metre (20,800-feet) high Siachen glacier to tourists, saying it could hurt an ongoing peace process. Foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam told a weekly briefing that India's deputy ambassador had been summoned on Monday to receive a “strong protest” over the Siachen plan. September 17, 2007

The news certainly has reached Pakistan but NOT Wikipedia. The use of Kashmir as some kind of tradition is bizzare. This is NOT the place to provide vague or wrong information because certain people would edit it to their liking. That is plain wrong, it can always be edited back. de jure ownership??? but none of the parties dispute the de jure ownership of the peaks in each other's territory, there is a dispute about the ultimate settlement of ownership of the entire territory itself, that is why they have line of control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again the current control/location/adminstration of the peaks or physical features is NOT disputed but the ultimate political status of the the former territory which has always been the case. Since this is an aticle about physical features it should go by the actual ground situation, this is an encyclopedia afterall. The explanation about disputes belongs on the pages that detail the territory itself. Now someone has changed it back to the highly inacurate version that was challenged, where some peaks are listed under Kashmir(pakistan) instead of northern areas which is the accurate description as of now and others mostly on the Indian side say just Kashmir. Again where is the Kashmir administration??? or the political entity of "Kashmir", in which country??? as of today there is Azad Jammu and Kashmir(Pakistan), Northern Areas(Pakistan) and Jammu and Kashmir(India). Under which jurisdiction does the peak K2 fall??? Kashmir(Pakistan)??? well there is no such entity as of 2008. There is Azad Jammu and Kashmir but then K2 region is not administered by Azad Jammu and Kashmir administration hmmmmm maybe someone forgot to mention Northern Areas, THAT is where K2 is!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the above editor has persistently refused to sign his or her posts, despite repeated requests, does not help him or her to be taken seriously. It is evident from the above discussion that the changes to the main article that the above editor is making are opposed by the article's main registered editors, who have given their reasons for opposing them. I have therefore reverted these changes, and will continue to revert them until there is a consensus in support of them. Viewfinder (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm not a registered user so what would signing my posts accomplish??? SineBot is there to make sure the edits are accounted for and attributed to the right IP or user.

Now, for the article's "main registered users"! Are they the final authority on this matter??? and they can over rule any edits however correct and closer to facts they maybe because they have a certain POV that is in conflict with factual accuracy, also the most important fact is that the article is giving out inaccurate and vague information about pysical features. Consensus can never be found if people repeatedly ignore to see the logic and cling to certain POV's that might result in false and inaccurate information being put out. If someone points it out then what should be done? keep on putting out wrong info until every single one of them thinks otherwise? If someone is a registered editor, that doesn't make them immune to be challenged or corrected. How can you have consensus on something whose current location is being described here? really!!! The information here should be based on factual accuracy, for example K2 is under the admin of Northern Areas and Siachen is not adminstered by Northern Areas or any entity called "Kashmir". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re signing your posts, see WP:SIG. The reasons for retaining the use of the correct geographical (albeit not political) region "Kashmir" have already been explained. There is no final authority on this matter. Not even three registered editors who have been contributing to this article since its start - and definitely not one unregistered editor who cannot even be bothered to type in four tildes to sign his or her posts. Viewfinder (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove the "regions" column?[edit]

The last couple of hundred non- vandal edits have mostly been modifications of the countries' and regions' names. Since the political location is, for everyone but the people in the involved countries, the least notable thing about a mountain and the exact physical location is taken care of by the coordinates with their links to maps and satellite images, I'm considering simply taking the column out to make an end to an endless maintenance job. For the sake of each nation's pride, one can make lists for each country, as has been done for most already. I'll wait for a couple of weeks though to see if there are convincing arguments against it. Afasmit (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Viewfinder (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, practically speaking, although I do think it's nice to have an at-a-glance way to see generally where a peak is (without clicking). E.g. as it stands, someone can start at the top of the list and observe that, for example, none of the top 22 are solely in India, which may be interesting and surprising to that person. Or e.g. Minya Konka won't stand out nearly so plainly as being different. There's no way to easily tell that if we drop the "regions" column. So I'm ambivalent. -- Spireguy (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, but the POV edits are continuing. The mountains in question are in the Kashmir region and are not within Pakistan's internationally recognised borders. Therefore, if we retain the regions column, I oppose the removal of the word Kashmir. Please stop removing it until this matter has been settled here. Viewfinder (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Having examined the new version, it seems to me that the Range column, which includes main range as well as sub range, is sufficient. Viewfinder (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ascents (attempts).[edit]

Can someone please clarify these numbers? The source is not to specific pages, and I'd think there'd be more attempts than ascents. Can it also be changed to "Ascent expeditions"? How about also adding an individual ascent column, e.g.

