Talk:Extreme points of Earth

message: From a point of view that's very possible the earthenmost and westernmost places on earth must not only be in the 180th meridian, they must be, simultaneously, the closest to the equator possible, if not in the equator itself... So that would be a nice addendum to the article...
:I'm not sure why that would make them any further east or west, but if you can find a reference that this is an opinion which had been aired, then we could add them. Warofdreams talk 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Easternmost and westernmost

message: For the record, the radius of an ellipse of semi-minor axis b (6356.78 km) and semi-major axis a (6378.14 km), at latitude λ (measured at the centre), is:
r^2 = \frac{a^2b^2}{b^2 + (a^2-b^2)\sin^2{\lambda}}
And thus we have:
Place           	Latitude 	Altitude (mAMSL)	Radius (km)
Mount Everest   	27°59'16"	8,850           	6375.6
Mount Chimborazo	1°28'    	6,310           	6378.1
Mariana Trench  	11°19'   	-10,911         	6377.7
Arctic ocean    	90°      	-4,000          	6356.8
Urhixidur 16:48, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
:(Wasn't quite sure which section this should go in, but this seemed like the best bet.) Something's wrong with the numbers given for Chimborazo vs Everest. There's no way that Chimborazo's summit is only ~6000m from the Earth's center. That's roughly its height above sea level! I may try to fix it, but I'd like someone who's actually done the math to check my numbers if I do.-Athaler (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Computing distances from Earth's centre

message: What are the extreme inhabited points? Rmhermen 05:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
:Meaning what? The most densely populated spots?
:Urhixidur 17:31, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
::Oh, I see. No I just meant furthest north, furthest south, most isolated, etc. Rmhermen 20:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
:See Northernmost settlements and Southernmost settlements as a starter. Warofdreams 09:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Now for bonus points

message: I've suggested that The world's most northern be merged into this article.  Tell me what you think.  --Newguineafan 17:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two seem to be quite different in content. I don't have any strong feelings, but think they could easily be kept separate. And as Mexaguil suggests, add a most southern article too - MPF 01:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has run for nearly two months; the voting seems to be for keeping them separate, so I'm deleting the merge tags now - MPF 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I think it'd be extremely interesting to get informations about the planet's highest villages (altitude). I know this'd be difficult, but it'd be an imporant part of a list like this. 213.47.219.86 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See list of highest towns by country. Warofdreams talk 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest village 

message: I don't know what the technical term for this would be but I think this should also include more information dependent on habitation (like it does by mentioning Hawaii)  What is the northernmost permanent settlement?  What point on earth is farthest removed from human settlement?  And perhaps also what places have been the historicall least accessed, but I can understand how that might belong on a different list.  140.180.166.176 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Habitation?

message: The roads listed in Tibet are certainly not the highest in the world.  As far as I know, the highest road goes to the summit of Aucanquilcha, a volcano in Chile, .  This is a service and haul road for a sulfur mine, passable by 20-ton mining trucks.  See this reference:
* (includes description and photos of Aucanquilcha summit road and mine)
I've added this info to the article.  This mine has been shut down since the 1990s, and the road is falling into disrepair, but increased demand for sulfur could perhaps result in resumption of mining activity someday, and resumed maintenance of the road. --Seattle Skier (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest road 

message: Would it be right to add the southernmost point on land except Antarctica to the Latitude and longitude list?--ImPaladin 08:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southernmost except Antarctica 

