Talk:List of mountains by elevation

message: This volcano appears in this article as in Chile, while in the Ojos del Salado article says it is in the border with Argentina. Is the submit of mountain/volcano completelly in Chile, and so here it's listed as only in Chile? If so, the article about the volcano should include that information. Otherwise, this article should be fixed. Mariano(t/c) 07:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to John Biggar, the "Chilean summit" is 54cm higher than the "Argentine summit", but I am not sure if either of these are on the actual border. But the mountain is in both countries. I will check the article and amend if necessary. This list has become an unstructured repository for everyone's favourite mountains, I do not watch it closely. Viewfinder 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ojos del Salado

message: The article has not unify format yet (Two format for list). 59.117.57.28 05:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please unify the format

message: To add a mountain to one of the sections, make a copy of an existing line containing the  template and paste it in the appropriate area of the list which is sorted by elevation in metres by default. The template takes four parameters:
# mountain name
# elevation in metres — do not use a comma oherwise you will see an expression error. The template will automatically add it. The template automatically adds a column for the equivalent elevation in feet.
# Mountain range (optional) and location
# An optional note (e.g. highest point in a country). Keep this brief as a long note can affect table layout.
RedWolf 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a mountain 

message: Do we have formal criteria for deciding what peaks to add?  Is there a prominence cutoff?  Distance from another entry? LADave (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what constitutes a valid source. I found several peaks with Google Maps which do not appear in this list. Since no one has answered the question, I say its better to be asked for forgiveness, than to ask for permission. I am adding Zhong Shan.216.96.76.19 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are criteria for inclusion? 

message: If there's some reason to not merge the two 'highest mountain' articles, we should at least link them through hat notes. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mount Sahand.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The entry for Slaíbh Domhnaírt was incorrectly added, making the West Bank entry above it look wrong. I've corrected this, but cannot find any other reference to this name on any maps. Can someone who knows more about Northern Ireland chack and confirm that it is correct please. Starfiend (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slaíbh Domhnaírt 

message: Viewfinder, could you please explain this: ? How is your version "more neutral" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Occupied" has negative and judgmental connotations. I have removed Mount Hermon from the list. Viewfinder (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Occupied" is the accurate and neutral term for a country occupying land in a foreign country. There is nothing "negative" or "judgmental" here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia where accuracy and neutrality is before anything else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Controlled" is preferred per Viewfinder. You've said a lot of buzz words but none of which explain why "occupied" should be preferred over "controlled." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop wikihounding me. Ive seen you several times showing up to talkpages at articles you never touched before only to give your "vote" to a specific pov in A-I articles. My previous reply explains perfectly why "occupied" is preferred over "controlled.". Your comment on the other hand does not explain anything. But that wasn't your intent coming here either, only to "vote",, to make it look like a certain view has support, "so we can revert SD".  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Controlled is 100% neutral amd accurate. Occupied, although not inaccurate, carries negative bias which is unnecessary and not appropriate for this article. Still, your change, which does not include the word occupied, appears to be stable. Viewfinder (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is unequivocally not true. Occupied does not carr[y] negative bias. Occupied is the term overwhelmingly used by reliable sources to describe the control that Israel exercises over the Golan. A Wikipedia editor's uninformed belief that it is "POV" does not trump that. nableezy - 17:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It SHOULD be obvious that unless all parties involved ( the UN, the occupier, the occupied, and neighboring governments) AGREE that the territory is "occupied", then the term is NOT neutral. The term "occupied", in this context, indicates that the government in control of the land is somehow NOT its 'rightful' owner. This is obvious to anyone with good English comprehension and some ability to think rationally.216.96.76.19 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term 

message: Based on some other comments it appears this is not a comprehensive list. It may be useful to note on the page that it is not a comprehensive list or, at least, only comprehensive above a certain point.
This page is potentially useful as a ranked list so that one can easily look a mountain up to determine its overall rank.  Perhaps it could be made clear the top 50 (or more) are comprehensive?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.106.36 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive or not?