Talk:Ultra-prominent peak

message: I've listed the map for this article for deletion in commons since it has a suspect license. If anyone watching this article would like to provide more details about the map then it may not get deleted --Ozhiker (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the basemap needs to be clarified, but the source of the data shouldn't be relevant; one could use even copyrighted data to produce a totally different product, e.g. a map, correct? -- Spireguy (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how the point data was applied to the base map. If a whole copyrighted data file with the point locations listed in it was processed automatically by a program which gave the new map as an output, I would think it would still be covered by the copyright. For example: If you took a copyrighted vector map file from a mapping agency, and produced a map with a different projection, the output would still be covered by the copyright --Ozhiker (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this has now been cleared up over on Commons.  There is no copyright violation with the map as the data used to generate it was open-sourced.  — ras52 (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Deletion  

message: Aaron Maizlish, the author of the main (and almost sole) source for this article, has pointed out that large portions of the text of this article were lifted verbatim from his Ultras page. So all of that is in violation of copyright, and hence needs to be rewritten or deleted quickly. Sorry for not checking myself sooner. -- Spireguy (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have all of the text that seems to have been copied.  I think it's best to start from scratch rewriting those parts, rather than attempting to modify the wording of the existing parts.  — ras52 (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: There seem to be some discrepancies between the Peaklist page for Mexico and the list currently at Most prominent mountain peaks of Mexico. Not only are most of the promiences different, but the Wikipedia list includes two extra summits! Mark J (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico 

message: I revised the part about the likely candidates for most prominent unclimbed peak, based on the detailed discussion in Helman's book. (Disclosure: I am cited therein as the originator of the search; however Helman went much further.) The earlier claim in this article that Mount Miller (in Antarctica) was a contender was based on a misreading of the Maizlish reference about Antarctica, which only claims that Miller is the most likely contender (if Mount Siple has had an unrecorded ascent) for most prominent unclimbed peak in Antarctica. -- Spireguy (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the mount miller you have linkied to the same one mentioned in the book? It has an ascent listed in 1996 which would make your source well out of date. Also it only has a prominence of 1616 m which is considerably less than Gangkhar Puensum for example. ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Mount Miller in question is in the Antarctic; the one in this article is in Alaska.  However, Spireguy is quite right that the information was wrong.  I clearly misread or misunderstood the peaklist page when I wrote that sentence.  Sorry for the confusion.  — ras52 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most prominent unclimbed peak 

message: The numbers are going a bit haywire at the moment! I've added the South American ones to finish the listing off, and noticed that the intro says 1,524, the distribution section says 1,519, but adding up the numbers in all the lists gives 1,514 (unless I've miscounted). Which is correct, and does it mean there are some peaks missing from the lists? Mark J (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some duplication, on peaklist some ultras appear on more than one list. The exact number will fluctuate as new data becomes available, I think a few ultras here and there have been added or removed but the overall total not updated. By the way, yesterday I discovered a new ultra on East Greenland which had escaped my notice earlier. I intend to re-examine and re-count all of them soon. Viewfinder (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How many Ultras?

message: Portal talk:Geography#Highest point on a great circle is my new concept for a mountain rating system. Jidanni (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest point on a great circle

message: A cursory Google couldn't find any mention of an earth scientist sharing Stephen Fry's name. Jogloran (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He is mentioned in the reference given in the article. Here, for your convenience.--Gorpik (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Fry? 

message: Why is "Ultra" capitalized? It doesn't seem to qualify for any of the reasons listed at MOS:CAPS. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is really odd. Even the term "Ultra" is more confusing than to say "ultra-prominent summits" - I would even argue WP:PRECISE as Ultras leads to a term for futbol fans. – The Grid (talk)  22:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: There is confusing, if not actually incorrect, wording in the basic definition. "The prominence of a peak is the minimum height of climb to the summit on any route from a higher peak, or from sea level if there is no higher peak." The confusion is in the defining in terms of "a higher peak". Surely "ultra-prominent" is not defined in terms of a path from some other higher peak. If it is, then it needs more explanation to make sense to the lay reader.--Ericjs (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading Topographic prominence, I understand how this wording is not incorrect, though I think it is still confusing to the lay reader. The concept seems a bit tricky to define succinctly but technically correctly. I may take a crack at it. Ericjs (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording 

message: Listing Mont Blanc and Mount Olympus as being amongst 'the world's highest mountains' is weird and misleading in the 'Distribution' paragraph. There are many thousands of mountains higher than these.
I don't know what someone was trying to say here but this needs rewriting. Most famous, perhaps? 2A01:CB15:B1:B100:4DA1:F786:6698:9FB9 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mont Blanc and Mount Olympus are not amongst 'the world's highest mountains' 

message: Or ultras that reach from under sea level and rise above the water surface. Helium4 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. Who knows? ParizakiIfantis (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do submarine ultras exist?