message: The northernmost point of the World is the geographic North Pole, in the Arctic Ocean.
:I'm not sure that's correct. Dur dur dur dur dur. --76.223.221.122 08:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe the most northerly point is Magnetic North, which is somewhere around Ellesmere Island these days. The question featured on the programme Top Gear: Polar Special. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: Apparently the title for most remote island in the world is being disputed by Tristan da Cunha and the relatively nearby Bouvet Island.
I'm quite certain that Saint-Paul island, located in the southern Indian Ocean is definetly further away from any landmass. The closest you can get to St. Paul is the Western tip of Australia, which is over 3,500 kms away.
The claim that Tristan da Cunha is the remotest island on Earth is obviously not true, since it's "only" 2,800 kms away from South Africa. 
I'm going to leave this here so we can get some discussion on it and some time from now I'll fix the article itself, if anybody has any islands that are more remote, go ahead and discuss!
Neoncitylights 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saint-Paul is not the most remote island in the world, as our article states that it is only 53 miles from île Amsterdam.  We could always have a new section for the island furthest from any continental landmass. Warofdreams talk 16:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a clarification on what it means to be remote?  Does it refer to the closest ANYTHING? or anything of significance?  Another inhabited island?  Accessibility? (Example, because Easter Island has an airport and Tristan da Cunha doesn't makes E.I. less remote?)    Billy Nair 16:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ile Saint Paul is also "only" 800 miles from Kerguelen, and is closer to the Antartic than it is to Australia. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The definition of an archipelago has to be clarified. Should the island of Gough, which lies 400 km away from Tristan Da Cunha, be considered as part of the "archipelago of Tristan da Cunha"? If yes, then how about Island Bouvet, who's 1,845 km away from Gough Island?霎起林野间 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, it is not yet clear to me whether île Amsterdam and Saint-Paul island would be regarded as in one archipelago.霎起林野间 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Remote should mean distance from any other land mass, not only continental landmasses (otherwise, an island just off the east coast of Greenland, or Borneo, for example, is apparently highly remote).  In terms of people, clearly the reference is to permanent settlements, not boats. Warofdreams talk 10:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anybody verify that the island of St. Helena is the habitation furthest from any other land in the world? i.e. Tristan da Cunha is the most remote inhabited archipelago, while the island of Tristan da Cunha itself is relatively close to the uninhabited Inaccessible and Nightingale Islands. Whereas the nearest landmass of any kind to St. Helena, AFAIK, is Ascension, so St. Helena is the inhabited place on Earth with the most ocean in all directions. Or ne c’est pas? —Wiki Wikardo 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: St Helena is not that remote from Africa. On the other hand, however, I have computed the distance between St Helena and Tristan Da Cunha on google maps using its labs, which is shown as around 2,434 km, definitely closer to the distance of so called "2,816 km (1,750 mi) from South Africa" (what's more, the closest distance between south africa and Tristan Da Cunha is actually shown as around 2,770 km rather than the 2,816 km).霎起林野间 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most remote island in the world? 

message: in no way is wellington the most remote cap city. i would immediately recognize that canberra is more remote, as it is 1689 miles from port-vila, vanuatu; wellington is 1667 away from port-vila.
this is not to say that canberra is the most remote cap city.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjwr42 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has objected, so I added Canberra too. Of course, the shortest distance from Canberra to another capital (i.e., to Wellington) is the same as the shortest distance from Wellington to another capital (i.e., to Canberra). Unless we both, and all who read your comment, have missed something. -- Jao (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Canberra doesn't meet the guidelines either.  If you're looking for the most remote capital city you can find, try Perth, Western Australia.  The nearest city of any kind of comparable size is Adelaide, South Australia, some 2,500 kilometres away.  If you follow the "same size or larger" theory, that would then make Melbourne, Victoria your candidate which is around 3,400 kilometres away. (since Adelaide's population of 1.3 million is easily smaller than Perth's 1.6 million) --Rjch au (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perth, Western Australia is not a country capital. Luis wiki (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most remote capital city? 

message: I think reference to the Kola_Superdeep_Borehole should be made some where in this article. May be as the deepest man-made hole.
Mahadevan Subramanian (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the deepest man-made hole, and it pprobably qualifies as the deepest "location", in other words closest to the earth's center, but it all depends on your definition of "point" or "location". The borehole is only about 21 cm wide, so does the bottom of the hole qualify as a "point" or place? Additionally, the hole is so deep in the crust that when they pulled the drill out, the hole closed because of the amorphous and plastic nature of the crust at those depths, temperatures and pressures. So it's also a question of when the measurement is taken. To summarize, it's quite arbitrary to discuss these things, you can't really put a number on it unless you define a lot of other things first.  Arcades (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest point 

