Talk:List of countries by highest point

message: I really dont think China has any claims whatsoever over Mt.Everest—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.19.196 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 September 2005 .
:While you're entitled to that POV, please see the discussion in Tibet (and on that article's Talk page) before making related edits to this article. Current consensus is that Tibet is "controlled" by China and does not exist as an autonomous entity; therefore, it can't claim Everest. China, as controller of the region called "Tibet", can.--chris.lawson 17:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mt. Everest

message: According to the article Mont Blanc, the Italian-French border officially goes over the summit, with only some French maps indicating otherwise. Does this mean that both France and Italy should be credited equally with Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco on this list? --Stemonitis 16:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the article Mont Blanc (in any of the few languages I understand) indicates that there is indeed a dispute between France and Italy. Since listing Italy's highest peak as either Mont Blanc or Mont Blanc de Courmayeur would be adopting a particular point of view, I have chosen to include both. --Stemonitis 12:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monte Bianco? 

message: The two nations are still listed together.  Does anyone have highest points for the two separately? Warofdreams talk 01:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Djeravica (2656 m) is in Kosovo which is still nominally part of Serbia and must continue to be regarded as such for the purposes of this page. I have added the official Montenegro HP and height, but Russian 50k mapping states that it is 2520.9 m compared with 2521.8 m for Maja e Roshit, on the Montenegro-Albania border, and in any case the difference is likely to be within the survey error margin. So the question seems to me to remain open. Btw does anyone know if the re-ranking can be automated, or is it necessary to manually increment the subsequent ranks individually? Viewfinder 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this.  Although I don't know of one, a pretty simple program could be written to increment the ranks - I wonder if anyone has created a bot which would do it? Warofdreams talk 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia and Montenegro 

message: I have reverted the edits by Amoruso which I regard as POV, see the map at Golan Heights. Amoruso and I could only agree to disagree. But comments from regular, neutral contributors about how this issue should be handled would be appreciated. Some sort of footnote may be appropriate. Viewfinder 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I changed it though to what I see is more factual. Mount Hermon is IN israel. Some maps show the golan to be inside israel proper - see the national geographic ones. Amoruso 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. There are all sorts of maps. National Geographic seems pretty unbiased to me. And the way people decide to draw maps and historical armistice lines doesn't seem the appropriate criteria. There is one map that means more and that's the actual physical presence - I think maps are only help tools. Amoruso 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: IMHO in case of Israel Mount Hermon was not mentioned as the peak itself, but as a certain location on the side of the mountain. The footnote was quite clear about it, and the two significantly different elevation datum shows the same. So I think the recent edit should be reverted. Kószab (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mount Hermon

message: There is no official international view on the matter of whether the south and west sides of K2 belong to Pakistan or India. International mapping and the international community are neutral on the subject. Maps shows no formal India-Pakistan border, only a line of control. K2 is on the Pakistani side of this line, and is therefore considered to be in Pakistan for the purposes of this article.
:I should note that the area on the north and east of K2, traditionally part of Jammu and Kashmir, was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1963. India doesn't recognise this. So technically, K2 lies entirely within India according to Indian maps. Most UN maps show all of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed area. Someone needs to footnote this properly. Hornplease 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it doesnt matter if india doesnt recognise if the un states its within Pakistan than it is indian POV should be removed 86.154.151.159 (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN does not state that K2 is within Pakistan or that Saser Kangri is within India; the UN is neutral on the issue. The Line of Control exists de facto and is not recognised as an international de jure border by the international community. Viewfinder (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[K2]]

message: Contrary to what we are stating in this article, Australia states that the Southern Ocean islands, and hence Mawson Peak, are as much included within Australia as Tasmania is, and the Canary Islands and Pico de Teide are within Spain. I therefore propose to change Australia's HP. Any cooments or objections? Viewfinder 08:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: for great consistency! Comment: it's a little odd to have entries which are not generally considered to be in the country proper.  Suggestion: put in an unranked entry for "Australia (mainland)" and ditto for "Spain (mainland)". –EdC 10:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HP of [[Australia]]

