Talk:Tronador

Prominence
This used to say the prominence was the same as the elevation, which is obviously wrong, because Tronador isn't the highest mountain in South America (that's Aconcagua, whose prominance is the same as its elevation). Does anyone know the real prominence? —Keenan Pepper 20:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Almost seven years but I just now added it. Sources do differ on the value however. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  14:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge
Several stub-articles about glaciers on Tronador exists, I propose to merge them into the Tronador artuile until they have grown big enought to deserve an article by its own. Dentren |  Ta lk  17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a mild preference for keeping them as separate articles. They're pretty clearly defined entities, with their own names, entries in navboxes etc. Merging makes sense when one article is really part of another, or there's huge overlap - but here the overlap is just a physical location. What's the advantage of merging, other than avoiding having any articles labelled "stub"? Stevage 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The glaciers notability can be cuestionable, for example, in difference to the great glaciers of the Patagonian icefields, each of them is not important hydrologically by itself. The glaciers of Tronador are important because of mountaneering, and if we are speaking about mountaneering then it is better to have them in the same article as Tronador. I propose to have them inside the Tronador areticle until they have grow significantly. Some information to expand the glacier articles/section can be found at glaciologiua.cl    Dentren  |  Ta lk  12:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that makes sense. Merge them if you like. Stevage 05:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)