  • Everest with 3681 ascents[1] (? climbersXLS) as of 2008-04-17.
  • K2 with 302 ascentsPDF (298 climbersPDF) as of 2008-08-01.
  • Kangchenjunga with 209 ascentsPDF (199 climbersPDF) as of 2007-12-31. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-30t09:43z
I would propose to simply remove this column, as it is outdated (source is from 2004) and often very unacurate.--Pseudois (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
For all the work that I put into it, and the interest of showing that some mountains hardly ever and other constantly are ascended, it's a pity that the Himalayan Index hasn't been updated since 2004. I don't know of any other source of ascents. Otherwise, we have two alternatives: abandon the column, or make it even more explicit that these are "historical numbers" that also have the caveat of being wildly off for the most popular peaks. Jonathan/Viewfinder, would you know of another source for ascents and attempts? Afasmit (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that there is a lot of work behind, but as many numbers are inaccurate, I still think that it is better to drop this column. For peaks within Nepal (or at the border with), the Himalayan Database by Elizabeth Howley and Richard Salisbury has the most accurate and updated information, as virtually ALL expedition in the Nepal Himalaya are recorded. I just checked a couple of peaks and found the following errors: a) Gyachung Kang 14 attempts and 6 successfull expeditions (versus 5 and 3 in the current list); b) Jannu 50 attempts and 17 successful expeditions (versus 17 and 12 in the current list); c) Changtse 18 attempts and 9 successful expeditions (versus 9 and 9 in the current list). The difference with the Himalayan Index is not only because it hasn't been update since 2004, other previous expeditions are also not registrated. For peaks outside Nepal, the data are probably even much less accurate; just to give one example, Noijin Kangsang is reported with 4 attempts and 1 successful summit, while commercial operators offer this peak every year on routine basis, so the number of successful ascent is probably a few dozens. My conclusion: better to drop the column rather than keeping unaccurate information.
On a side note, I understand from the talk page that there was heavy discussions on keeping/dropping the "country" column due to some border dispute. I still do believe that reintroducing the "country" column would provide useful information for the average reader (may also be called "administrated by" or "controlled by" in order to keep sentitivities).Pseudois (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture on Article[edit]

Picture on this article seems having problem. I tried but failed, someone please fix it please. Thanks Bauani (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC) mount everest is the tallest mountain ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Measurement and undiscovered peaks[edit]

It's a bit surprising that the exact heights of all of the mountains are not known from satellite altimetry, or that there is any possibility of tall, undiscovered peaks. How thick does ice and snow get? Is that the only impediment? It would be useful to get an more detailed explanation from a reliable source, if this is the case. -- Beland (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to determine heights from satellite imagery, and where there is snow and ice, stereoscopy is unreliable. The most modern method of determining height is synthetic aperture radar, but this is unreliable in areas of very high relief. Still, SRTM mapped 99.8% of the earth's land surface between 60 degrees north and 56 degrees south. While the remaining 0.2% includes most summits over 7200 metres, these are concentrated in specific areas, and these areas have all been carefully investigated using the sources listed in the article. In other areas, anything over 7200m would have shown up in SRTM derived data as a large mountain or a large void. Viewfinder (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dhaulgiri must be parent of Annapurna, not Cho Oyu[edit]

As the subject says...

Cho Oyu is very far from Annapurna I. Since Dhaulgiri is across the next valley, it must meet the definition of parent.

10 Annapurna I 8,091 26,545 Annapurna Himalaya 28°35′43″N 83°49′11″E / 28.59528°N 83.81972°E / 28.59528; 83.81972 2,984 Cho Oyu 1950 36 (47) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cklatt (talkcontribs) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not so. Parentage in the sense of topographic prominence---which is what is referred to on this page---is not determined by pure geographic distance. (It is not the same as "nearest higher neighbor", in other words.) See topographic prominence for the careful definition and further discussion. If you want to raise the larger issue of what kind of parent should be listed here, feel free. But given the notion of parent currently employed, Cho Oyu is correct as the parent of Annapurna I. -- Spireguy (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. They may be nearby, but the pass between them is at the north end of Mustang on the Chinese border, a mere 4594 meters ASL. There's nothing lower east of K2 until the far border of what used to be Sikkim. According to Viewfinder, Dhaulagiri's parent is K2 and they are connected by a 4810 meter pass at 32d8'N, 85d44'E which is in western Tibet. LADave (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is refering to other Wikipedia pages[edit]

This article needs alot of new references, because a few of the current ones refer to Wikipedia. Refering to other Wikipedia articles is not allowed according to Wikipedia:SPS#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_source_information_from_Wikipedia Wims (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Each column is given an external source. Re the individual mountains, I do not think the use of wikilinks to individual mountain pages is a problem, provided that there are adequate external sources on those pages. Viewfinder (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


I think the Country should be added to the chart. XRoyalSinx 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a column with that information, but border arguments make the location of many mountains contentious. There were so many edits chaning the location between countries that we decided to leave that column out. See "Should we remove the "regions" column?" above. Afasmit (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Andes and Aconcagua should be in List of highest mountains[edit]

