Talk:List of Alpine peaks by prominence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is Mt. Everest mentioned as the parent peak of Mont Blanc? Ed Sanville 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The highest col between Mont Blanc and a peak higher than it is at 113 m and is somewhere in Eastern Europe (Belarus, perhaps?). There are a number of definitions of "parent" (see here), but one of them is that it is the highest peak that can be reached without going lower than that col (113 m in this case) which is, for Mont Blanc, Mount Everest. I hope this is clear. --Stemonitis 08:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that does make sense... just making sure it wasn't some subtle vandalism. Ed Sanville 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mont Blanc prominence col lies somewhere along the Volga-Baltic canal in Northern Russia, at approximately N61/E37. Its exact location is impossible to determine, at least impossible from the information that I have. Viewfinder 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is pretty crazy and new to me... do they use computers to locate these obscure cols? Ed Sanville 13:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought someone was messing around too. I'm not sure I completely understand the meaning of 'parent' [[User:JeffKaos71 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listdev tag

I removed this, because (a) the list is complete and accurate down to 1500m, and (b) the sources are copyrighted, and, apart from the presentation differences and the odd tweak, this list is a carbon copy of its sources. The general extension of this list, without the permission of the source copyright holders, would be improper. The development tag does not appear on other Wikipedia prominence lists, so why should it appear on this one? Its restoration is provocative. I have deleted it again and I will contest this issue if necessary. Viewfinder 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a combative attitude for a small point like this. The fact that other lists are not marked in the same way is not really relevant; we should not repeat common mistakes simply because they are common. If you really feel strongly about it, then we can leave it off (it's not that important, after all), but the list is fundamentally incomplete. The whole range of the Alps contains a vast number of peaks, and this list only contains a tiny proportion of them. We have taken an abritrary cut-off of 1500 m, and listed only those peaks above it. A peak with a relative height of 1499 m is to all intents and purposes just as important as one at 1501 m. So the list is incomplete, but if you don't want the tag, so be it. No provocation was intended. --Stemonitis 10:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are more Alpine peaks than anyone is likely to count. I have catalogued more than 20,000, see [1]. So 44 only a small proportion. But if you call up [2] you will see that the list to 1500m is well spread over the entire range (unlike the popular "4000ers" height list), and 1500m is therefore an appropriate general cutoff point. A list to 1500m labelled "incomplete" tends to imply that there are missing peaks above this level. If you wish to add a few more less prominent but well known peaks (like these are added to the worldwide list) then that is OK, but I don't think this list needs further general expansion. Viewfinder 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: anyone who does think this list should be expanded (say to 100 peaks), and wishes to use the list to 589m as a source, can e-mail me. We can discuss the matter, but there are issues involved which I am unwilling to discuss on this site. Viewfinder 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)