Talk:Fourteener

message: What is the source for the claim that
: By this rule, Colorado has 54 fourteeners, California has 12, and Washington has 2.
and
: Alaska has 16 peaks over 14,000 feet
According to List of United States fourteeners, there are 15 in California and 21 in Alaska.  Which ones in that list aren't counted in this article?  dbenbenn | talk 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Although it may be convenient to use the latest topographic maps to determine each peak's prominence, that does not necessarily produce the most accurate listing. Other sources of information (e.g., statistical models based on the underlying topographic source data, barometric altimeter measurements, and independent field surveys) can certainly refine our view of a marginal summit.
At the bare minimum, this page should clearly state these limitations on prominence source data (i.e., to the USGS topographic maps), and whether optimistic, pessimistic or mean prominence was employed (apparently mean prominence for at least the California Fourteeners).
I would also prefer to add a caveat to the inclusion of Mt. Muir, but wanted to float the idea here before doing so (please comment). Based on a field measurement conducted on 22 July 2000 in clear, stable weather using several independent barometric altimeters, the prominence of Mt. Muir came in at 276(+/-20) feet. In my view, this suggests that Mt. Muir has only a small chance of being among the California Fourteeners.
For more information about the California Thirteeners (including the Fourteeners), I suggest that you visit the VRMC web site, which was the first prominence-based listing of these peaks to be published on the web (c. February 2000). In particular, the site includes tools to apply different prominence criteria and marginality restrictions to the raw source data, which often changes the resulting peak list (e.g., Fourteeners Climbed by Schmed). Schmed2000 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominence Methodology

message: I changed List of United States fourteeners to redirect here and imported the list to this page. That solves the context problem. I also went over the list carefully and separated out the independent peaks from the subpeaks. Note the use of the two different prominence cutoffs, consistent with the main body of the article (and also pretty consistent with normal usage---a 300 foot prom peak in Alaska is a pretty minor subpeak, since everything is on a larger scale there). I checked the borderline cases with peakbagger.com, and checked some directly on the topo maps using Topozone. I didn't doublecheck every single elevation, but they should be pretty good. I expect that most complaints about the list will be about the borderline cases, like El Diente, but at least they are mentioned. -- Spireguy 20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorporated list

message: What was the problem with the Interactive map of Colorado fourteeners link that just got removed? It looked like a decent interactive map of the 14ers. -- Spireguy 21:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dskendall.com link

message: This article seems to cover mostly the US, and does a side mention of Canada. I see no mention whatsoever of the Andes or the Himilayas, even though both are higher than North American ranges. I therefore ask: is this an exclusively North American term, and if so, shouldn't it be noted in the article?
I just noticed that the French Wikipedia says, Dans le jargon des alpinistes américains... Should we change our introduction to read In North American mountaineering...? --Qviri (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably make sense to say "In North American mountaineering" or even "In mountaineering in the United States." I had hoped it was clear from the rest of the article that the 14,000 foot mark is not very significant outside the U.S. (basically, it's totally insignificant), but perhaps not. I'll change it. -- Spireguy 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good stuff, thanks for the clarification. --Qviri (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Fourteneer is not used by Canadians, except perhaps when talking to Americans (U.S.). or referring to mountains in the U.S. RedWolf 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I understand that the 14,000 foot mark is not significant outside the U.S., primarily because the rest of the world uses the metric system. However, within the U.S., is it really appropriate to say that this mark is "arbitrary"? "however, the importance of the arbitrary 14,000-foot mark is minimal outside of the U.S." The reason the 14,000 foot mark is significant is due to the simple fact that in the mainland U.S. (i.e., not including Alaska or Hawaii), that is the highest 1,000-foot increment that exists for all of our mountains. Only in Alaska do you have any peaks above 15,000 feet, but in the mainland, 14,000 is the last thousand increment that would apply. Therefore, to call this an "arbitrary" mark seems incorrect. The mark is tied to the physical geography of the mainland U.S.
Philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: globalisation, or does it not apply here?

message: I hope people like the new tabular version of the list--comments?. I did not yet put in ranks, mostly out of lack of time. (Also because they are not completely well-defined, as the article notes.) Meters should be an additional column, also not put in for lack of time. -- Spireguy 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table version

message: I reverted the very poorly done insertion of the rankings, rather than fixing them as suggested. First, the numbers weren't even consecutive (!). Second, if the list should be ranked, then it's better to do it as a separate first column. Third, and most important, I'm not sure that the list should be ranked at all. Rankings depend very much on the cutoff criterion chosen, so they aren't always very meaningful. Since adding a ranking column is a lot of work, I'd like to see a firm consensus on this talk page that a ranking is a good idea before anyone goes to the trouble of (correctly) putting ranks in. My vote is "No", but I don't think a ranking column would be a horrible thing.
I also put back in the fact tag in the 500 foot rule, since it still doesn't have a good citation. I know it's true by personal communication with the president of MCAK, but that's not verifiable, is it? -- Spireguy 02:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranking, etc.

message: Uhh... so in the Mount Rainier article Liberty Cap is noted as "not usually considered a separate peak, due to the massive size of Mount Rainier, relative to which a 492-foot (150 m) drop is not very large."  Let's put some sort of note on the Liberty Cap listing or pull it from the table entirely.  Friedlad (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberty Cap

message: This statement is sourced poorly and should provide a more concrete source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.181.106 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  546 Fourteener in the world 

message: There is a contradiction between the text introducing the table, and the table itself.  The text states:  "one in Washington (Liberty Cap is part of the crater atop Mt Rainier)".  However, the table shows Liberty Cap as a separate 14er in Washington, so there are two entries in the table for Washington.  I haven't tried to edit the article, because I don't know enough on the topic, but either there is only one 14er in Washington, Mt Ranier, and Liberty Cap should be deleted from the table, leaving 95 14ers, or the text needs to be edited to say that there are two in Washington. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the text itself is contradictory. The third paragraph on “Qualification criteria” says that Washington has two, but the lead paragraph to the tables says Washington only has one. This contradiction needs to be resolved. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since no-one has responded, I changed the entry to say that Washington has two.  That way the article is consistent throughout. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberty Cap:  included or no?