Talk:List of mountain lists

Restructure article

There's a discussion to have the Listing parameter in {{Infobox Mountain}} point to this article (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Lists in Infobox). Pursuant to this discussion, I'm planning to restructure this article to only include notable lists of mountains (i.e., lists that can be documented with reliable sources). I'm planning on moving most of the current lists on this page to Category:Lists of mountains or subcats: no information will be lost. Thanks! hike395 11:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Useless Mountain Data to Appease Politics

I can think of no reason to publish mountains below 6000 foot Colorado Springs because plateau and plains exist at this elevation. So to have lower plains with mountains this high is for what purpose? to ski down? The danger of tectonic global baptismal submergance (unless you wish to hold cynical skepticism calling it biblical) is all based on submerging the continental surface. This means the data most useful is all mountains above 6000 feet. Those of 4000 and 5000 are useless. For example at least the Appalachians inform us 13 mountains above 6000, mostly Smokies. But we have countries that have none over 6000, in Britain, in Indonesia, even Australia. A catclysmic Earth impact disaster would require these people to leave their countries illegally.98.144.71.174 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Split out US content?

Do we think the time has arrived to create a Hill lists in the United States article in the same way that there is a Hill lists in the British Isles article? That way, we could restrict this list to just the most notable lists as we do with the British list, and use an article to provide slightly longer descriptions (a whole paragraph, rather than a sentence). — ras52 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is fine so far: I don't find the USian list of peaks to be too long. If we do decide to split, I would recommend naming the article Lists of U.S. mountains: the concept of "Hill List" seems to be local to the British Isles. hike395 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Peak Bagging lists for New Zealand and Tasmania, Australia

Conflict of interest alert: I am webmaster of www.peakbagging.co.nz, which is a new peak bagging list for New Zealand. I'll leave it to the editors of this page as to whether it should be included here.

On a related note, there is also a Tasmanian list that should be included here. It is mentioned here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/14/2118695.htm and at http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/2008/PeakBaggersGuide.htm Cheers 118.92.118.58 (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

article filling with non-notable lists

There exist notable lists of mountains: those described by sources external to Wikipedia and used in the mountaineering or peak bagging communities.

This article is filling up with non-notable lists: those defined by Wikipedia only. The article is starting to fail WP:STANDALONE and WP:GNG.

My suggestion: keep only those lists whose notability is supported externally. The other lists can be accessed through Category:Lists of mountains.

Comments? —hike395 (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I was the one adding those lists, I should state my intentions:

I was originally basing the list off of Lists of rivers, which is a list of other Wikipedia list articles. The reason I was doing this was that I was hoping, at some point, to redirect List of mountains into Lists of mountains, as List of rivers does to Lists of rivers. List of mountains has no inclusion criteria, and there are various ideas people have on which mountains should be included and which shouldn't. My view was that it should act as more of a redirection page to more specific lists. Maybe a solution would be to have a list such as I was talking about, and then a "List of peak-bagging challenges" article or something of the sort. "Pepper" @ 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that your plans may conflict with the guidelines at WP:SALAT, and don't match what I've seen around Wikipedia.

A list of mountains should include notable mountains. If editors are arguing over which mountains to include, they should look at WP:GNG.

A list of mountain lists is quite different: let's not confuse the two. A list of mountains can contain redlinks, a list of mountain lists should not. A list of mountain lists should contain lists of mountains that are notable as lists themselves. Category:Lists of mountains is much more appropriate for what you want to do.

In any event, planning on redirecting List of mountains is a pretty big change. I recommend first discussing this plan at WT:WikiProject Mountains —hike395 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big change, but I can't really see any good coming out of the List of mountains article as it stands right now. Per WP:MAPOUTCOMES and what I've seen around, all mountains are notable. The problem is that in List of mountains, there is no organization of information. Some sections, such as #Iran have just a link to another, more focused page. Other, such as #Sweden have organized tables, while others (#Europe) are divided into geographic (rather than political) areas. There are so many articles about individual mountains on Wikipedia that having a list for every single one of them is obscene. Besides, List of mountains by elevation is also seeming to be compiling a list of all mountains. Another reason I was doing this in the mainspace rather than in the category space is that, frankly, the general populous has much less of an understanding of Wikipedia than we do. They don't know how to click on the categories at the bottom of the page and navigate through there. Having a mainspace article that acts as a center point to distribute people out to more specialized articles is more user-friendly. BTW, I was planning on discussing the redirect with WP:MOUNTAIN participants once I had made the necessary changes to Lists of mountains to make the redirect more plausible. Also, there are other examples of what I was planning on doing. List of glaciers, Lists of rivers, Lists of stars, Lists of lakes, and others all use the format I am discussing.

As a matter of fact, I can't find anywhere that the lists within a "List of __ lists" article have to be notable. Per WP:SALAT, Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. And as I said before, this article right now is more a list of peak-bagging lists, rather than a lists of mountains in general. "Pepper" @ 12:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of mountain lists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150426105835/http://peakery.com/peaks/lists/ to http://peakery.com/peaks/lists/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Something doesn’t add up

125 4000 m summits in North America, of which 104 are in the US and 19 in Canada. Making 123. So where are the other two? Not Mexico, because it has 8. Mr Larrington (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

104+19+8, but 6 peaks are on the United States/Canada border, so they shouldn't count twice. 104+19+8-6=125.

The problem is that there are actually 10 peaks in Mexico >4000m, so it's off by 2. Pinging @Buaidh ? — hike395 (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• There are 126 North American summits with 4000 m of elevation and 500 m of prominence including:
  • 19 major 4000-metre summits in Canada (including six shared with The United States.)
  • 2 major 4000 meter summits in Guatemala (including one shared with Mexico.)
  • 10 major 4000-meter summits in Mexico (including one shared with Guatemala.)
  • 104 major 4000-meter summits in the United States (including two on the Pacific Island of Hawaiʻi and six shared with Canada.)

Neither Sierra Negra (19) nor Cerro Tláloc (88) are currently included in the List of the highest major summits of North America. That list and the List of mountain peaks of Mexico need to be updated. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Mr Larrington and Hike395: I've updated the List of the highest major summits of North America, the List of mountain peaks of Mexico, and Template:NA highest. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 06:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

D'oh! Should’ve thought of ones on the border. (Hits self around head with theodolite) Mr Larrington (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)