Talk:Annapurna

message: 鱼尾峰 At some point it would probably be good to move Anna II etc. to their own pages. --Spireguy 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of scope to write more about Annapurna II etc. within the massif article, and to send readers directly there if they search it.  This encourages readers to explore the massif context more than isolated articles would.  The names of a number of peaks -- e.g. Machhapuchre, Hiunchuli, the Nilgiris -- don't evoke the Annapurna context. LADave (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The new image from Google Earth is somewhat dubious. First, it may not qualify as "fair use"; I'm not sure. Second, this is not an actual photo, rather it is a digitally generated view, and that may be misleading. It is an OK rendition of the South Face, but it is far from perfect. It should at the least be marked as not being an actual photo, and perhaps it should be removed. Comments? -- Spireguy 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's fair use at all. --Makaristos 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: I'm apt to remove this sentence from the article:
Machapuchare (6993m) is another important peak of the Annapurna Himal, though it just misses the 7000m mark.
From what sincere source do we apply the 7000m mark as a point of greater signifigance for a mountain? Machapuchare is a sacred peak, much more so than Annapurna, and therefore, by its cultural integrity alone, is a more "important" peak. The author obviously has an affiliation with mountains according to their elevation; this, in my opinion, is a characteristic not becoming of a mountaineer. I suggest a rewrite:
Machapuchare (6993m) is a sacred peak in the region, so sacred in fact that it is forbidden to climb it.
--Bentonia School 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Machapuchare, , is a visually striking, sacred peak of the Annapurna Himal, so sacred in fact that climbing it is forbidden.
However, I would suggest that a comment like "The author obviously has an affiliation with mountains according to their elevation; this, in my opinion, is a characteristic not becoming of a mountaineer" is (while pretty gentle) ad hominem and somewhat presumptuous. It might be better to stick to the substance of the edit and not speculate on motivations. One could just as easily assume that the intent was "Machapuchare is more important than one would expect, given its lower elevation than the surrounding peaks." Disclosure: I might have been the author in question; I really don't remember and I haven't checked. -- Spireguy 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above paragraph. Viewfinder 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The 7000m Mark" 

message: I wanted to know the actual mounteneering  history about  the mt Annapurna 1  then I went for  yahoo search meanwhile got annapurna encyclopedia Wikipedia. I got here good historical breifing on the annapurna 1 expediton 
thanking you
Jaya N Bhandari
tre leader
Adventure thirdpole treks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.241.131 (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  suitic briefing on Annapurna 1 expedition 

message: Which face of Annapurna I is pictured in the recently added image? From which basecamp (or is it an Advanced Base Camp (ABC), as the image name suggests)? I can't easily match it to the pics in my sources, so clarification would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Spireguy (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know exactly, but the French route to the top is from the (north-)east side of the mountain. If the given information "sunrise" is true, it'll make sense. To get there you must find a valley (or maybe a col, because the valley is too steep and to narrow) that takes you from Kali Ghandaki right to the Grande Barrière. So you start at the north-west side of Annapurna 1 and walk basically along it's north face until you're east of the mountain. Then you might get to see it from that perspective.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It looks like the picture is actually from Annapurna South taken from Annapurna Base Camp (ABC). I think this picture might clear things up. Notice that from that perspective South looks a lot taller than Annapurna I, which might cause somebody to confuse the two. 80.221.38.30 (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks guys, I think it actually is Annapurna South not Annapurna I. It was taken from Annarpurna Base Camp (ABC) from the Annapurna Sanctuary. I ammended the caption since it is not Annapurna South Base Camp. For further clarification here is a link to a panorama I also took. Cheers, Arite (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New picture from basecamp

message: I found an inconsistency between the prominence value given on this page and that on List of highest mountains. The best reference I found was on peakbagger.com. I updated the value to 2984m as given there. If the value of 2894m can also be referenced (I haven't yet found a good source), please give the source and we can resolve or note the uncertainty. --David Edgar (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominence

message: Annapurna IV's Status is not given ? I did not find it in the list of highest mountains also. Is it too un-prominent ? Khalil Sawant (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annapurna IV's Status 

message: I have boldly changed the parent peak in this article from Everest to Cyo Oyu to match the info on List of highest mountains. I think the latter is correct, but not 100% sure and I couldn't find a confirmation. If Im wrong on this please make the needed corrections on both pages. Thanks. Racerx11 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent peak 

message: The claim that Kangchenjunga has surpased Annapurna 1 as the highest death toll seems untrue. 
Even the source cited by Eberhard Jurgalski has it listed as 4th with Annapurna much higher than the others. Am I missing something, please double check cite and lets give these moutains the proper respect they have earned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.82.97 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Jurgalski list has it fourth. However, the claim in the article says The Annapurna peaks are the world's most dangerous mountains to climb although, from figures since 1990, Kangchenjunga surpasses Annapurna's death rate. Keywords here "since 1990". In fact, according to the article eight-thousander, Kanchenjunga has the highest fatality rate from 1990 to ?, though I do not know the source of this fact or data.--Racerx11 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The wording in the article suggested an interpretation precisely as you apparently understood it. I have changed the wording to avoid this kind of confusion.--Racerx11 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annapurna 1 highest fatality rate 

message: I've started a section on the current disaster, using this BBC source.  More will need to be added, and I'm sure there is a need for a spin-off article specifically about it.  Haven't seen it created yet, though.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2014 trekking disaster 

message: Is this article appropriately called "Annapurna I Main" or should it be called "Annapurna I" as per what seem to be most references? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most call it Annapurna I only when East and Central aren't relevant to the topic, but when it's discussed in tandem with the other two peaks it's called Annapurna I Main. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this? Is this an official name? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I better move this to Annapurna I. DN-boards1 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnamed article? 

message: I contributed to this page some years back, treating it as an article on the entire massif with sections for the individual peaks.  Returning now, I find some of the massif material still here, with other material split off into articles on individual peaks.  Now Annapurna per se has ambitions as an outline for the massif with links to individual peak articles, without much contextual information.  Unfortunately it fails to mention that Gangapurna, the Nilgiris and Machapuchare all belong to the massif.
All in all, I find the change counter-productive.  Wouldn't it be better to have one consolidated Annapurna article, as before?  With the individual peaks addressed in sections of an inclusive article?  Readers searching even for variantly-named peaks like Nilgiri could be linked to the appropriate sections.  Finding them embedded in the enveloping massif article would encourage further reading to understand the massif context.
I'm also finding it odd to see so many references to an "edit war" in the history, without any discussion of this in the Talk section.  Could some of the "warriors" please edify us? LADave (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's irritating. Short term, a new Annapurna I/Annapurna I Main article would be useful. I really don't mean the Massif when linking here --Spacepine (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annapurna edit wars?