Talk:List of Alpine peaks by prominence

message: I removed this, because (a) the list is complete and accurate down to 1500m, and (b) the sources are copyrighted, and, apart from the presentation differences and the odd tweak, this list is a carbon copy of its sources. The general extension of this list, without the permission of the source copyright holders, would be improper. The development tag does not appear on other Wikipedia prominence lists, so why should it appear on this one? Its restoration is provocative. I have deleted it again and I will contest this issue if necessary. Viewfinder 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite a combative attitude for a small point like this. The fact that other lists are not marked in the same way is not really relevant; we should not repeat common mistakes simply because they are common. If you really feel strongly about it, then we can leave it off (it's not that important, after all), but the list is fundamentally incomplete. The whole range of the Alps contains a vast number of peaks, and this list only contains a tiny proportion of them. We have taken an abritrary cut-off of 1500 m, and listed only those peaks above it. A peak with a relative height of 1499 m is to all intents and purposes just as important as one at 1501 m. So the list is incomplete, but if you don't want the tag, so be it. No provocation was intended. --Stemonitis 10:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listdev tag 

message: I cannot see any reason for maintaining two separate articles listing European ultras. Regarding the extension of the Alps prominence list to 600m on Wikipedia - possibly contrary to my comments in thr previous section - this is OK with me, if they are broken up into regions, e.g. Dolomites, Maritimes, Pennines, etc. Viewfinder (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok to merge, the only reason why they should be kept separate is if the Alpine list is extended. --Mark J (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Or  they could be merged to have a complete List of European Ultras page and then have a seperate list of either the top 100 or down to 600m for the alps.--Greatestrowerever (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why merge? - this article is in Alpine Peaks, a large subcategory of  :Category:Alps. And if extemded down to 600m (see above) further subdivisions by regions/ranges of Europe will be required Hugo999 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: It has a prominence of more than 2000m.--94.69.128.204 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it falls outside the Alps, Taygetus is listed at List of non-Alpine European Ultras. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes it does miss the criteria. It is not isolated; high ridges connect it to the higher Finsteraarhorn. Viewfinder (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about ...? 

message: The col height for Mont Blanc is given as 113m, and the col location is Little St Bernard Pass. Is it just me or it's an obvious nonsense? Johnnyjanko (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The col for Mont Blanc is at 113 meter somewhere in Russia. This is changed very often, presumably because it's very counterintuitive. - FakirNL (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That a claim may appear counterintuitive to some people does not necessarily imply that the claim is incorrect and definitely does not imply that the person making the claim is a "moronic troll" or "stupid". Please can we keep our edit summaries civil. Viewfinder (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mont Blanc col location and height do not match