message: There seems to be a bit of discussion above (under "longest continuous distance at sea"), that seems to relate to the section "Along any great circle", but mixed up with furthest distances "along particular lat/long"; not necessarily the same thing, so I'm adding this under the specific heading in the article.Regarding any great circle, I seem to remember reading somewhere that a great circle was possible from a point somewhere on the coast of either Alaska or the Aleutian Islands, down the Pacific through the Drake Passage and then 'up' through the Mozambique Channel and up to a point on the coast somewhere on the Arabian Sea. This looks like a longer trip than the two mentioned in the article,  but I don't no for sure if it's possible. Can anyone else confirm?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.209.92 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how that discussion could have related to a section that did not exist at the time it was held (May 2008). Anyway, the section suffers from tremendous sourcing problems. As we don't have a source saying "this is the longest etc", what we have now is just OR (and probably, as you note, not even correct). —JAO • T • C 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Regarding the longest distance at sea, the article text clearly does not claim to provide the exact longest route along any Great Circle, but rather just states that 1) there are many that are greater than the antipodal length and 2) gives 2 good examples, along with approximate lengths. I think it's fine as it is until someone can add more examples, or a more precise statement about what is really the longest such route at sea. I don't fully agree with the box above citing original research, since a) no claim of longest route is made, merely examples are given and b) anyone can verify these things themselves by using Google Earth to measure distances on the earth. Facts that can be verified by (basically) anyone through observation and measurement (ei. the earth is round, sky is blue, the distance from X to Y is Z kilometers) should not constitute original research. If a claim is made in the article later that "the longest route at sea along any Great Circle is such and such" then you would need to source it, and state who says that it is the absolute longest. (No such claim is currently made in the article.)Arcades (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Oddly enough I did some research on this a few years back.  It was done by sampling an enormous number of great circles (of which there are an infinite number) covering most of the globe and actually calculating the surface distances using a global digital elevation model.  I have no intention of posting the results, as there is no evidence that they are in fact correct (there were limitations involving the sample size, the coarseness of the elevation model, the oblateness of the spheroid, etc.), nor am I confident that there is any possible way to calculate these to any accuracy. anon 66.45.149.190 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Along any Great Circle 

message: What is the furthest point from the Earth's axis? This would be the fastest moving "point" on earth.
The summit of Cayambe seems a likely candidate, as a point on it's slopes is the highest point on the equator. Zarano (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is quite well know and established that this point is the Chimborazo's summit. Or maybe the axis differs from the Earth's center? ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely different, yes. Chimborazo's 1.5 degrees off the equator brings it about 2,200 m closer to the axis, more than compensating for the difference between its and Cayambe's elevations. —JAO • T • C 18:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest moving point 

message: Cayambe (volcano) 6383.95 km  cos (.025 degrees) = 6383.95 km Bandana man95 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculations 

message: The coordinates need the following fixes:
* The south coordinate needs to be changed to the north corrdinate.
24.117.177.65 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: "However, one could perhaps" Is a weasel statement and is speculation. It needs a citation.71.85.200.32 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was by me.  Adam in MO Talk 02:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this section should be there at all, or needs to be completely reworded. Currently it has no relation to most of the sections. The part referring to latitude and longitude (longitude in particular) being a bit arbitrary could be a note in the Latitude and Longitude section. But suggesting any other centre seems pointless to me. We could also pick many other centres - biggest city, centre of largest landmass, centre of all landmasses, the antipodes of any of these, either of the poles, etc.Richjhart (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center 

message: The Kola superdeep borehole record has been surpassed many times. See Sakhalin-I for more information.
:On 28 January 2011, Exxon Neftegas Ltd., operator of the Sakhalin-1 project, drilled the currently world's longest extended-reach well. It has surpassed both the Al Shaheen well and the previous decades-long leader Kola Superdeep Borehole as the world's longest borehole. The Odoptu OP-11 Well reached a measured total depth of  and a horizontal displacement of . Exxon Neftegas completed the well in 60 days.Sakhalin-1 Project Drills World's Longest Extended-Reach Well Cliff (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is not a new low (har har). Namely, it's an extended-reach well, and the reach is mainly horizontal, as said in the quote. The "depth" of the borehole is quoted imprecisely here: it would be in fact its length. If the borehole was perfectly straight (which it probably isn't), then its maximum absolute depth would be 4552 m by Pythagoras' law. Borehole length records have been previously broken already, but Kola Superdeep Borehole remains the deepest point from surface. --vuo (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Vuo, Thank you for the clarification. Should we try to make the difference clear? More talk about this.  Cliff (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Lowest Artificial record. 