message: Contributed by 194.83.16.10 and transferred from main article:
<I>OK what idiot deleted Wales from here. More of a country than the Isle of Man. (Wales 40 times the size,40 times the population,600,000+ Welsh speakers, Its own International football and rugby teams (Isle of Man has none). I rest my case. As for San Marino.</I>
It has become the established practice in the artcle to list only sovereign countries and wholly self administering overseas territories. Wales is neither. Nor is England which is also not listed. By contrast, the Isle of Man, despite being ultimately subject to the UK, is wholly self administering, fiscally independent and is not represented in the UK parliament. San Marino, despite its small size, is a sovereign country. Viewfinder 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales 

message: These two islands both were appointed overseas collectivity of France in 2007, and should therefore along with other territories with this status (f.ex French Polynesia and Mayotte) be a part of this list.Antipoeten 13:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint-Barthélemy and Saint-Martin 

message: I reverted two edits by  because, whether or not we at Wikipedia think it ought to be, Tibet is internationally recognised to be part of China, and the name "Mount Everest" has become accepted at the principal name on English Wikipedia. Various other names are discussed at Mount Everest. Viewfinder 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Everest 

message: Do you reckon a relative height column would be appropriate in this article? Mark J 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, somehow this suggestion had escaped my notice. Often relative heights are available via the linked mountain pages. Where they are not, you might like to add them to the mountain pages. Viewfinder 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative height 

message: I was wondering why this article on listed elevations in meters when articles like List of U.S. states by elevation and List of highest points of Canadian provinces and territories list both meter and feet?  I will volunteer to add the column. Rocketmaniac 14:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mild oppose. The main problem is that some of the heights are the subject of uncertainty. When new information becomes available, it becomes tiresome to have to get out the calculator during each update. As with relative height, heights in feet are on the individaul mountain pages. The use of "convert" template may be a solution. Viewfinder 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevations in ft also 

message: There are many territories in this list (e.g. Hong Kong, Svalbard, Jersey). I am fine with this, but I don't think they should be ranked given that the name of this page is List of countries by highest point. jax (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territories 

message: Clicking on the highest point of Denmark, the article names a higher point in Denmark. I do not know witch one is correct...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.229.24 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a contradiction here. I will correct this one. Viewfinder (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark 

message: I've added flags beside all the countries' names. I know I didn't discuss this change, but I personally see it as a minor edit. If anyone objects to the change, please discuss it instead of changing it back.
FreeT (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: Entravessada is not fiction, but according to most recent Spanish IGM mapping it is only 2927m. The claim that it is higher and the HP Andorra is made here . Can anyone attribute that claim to a more reliable source? Viewfinder (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andorra 

message: The last edit (Ararat --> Ağrı) made me think. Is there any concensus in the English Wikipedia (or just in this article) regarding the use of the names in a given article (in this list)? I mean whether all the names should be in English (if there is a common English name of that thing [peak], and if there is no such an English name, than [and just than] we use the local name [using the most appropriate English transcript]) - or in all cases we should use the local name of the thing (peak), and just indicate (in footnote or in brackets) the common English name? Or we use the English and the local names in a mixture (as it is the case now in this article) - depending on the last editor's mood or national feelings?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.142.209 (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  English and/or local names 

message: Um... List of Ultras in Central America (and its source material) gives a higher Honduran peak than the one listed in this article, and on its own, as being the highest mountain in that country. Mark J (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Cerro Las Minas, which I have just edited. Viewfinder (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honduras 

message: A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries.  Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Discussion

