Talk:Pico de Orizaba

message: Sorry, the edits by 201.240.223.182 are mine. I thought I was signed in, but wasn't. If you don't like what I did you now know how to contact me. 
I also have lots of pix of the Pico: should I post one/some of them? (see the Orizaba page for an example)--Lavintzin 16:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go for it. Be bold! –Hajor 17:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: The elevation in the main article DOES NOT MATCH the one in the chart. Which one is it? The 4600m or the 5600m? It's a huge difference.
It is definitely 5600m. (Sources do vary considerably in the cited heights, but not *that* much!)
--Lavintzin 03:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article is confusing, it will edit it. Thank you for drawing attention to it. Viewfinder 07:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation concern 

message: ::"If sea level were to rise 714 meters, connecting the Arctic-Atlantic with the Pacific oceans in British Columbia, the Pico would still rise over 4,900 meters above sea-level, and would be the highest peak on a continent stretching from the new shoreline in British Columbia to what is now the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. That continent would include the mountain ranges of the western contiguous United States, such as the Cascades, the Sierra Nevada, the Rockies, and the various Sierra Madre ranges"
Since a sea level rise of more than about 60 m is impossible, this scenario is rather pointless speculation - MPF 11:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what was removed was put there to clarify the prominence concept. It is quite interesting, but others can decide whether or not to restore it. Viewfinder 14:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was put there to clarify the prominence concept and to make it clear what an outstanding mountain this is. I would vote to restore it too, though since (as I remember) I was the one that put it there, I won't do the restoring. --Lavintzin 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This aspect is worthy of pointing out, but I still find the hypothesis hard to understand, even in its current revised form -- The Pico de Orizaba is ranked 7th in the world in topographical prominence; if the sea level were to rise by 714 metres it would become the high point of an insular continent stretching all the way to British Columbia.   What's an "insular continent"? To pick nits, the Panama Canal already sort of divides North from South America, so I don't understand how rising sea level would make them any more of a "continent," insular or otherwise. --babbage 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypothetical landmass is described an an insular continent because it would be too big to be considered to be an island. The rising sea level scenario illustrates the prominence concept, even though in practice such a rise cannot happen. Re the Panama canal, note that man made changes are not currently included; from a topographic prominence point of view, the Americas and Eurasia-Africa are both considered to be single landmasses, which they were before the Panama and Suez canals were dug. I hope this clarifies the hypothesis. Viewfinder 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: This phrase in hte lede has got to be re-worded:
:It is the second most prominent volcanic peak in the world after Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro.
To most readers unfamiliar with topographic prominence that will sound a bit odd, as the most common usage of "prominent" in English connotes well-known as well as high/er.  It's not sufficient just to pipe a link to topographic prominence, the term has to be explained here.  Not everybody are prominence junkies....Skookum1 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent vs. prominent

message: An IP editor keeps trying to add instructions for visitors to search for "summit orizaba". I had assumed that it was innocently adding tourist instructions and reverted with appropriate messages, but if you do that search the first hit is for a tour guide company called "Summit Orizaba". So it looks like it's really an attempted commercial promotion, and worth keeping an eye open for. -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible promotional addition

message: According to UNAM Geographer Lorenzo Vázquez Selem, Pico de Orizaba had five glaciers in the 1960s, but only has two now. This Wikipedia article says that there are nine. The source is in Spanish:
http://cij.reduaz.mx/gama/SE%20DESHIELA%20EL%20PICO%20DE%20ORIZABA.htm
"Sobre las variaciones que ha ejercido el cambio climático en el Pico de Orizaba, el más elevado de la República Mexicana con 5 mil 747 metros de altura, comentó que en 1960 este volcán tenía cinco glaciares, de los cuales sólo le quedan dos."
Anyone have any comments? Should I go ahead and make the change?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draykyle (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Glaciers 

message: Substituted at 02:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment