Talk:List of mountains by elevation

Ojos del Salado
This volcano appears in this article as in Chile, while in the Ojos del Salado article says it is in the border with Argentina. Is the submit of mountain/volcano completelly in Chile, and so here it's listed as only in Chile? If so, the article about the volcano should include that information. Otherwise, this article should be fixed. Mariano (t/c) 07:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to John Biggar, the "Chilean summit" is 54cm higher than the "Argentine summit", but I am not sure if either of these are on the actual border. But the mountain is in both countries. I will check the article and amend if necessary. This list has become an unstructured repository for everyone's favourite mountains, I do not watch it closely. Viewfinder 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please unify the format
The article has not unify format yet (Two format for list). 59.117.57.28 05:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8,000 to 5,000 metre tables are now standardized. The others to follow as time permits (others are most welcome to assist). RedWolf 06:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The remaining sublists have been converted to the standardized sortable table format. I have removed the cleanup tag. RedWolf 05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding a mountain
To add a mountain to one of the sections, make a copy of an existing line containing the mountain elev row template and paste it in the appropriate area of the list which is sorted by elevation in metres by default. The template takes four parameters:
 * 1) mountain name
 * 2) elevation in metres &mdash; do not use a comma oherwise you will see an expression error. The template will automatically add it. The template automatically adds a column for the equivalent elevation in feet.
 * 3) Mountain range (optional) and location
 * 4) An optional note (e.g. highest point in a country). Keep this brief as a long note can affect table layout.

RedWolf 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sections now use the mountain list row template which adds a mountain range parameter as #4 so this template has 5 parameters. RedWolf (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a complete list of all mountains on earth? It falls way short of that. I'm not sure what the purpose of the list is. Steve Gruhn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.106.181 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What are criteria for inclusion?
Do we have formal criteria for deciding what peaks to add? Is there a prominence cutoff? Distance from another entry? LADave (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what constitutes a valid source. I found several peaks with Google Maps which do not appear in this list. Since no one has answered the question, I say its better to be asked for forgiveness, than to ask for permission. I am adding Zhong Shan.216.96.76.19 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

merge
If there's some reason to not merge the two 'highest mountain' articles, we should at least link them through hat notes. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Slaíbh Domhnaírt
The entry for Slaíbh Domhnaírt was incorrectly added, making the West Bank entry above it look wrong. I've corrected this, but cannot find any other reference to this name on any maps. Can someone who knows more about Northern Ireland chack and confirm that it is correct please. Starfiend (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Term
Viewfinder, could you please explain this: ? How is your version "more neutral" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Occupied" has negative and judgmental connotations. I have removed Mount Hermon from the list. Viewfinder (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Occupied" is the accurate and neutral term for a country occupying land in a foreign country. There is nothing "negative" or "judgmental" here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia where accuracy and neutrality is before anything else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Controlled" is preferred per Viewfinder. You've said a lot of buzz words but none of which explain why "occupied" should be preferred over "controlled." -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop wikihounding me. Ive seen you several times showing up to talkpages at articles you never touched before only to give your "vote" to a specific pov in A-I articles. My previous reply explains perfectly why "occupied" is preferred over "controlled.". Your comment on the other hand does not explain anything. But that wasn't your intent coming here either, only to "vote",, to make it look like a certain view has support, "so we can revert SD". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the neutrality of "controlled" vs "occupied", but Viewfinder, why are you deleting the entire entry? If it's to diffuse the argument I don't think that's working. Just thinking out loud after my latest action, could we leave the entry and remove the mention of what country occupies or controlls Golan Heights? Actually, I think I might make that change. We'll see. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  11:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Controlled is 100% neutral amd accurate. Occupied, although not inaccurate, carries negative bias which is unnecessary and not appropriate for this article. Still, your change, which does not include the word occupied, appears to be stable. Viewfinder (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is unequivocally not true. Occupied does not carr[y] negative bias. Occupied is the term overwhelmingly used by reliable sources to describe the control that Israel exercises over the Golan. A Wikipedia editor's uninformed belief that it is "POV" does not trump that.  nableezy  - 17:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It SHOULD be obvious that unless all parties involved ( the UN, the occupier, the occupied, and neighboring governments) AGREE that the territory is "occupied", then the term is NOT neutral. The term "occupied", in this context, indicates that the government in control of the land is somehow NOT its 'rightful' owner. This is obvious to anyone with good English comprehension and some ability to think rationally.216.96.76.19 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive or not?
Based on some other comments it appears this is not a comprehensive list. It may be useful to note on the page that it is not a comprehensive list or, at least, only comprehensive above a certain point.

This page is potentially useful as a ranked list so that one can easily look a mountain up to determine its overall rank. Perhaps it could be made clear the top 50 (or more) are comprehensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.106.36 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)