Talk:Nanda Devi East

I did a lot of copyediting but no serious fact-checking on this article. Also, this should probably be merged with Nanda Devi, since it is a subpeak, albeit a significant one. I may come back and do more checking/additions. -- Spireguy 05:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are many more peaks at Nanda Devi massif,all are equally important first.It is accepted that both the peaks are link but both have diferrent set of climbing history,topography,icefall,etc.So, I think all himalayan peaks should be dealt Individually.Beacuse otherwise it will kill the encyclopedic concept.Better if any one can contribute and make article more informative.I am also trying to make it more factualby collecting information.Tribhuwan 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent additions to the article. As to the merge, I think that whether this should be its own article is a close judgement call. On the one hand, I don't think that every subpeak or minor summit needs its own article, even a subpeak that has some of its own history. See Lhotse, for example, and the treatment there of Lhotse Middle. On the other hand, Nanda Devi East is somewhat separate from Nanda Devi, particularly now that climbing on the latter is almost totally banned. The question is, just how separate are the two peaks? Should ND East be considered independent? One simple (but perhaps simplistic) criterion for an independent peak that is currently in use on Wikipedia is a topographic prominence cutoff of 500 metres, see e.g. List of highest mountains. By that rule, Nanda Devi East does not qualify as independent. But I can see making exceptions. I'd like to see more input on this question from others. -- Spireguy 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, not an easy issue to resolve. I can't recall if the issue has been specifically brought up on the WikiProject. I don't really know what the percentage might be, but a lot of the Himalayan mountains appear to have significant peaks enough that they warrant being denoted East, West, I, II, III, etc. For example, Lhotse, Annapurna with many other examples on some of the highest mountains lists. Rock composition wise, I doubt there would be any real difference between the different peaks on a mountain (although I am no geologist). While climbing routes often differ, there would be a lot of article overlap if we used the convention of making a separate article for each peak. I think it would also make the overall coverage of a mountain disjointed by having multiple articles. Thus, I feel that unless the article is getting excessively long, all the peaks should remain on one page. Perhaps we should add another optional line or two to the infobox to denote significant subpeaks? RedWolf 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As RedWolf notes, there are lots of articles with subpeaks included on the same page; I could add Dhaulagiri and Latok to the list. I agree that if the combined article is not too long, then subpeaks should be treated on the main peak's article. (As I mentioned above, a reasonable standard for "subpeak" is <500 meter prominence, although that need not be religiously adhered to.) So I'll plan to merge these articles soon. -- Spireguy 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)