Talk:List of highest mountains on Earth

message: I can accept the argument that simply transcribing altitude information from a map or DEM may not constitute original research.  As mentioned above, I am still concerned about the aspect of verifiability but I am sensitive to the amount of rigorous work that went into creating this list.  In all likelihood, this list is the most accurate list available and references to other websites may decrease the quality of information.  In this case, to help achieve verifiability standards, would it be possible to have another column listing the coordinates of each mountain's key saddle?  Or perhaps just a note somewhere in each row containing coordinates?  I think this would allow all information in the list to be verifiable using existing and available sources. --NoGhost (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your original objection is correct. The guideline isn't "no original research unless it's the most accurate list in the world". It's no original research, period. Identifying the key col for a mountain is a synthesis of information in a map. We have to cite to Peakbagger or Peaklist or some other source. We can use the wisdom of  and  to help us choose such a source. But Wikipedia cannot make an independent decision about key cols. —hike395 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Jurgalski's table on 8000ers.com (columns 15 and 16) lists the location of most key cols and probably all the key cols for the mountains on our list. Many of these coordinates were originally determined by viewfinder. EJ has copyrighted the page, but I'm sure that is for the entire compilation and it's probably okay to copy the coordinates with a proper reference. Afasmit (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  Okay based on your comments, it would be best to include the sources as you mentioned.  Hopefully an accurate and verifiable secondary source will emerge in the near future to help improve this list and topographic information across WP. --NoGhost (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability of key saddles

message: Why is the "Rank" column blank for some of the rows in the table? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the information at the top: "A drawback of a prominence-based list is that it may exclude well-known or spectacular mountains that are connected via a high ridge to a taller summit, such as Eiger or Nuptse. A few such peaks and mountains with nearly sufficient prominence are included but not numbered in this list." Bazza (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. DH85868993 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank Rank 

message: Is there any realistic prospect that any ascents were made — including by locals — in the past, but never recorded?  If so, the column heading should change to "First known ascent" or "First recorded ascent".  —DIV (1.129.109.51 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: At 7,200 meters? No, there's not much realistic prospect that ascents were made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First ''recorded'' ascent? 

message: An editor at Lhotse Shar has made the odd claim that it is "the 5.5th-highest mountain on Earth" based on where its elevation falls in this list.  I have read the Considerations section to understand that (most) subsidiary peaks are excluded.  So, what is the proper way do rank Lhotse Shar's height?  The article originally claimed it to be the 11th tallest but I can't find any online source that ranks it separately from its parent peak, Lhotse.  Would it be best to only list its height, and not mention its rank?  Is it meaningful to describe it as a subsidiary of Lhotse, which the 4th tallest?  Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Just your average wikipedian Late reply, apologies. But the list would be extremely long.  PenangLion (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lhotse Shar 

message: When sorting the  table by the "Rank" column, one "S" (footnoted to mean "sub-prominence" comes before Rank #1 and the rest of the "S" are at the end (after Rank #108). The term sub-prominence is not defined anywhere, but I assume it means a separately-named peak that is a shoulder on another higher peak (like the central peak associated with the right-hand peak of :File:Relative-height.png). Should these be keyed so they each sort immediately following to their adjacent main peak? DMacks (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort-ranking of sub-prominences 

message: Why is Everest listed as K2's parent mountain if they are not even in the same mountain range and over 1000 km apart? 77.65.140.40 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read its article; in particular K2#Geographical_setting. Bazza (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  K2's parent mountain 

message: Bularung Sar, a 7200 m peak in the Karakoram. First ascent on 25 July, 1990.  The height of the peak is equivalent to Lupghar Star, which is included in the list. Is this peak not fulfilling any criteria to not be included in the list. --Pheeca93 (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pheeca93: The second paragraph of the article may explain why. Is Bularung Sar a peak in its own right, or subsidiary to another nearby but higher one (such as Distaghil Sar)? Bazza 7 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Documented sources show it to have prominence 514m (7.2%). My interpretation of the data is that makes it a separate peak, even if nearby peaks are higher. Pheeca93 (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: BULARUNG SAR