Talk:List of mountain ranges of Colorado

message: Thanks Buaidh for a lot of good work done here. Here are my comments. 
* A similar comment as on List of Colorado fourteeners about possible information overload. However here there is the additional issue of whether people will clearly understand that all of the numerical data is only about the range/subrange high point. (That is stated clearly at the beginning, but....) Maybe instead of the prom/isol columns there could be a range size column---rough area or dimensions? 
* Again as on List of Colorado fourteeners, I'm concerned about invented subranges such as "Longs Peak Massif" and "Sneffels Range". I don't think these are verifiable.
* How the table is organized could be explained more explicitly, especially the default ordering by height of HP of major range. Also, if you sort on the first column, it destroys the hierarchy...not sure how to deal with that. -- Spireguy 21:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm still concerned about the use of the term "summit eminence" on this page. As I noted at Talk:Summit eminence, defining this term on Wikipedia is original research. Even using the measure at all is possibly OR, although I think it's somewhat defensible (and as I've said, I use the measure myself sometimes). But at the least, I would prefer language like "ranked by prominence times elevation" instead of "most eminent". Some outside opinions would be useful, so I might put a note on Talk:Topographic prominence and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains asking people for their input. Sound OK? -- Spireguy 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eminence 

message: The table of ranges and subranges is beautifully constructed and a real mine of information.  A labelled map showing the location of all of these places would be wonderful and raise the article to near perfection. Dricherby (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map, please! 

message: I would like to know where the information is drawn from.  What exactly are the ranges of mountains in Colorado varies from map to map and book to book.  There are ranges identified in this chart that don't appear among the ranges listed by the USGS-GNIS and names there that don't appear here.  I'm not quarrelling with the organization or the information.  But, I think the sources of the information and organization should be presented.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.181.143 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? 

message: It seems that you have followed Peakbagger in designating ranges, subranges etc.  (I can't tell where the primary, tertiary stuff came from though.)  Though I respect the work done by Peakbagger, he says himself:
:It is very important to note that this whole elaborate thing is totally arbitrary. When classifying the ranges, I had to make innumerable judgment calls, and I am sure that many of them are wrong and will look ridiculous to people more familiar with their local mountain areas than I am. The very notion of six levels is pure invention and is just the number that felt right. 
The USGS lists 77 ranges in Colorado.  I'd be more comfortable if we followed the USGS GNIS system rather than a site that is primarily concerned with making lists of peaks.  184.96.144.186 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more than PeakBagger 

message: I think the Wet Mountains should have their own section, and should not be lumped in with the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. They are geologically a southern extension of the Front Range, so if they must be placed as a "secondary" range, they should be secondary to the Front Range.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.252.1 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wet Mountains 

message: What happened to Mt. Princeton? 2600:100E:B0C0:BA31:0:0:B6E6:C101 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did someone forget about Mt. Princton