message: I have managed to insert details of the individual countries of the United Kingdom in a way that does not undermine the position of the United Kingdom (by making clear that they are within the United kingdom) - and this does away with the need for a footnote! (Hope this arrangement manages to satisfy those on both 'sides' of the debate about whether this list should just include sovereign countries.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do other editors think about this? Viewfinder (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not like the look of it and i am sure if its like that it will simply lead to more places having to be listed underneath other sovereign states to make it "fairer". I agree that the information is useful but it doesnt justify the UK being treated in a different way to all those other countries. Personally i prefer this style List of countries and outlying territories by total area where there is a column for notes. In that column details can be included, like the UK countries. That way it doesnt mess up the look of the table and treat the UK any different. (adding a bit) If there was a note column it would also provide a good place for the explanation when dealing with disputed sovereign states like Abkhazia and Kosovo. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) I think it makes the article look messy, to be honest.  Better to remove them entirely.  "Mainly sovereign states" is not much of an inclusion criterion (so I've changed that bit back to where it was this morning and changed the link on "territory"), and provided we say what the list is listing in the lead I see no reason why we should feel the need to have these four included. Pfainuk talk 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised you feel like that. I thought this would allow the table to be more informative and useful to readers without compromising the article purpose of listing in order of sovereign state. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is it will simply lead to further debates in the future about "why isnt the french regions and territories listed under France" and other countries too.  what do you think about the layout on the list of countries and territories by total area? That still would provide the break down of the different parts of the UK but in my opinion in a fairer and less disputable way. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, though personally I thought my addition on this article was better by managing to include it in the table in a way that didn't impact on the ranking and still (in my opinion) looked neat. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) I don't like having one entry on five lines, where the rest get a single line - that's why I don't like the look, I think.  I agree on the notes column, since it can be used for any one of a number of things (noting disputes, for example).  Indeed, it's probably a good idea even if these four are not mentioned in the article. Pfainuk talk 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the fact Northern Ireland doesnt have a flag and looks odd on its own unlike England, Wales and Scotland also doesnt help.  I really think a notes column on lists where possible is the best way forward it also makes international lists far more reliable with info explained next to it rather than hidden in a notes section right at the bottom of the page at the same time as providing the same information about the different parts of the UK as the current version. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  Ok i added the column for notes and put an entry in for the UK. Not sure about the wording to say it but let me know what you think and make changes if theres a better way of saying it. The formatting of the table could probably be improved, i also had a problem with the - Image:Countries by highest point map.PNG|thumb|Countries by highest point - Everytime i left it on the article it would radically change the table and i dont know how to stop that. Can start adding things to the notes section for other entries if people agree on the column, i wont for the moment incase it gets undone shortly. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection to your proposals, but you should probably leave further editing for a while in case there are objections from other editors. I think that if we deviate from other geographical lists of countries, e.g. by including Abkhazia, we should state that at the top. But in the long run, we should be consistent throughout our lists of countries. Viewfinder (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Britishwatcher. I think what you have done looks good, though I suspect others may be unhappy since it still results in the United Kingdom entry taking up 5 lines which, as I recall, was one of the complaints with my attempt to improve the table. Having said that, a notes column certainly allows more detail to be added without having to rely on footnotes so it is an improvement as far as I can see. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once the notes box is filled up a bit with information for other countries i dont think there will be too much objection to the UKs part, it just looks very odd as its the only note at the moment. The sovereign state of all the territories can be mentioned in that notes column rather than in brackets like (UK) or (Overseas France) ones are currently. It looks much better having them described and linking to the correct aritcle for overseas territory or crown dependency etc. ALso for places like the US the link to their individual article comparing highest points in each US state can be listed.  I will wait a while before doing any more just to get a few other views, but then i will move some of the info across. We can leave off Abkhazia for the moment to see how the conversation goes on the discussion page and following that we either add it with explanation or remove some of the other entities on here in the same boat. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including the countries within the United Kingdom 

message: I personally agree with the change of the HP of the UAE. However I can not justify the elevation datum since the SRTM shows no higher cells around Jabal Bil 'Ays (previously named in the Google Earth as Jabal Rawla) than 1896m. But the 1910m is within the error range of the SRTM, sot it could even be right. Unfortunately our editor from Dubai (the location of the provided IP address) did not provide the source of the elevation figure (neither here nor in the other two of his or her edits about the subject).
The main problem about locating the HP of the country is that the border between the UAE and Oman is still publicly undefined. I have read here that the governments of the two countries had been agreed of the exact line of their border in 2003 but this agreement is still not available for the general public. So until that we can not be sure where the HP of the UAE is - but it seems true, that it is somewhere in the Jabal Bil 'Ays area (UAE part of).
Has anybody more detailed information about the agreement of the border line or the HP itself?Kószab (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant Hutchison has just sent me this link. The information as currently stated is OK but SRTM suggests that it may be slightly lower. Viewfinder (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: My bad.  Just self-reverted.  My 1:100,000 map was very old, and, like the brand new but incorrect Google Earth boundary which triggered my (wrong) edit, makes the wrong assumption that this boundary, like most boundaries, runs along the high points/watershed ridge.  In fact, the high point in UAE is this western knoll, boundary pillar 43 at a UTM reading (can switch to that in Google Earth) of 417956.15E 2870729.43N   (roughly 27-57-11N 56-10-50E)... but that's OR as I can't find that boundary doc on the internet or published yet. DLinth (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Arab Emirates HP 

