Talk:List of mountains on Mars by height

Heights and referencing
I've now added references to the volcanoes here. Some heights were revised quite heavily, e.g. Arsia Mons almost doubling from 9 km to 16 km. This may be because the former height was relative to the surroundings, while the latter I used is absolute, and relative only to the martian datum ("elevation 0"). That's the only explanation I have for the large difference from my sources anyway. I tried to list only heights relative to the datum for consequence. It's unfortunate that many sites only seem to listen one of either, and it can sometimes be hard to figure out which kind of "height" they mean. If you add relative heights, I recommend that 1) all other data need to change, or 2) add to a new column or find another solution to notify the reader of this. -- Jugalator 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Mountains on Mars by height????????????????
Unyet Mount Everest *IS* in this list which for those of you who don't know, is located on planet Earth which is the 3rd planet from the Sun (has no official name) not the 4th!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.125.203 (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of having terrestrial and venusian values in the table
Since these elevations are all (allegedly) given as height to the martian datum, I'd advocate just removing the comparative values from other planets. The values aren't comparable, by definition, and putting them in just encourages people to do this. DanHobley (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Height from base to summit
I think this table should add height from base to summit, as it is already using that for the comparison Mauna Loa. Also, since the datums of different planets aren't really comparable, we should have figures related to the reference ellipsoid and geoids as well. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)