Andes and Aconcagua should be in List of highest mountains, and the actual table in this page what are List of highest mountains (of Asia) must move to the article List of highest mountains of Asia --Ferosdc (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Andes is not a mountain. Aconcagua is not in the top 100. kwami (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stem and leaf plot - more[edit]

I removed this because it was unsourced OR and it used a sentence with "you" in it. Seriously, think about it. Does any decent article here use third person? Why should it use third person? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. First, it's just a convenient way to display exactly the same information. It doesn't depend on any calculations or other info that's not in the article, so it's not OR. Second, although I agree that the opening paragraph should be copyedited to make it more encyclopedic, I suggest that TenPoundHammer should review the notions of second person (which is what is being objected to) and third person. I'm going to put it back in with some copyedits. Any other opinions on this? -- Spireguy (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "you" is second person, not third person. Regardless, "you" is incorrect usage in an encyclopedia, although sometimes it's useful when it's a dead giveaway that something was a copyright violating cut-and-paste. The primary issue with that chart (which I could not make much sense of, FYI) is that it could be argued to be "synthesis". However, I think that complaint is fueled by the "as you can see" part. If the information were simply presented, with an appropriate explanation of what it is, then it might be more acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was shooting for: the "as you can see" and the synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If there is already a list of the top 100 mountains, how does graphing them qualify as "synthesis"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. It's just a different arrangement of the data presented above. But is it really necessary? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hard telling, since I couldn't understand the graph. I think his point was that there is a cluster of mountains above a certain height and then a gap before the next group starts in an ironically mountain-shaped form. So maybe it is synthesis, if he's trying to "prove" something. However, that could be accomplished by a one-line statement of fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I took care of many of the above concerns with the copyedit of the text paragraph. (I don't think that the original contributor was trying to synthesize or prove anything in the paragraph, rather, the point was to clarify how to read the plot. Hopefully that's clearer now.) Regarding the plot itself, I think some kind of visual representation of the distriibution of peaks is quite valuable. As noted by the original contributor, a stem and leaf plot is a very efficient way to get such a visual display. (A quick look at Stemplot is enough to figure out how to read such a plot; also, hovering over each (linked) letter is helpful, to see how each number represents a peak.) I would be OK with replacing it with a histogram, if the consensus was that such a chart were more commonly understandable, but that would lose the links. In the absence of a histogram, I think the stemplot should stay. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The numerical information presented in the Stem and Leaf plot is not immediately clear. For example: "The two digits to the left of the line are the first two digits of the mountain's height (meters). The first thought is ah "88 meters". Then - "and each digit to the right of the line represents the third digit of the mountain's height" .. so 884 meters then... But no then we get a "the height of one of the mountains (namely Mount Everest) is 884x meters." My point is that if the if the second sentence was changed to: "The two digits to the left of the line are the first two digits of the four digit number for the mountain's height (meters)" OR TO: "The two digits to the left of the line represent mountain elevation values in thousands and hundreds, respectively. (meters)" ... At least then the last sentence would be less annoying. Cheers. Change...?

Merge request removed[edit]

The request to merge this article with List of mountains by elevation has been there a few months although I couldn't find the original requestor's comments on their reasons. While there is some duplication of table data in both articles, the "by elevation" list is strictly just a listing while this article goes into greater detail about the top 100. Therefore, I do not believe merging the two would be the right choice at this time. Perhaps in the future if the "by elevation" list gets too lerge and it is split into more articles, a merge can be revisitied. RedWolf (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Labuche Kang III/East[edit]

This article shows the first ascent of Labuche Kang III/East {#94) occured in 1987, but then has a question mark for number of ascents. The article for highest unclimbed mountain mentions this peak as "reportedly unclimbed". Anyone know whats going on here? Should we change the "1987" to "unclimbed" in this article? Racerx11 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the change because the article Labuche Kang states that it was climbed in 1987. However, since it was appearently only Labuche Kang I that was climbed (?) I have now undone my revision. Cheers --Anthony Blunt (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


I have started a discussion at Talk:Makalu on the elevation of the mountain. Different Wikipedia articles disagree on the elevation and I can't find anywhere where we provide a source for the figures. Road Wizard (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned under "references", for mountains in Nepal all peak and saddle heights we took from "Nepal Topographic Maps" by the Finnish Meteorological Inst. Afasmit (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

List formatted incorrectly[edit]

The top of the list on this article is formatted improperly. I would fix it, but I don't know how to do lists yet. AFisch99 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair2 PLW edit.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair2 PLW edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 2, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Highest mountains

An aerial view of some of the world's highest mountains as viewed from the south. In the center is Mount Everest, the highest peak on Earth. It rises over Lhotse (#4), while Nuptse is the ridge on the left. The Himalayas, of which these mountains form a part, are home to most of the world's highest peaks.

Photo: shrimpo1967 on Flickr; edit: Papa Lima Whiskey 2
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Please add Country Names[edit]

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)