message: It is interesting whether the last edit is right or wrong. The (anonymous) editor deleted the indication of 'Kibo' before the 'Mount Kilimanjaro' entry. This made me think - what is the "rule" of mentioning the proper peak (if one exists) beside the actual mountain in the table? The current situation is a mix of more cases. There are examples of not mentioning the name of the proper peak although there is one (e.g. Huascaran - Huascaran Sur; Elbrus - Elbrus West; Kinabalu - Low's Peak). There are other examples where both the mountain's and the peak's name are mentioned (e.g. Mount Kenya - Batian; Mount Stanley - Margherita; Mount Cameroon - Fako). To make the picture even more interesting: the distance between Kibo and Mawenzi are almost the same as the distance between (Big) Ararat and Little Ararat - so sould we distinguish properly these two as well or should we forget about mentioning the Kibo when we talk about Kilimanjaro??? (I admit this last question was a little provocative one.)So what do you think about this? Kószab (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountains and their peaks 

message: In the list the highest point of Nicaraguas is Mogoton with 2438 m. But when I go to the article about Mogoton it says Mogoton is 2107 m. Anyone knows which is the correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.100.82 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The highest SRTM cell in Nicaragua is at 13°45'47" N, 86°23'54" W (equivalent of the location of Mogoton). Its height is 2094 m. The picture here shows that the barometric elevation data (2110 m) correlates with this figure. So the 2107 m datum seems to me more believable. I correct the list. Kószab (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicaragua's HP 

message: Sorry to be pedantic, but while the West Bank (location of the listed mountain) is militarily occupied by Israel, Israel doesn't claim that region as part of its territory (as it does with other territories that other countries don't recognize as part of Israel, like the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem). --Jfruh (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Palestinian Territories are not "claimed" by Israel 

message: How is it defined what is counted here? Is it only natural points? Because the Danish Great Belt bridge pylons are quite a bit higher (and not anywhere near) than the Møllehøj.ospalh (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose a brief note in the intro to explain this wouldn't hurt.  I've removed mention of the bridge, as it's not nearly the tallest thing in Denmark. Warofdreams talk 13:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural points? 

message: Bermuda is not a UK crown dependency, whatever that's supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.206.149 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2011.
:I've changed it to British Overseas Territory. --George2001hi 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crown dependencies 

message: It is very good, that an editor from London, UK (basen on the IP location) included South Sudan less than half a day after its independence. It is clear that the newborn country inherited its HP from the former Sudan. However, the peak he/she have chosen as the HP for the new (north) Sudan is might not be the real one. The Marrah Mountains article talks about the Deriba Caldera and lists its elevation to be over 3000m. The place called Kirsin Tonga (2799m) (according to a net search) is may be a subsidiary peak on the east slopes of the Marrah.
If you look at the SRTM data, there are (at least) two candidates for the (north) Sudan HP. The elevation datum in both cases is a little less than 3000m, and they are within the error range of the SRTM. The first one is by the Deriba Caldera, more exactly the SW point on the rim or close to the SW point (a little further more SW). The second one is 18,5km from the Deriba Caldera in the direction of NE (13.02.37 N, 24.22.03 E on Google Earth).
Does anybody have more precise information about the exact location and elevation of the (nort) Sudan HP?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kószab (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Sudan HP 

message: The list say Monte Titano in San Marino is 755m. But in the article about Monte Titano the height is given as 739. Anyone know what is right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.202.246 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Marino HP 

message: When I saw there was no country listed at number 29, I thought there was a mistake and I almost went through and edited the table to fix it. Only after scrolling down further did I discover several ranks are reserved for territories and such in different tables below. This seems confusing and potentially cause unnecessary edits and "fixes".
In fact, instead of ranking the territories and listing them in a separate table, a better way to do it would be just the opposite: Have just one table and include territories within the table in the position where their high point would rank them, but skip them when ranking. For example, Venezuela  and Indonesia would be ranked 28 and 29, but Antarctica's entry would appear between them, unranked.
Perhaps even better, do it the way List of countries and dependencies by area handles the same problem: Rank the territories all in the one main table, but italicize the names, and only un-rank an entry like Antarctica, but still put it in its position in the table for better comparison purposes. 
Just a suggestion. Thoughts? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  02:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank given to dependent territories, etc. 

message: the wrong map of russia
where is crimea?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.208.77 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the wrong map of russia