message: The article doesn't answer the following question:
:What is the closest point from the center above ground or water ?
The bottom of the arctic ocean doesn't qualify.
Bomazi (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer likely is: top of the arctic ocean (or, putting that more scientifically, ocean surface at the North Pole).Among these on land, either Kaffeklubben/Oodaaq/whatever or southernmost point of Antarctic shore... or maybe some low depression elsewhere in the Antarctic (Google Earth flubs it up by having large parts of inner Antarctica with near-zero altitude, which is almost certainly bogus).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.141.71 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing entry 

message: Hi. I am not familiar with this article and just stopped in in passing, so please forgive me if this question is v stupid or an FAQ or whatever. In the first section. "Latitude and longitude", we have:
*The westernmost point on land, according to the path of the International Date Line, would be Attu Island, Alaska
*The easternmost point on land, according to the path of the International Date Line, would be Caroline Island, Kiribati1
So what is that "would be" wording about, rather than "is"? I would be (aha) tempted to change it, but not before asking here if there is perhaps a specific reason for it. It's not generally used in the article, and it's not a beautiful formulation if all that is meant is "is". If something else is meant, perhaps it should be explained for the non-expert reader. (That would be me.) (See what I did there?)  Please advise. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed, sounds like poor wording to me.  Mildly MadTC 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would be not is? 

message: The main page lists this at 406 metres on Rhine-Main-Danube Canal.
This is certainly not the highest. Jinghong [] at 558m is reachable from the ocean via the Mekong River which is navigable to large vessels at least that far.
Almost certainly the Amazon river approaching Peru would also be higher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.40.68 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Iquitos is only 104m ASL.  How far upstream the Amazon remains navigable by ocean-going vessels depends more on how you define "ocean-going". Mr Larrington (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest waterway reachable by ocean-going vessels 

message: Do we have a standard when referring to distances? An example taken from two entries next to each other in the article:
*The lowest point underground ever reached was 12,262 metres (40,230 ft) deep (SG-3 at Kola superdeep borehole).
*The lowest human-sized point underground is 3.9 kilometres (2.4 mi)[1] below ground at the TauTona Mine, Carletonville, South Africa.
Should we use meters and feet or kilometres and miles?
111.92.178.246 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using a stand measurement system for distance 

message: Are these record sure? This says:
*Longest continuous distance at sea (between continents):
**  at 18°39'12N: China (Hainan) (110°15'9E), Pacific Ocean, Mexico (103°42'6W).
I think, at 3.288° N, the distance is 18,319 km, from 117.658° E (Indonesia) to 77.507° W (Colombia), nearly touching a small island at 172.967°E --androl (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest continuous distances 

message: I have removed the links that had been placed in many of the section headings. It is Wikipedia policy not to have links in section headings, and there are good reasons for this. For those using touchscreen mobile phones, section headings that contain links often do not function properly. In the mobile phone Wikipedia, sections are not shown until one touches the name of the section heading, and then they open. However, if there is a link in the section heading, touching the heading will not cause it to open but will instead take the reader to the linked page. Interlingua 13:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not make links to words in section headings 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/tautona_goldmine/
*:Triggered by \bmining-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Wouldn't "most remote city with a population in excess of one million, from another city of at least that population" be Karachi according to List of cities proper by population? C933103 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Karachi is only about 100km from Hyderabad - another city with well over 1,000,000. Richjhart (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same question, but then I think "that population" means one million, not the population of the first city. — Peterwhy 13:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  most remote city with a population in excess of one million, from another city of at least that population 

message: The text describing Tristan da Cunha as most remote place in the world is quite confusing. The description seems to refer to that place as farther from any other **inhabitated** place: The most remote [...] inhabited island is Tristan da Cunha [...] 2,434 km (1,512 mi) from Saint Helena, 2,816 km (1,750 mi) from South Africa, and 3,360 km (2,090 miles) from South America. In that case however, what about Kerguelen Islands which lies according to its wiki article 3,300 km (2,051 mi) from the nearest populated location? If on the contrary we are talking about the inhabited island farther from any other island or from the continent, inhabitated or not, the text and description should first mention the uninhabitated Bouvet island which is 1,845 km (1,146 mi) away, rather than inhabitated places farther from Tristan da Cunha (this is in the case that Tristan is indeed the most remote place according to this criterion, and that Gough Island is considered part of the same archipelago as Tristan da Cunha).
But I'd say that the title of most remote inhabitated place farther from any other **inhabitated** place is a natural criterion for "remoteness" that should be considered. It's not clear that Tristan da Cunha holds the title for that. Lerichard (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most remote inhabitated place 

message: It says that 22 degrees east is the integer meridian with most land but i think 19 degrees is more, it has a lot more land in svalbard and goes even more south then 22 degrees in africa, and there is some land in italy as well. Ev3commander (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think 19degrees east has a lot more land... 

message: It says that Honolulu is the most remote city with a population of at least 500,000 from any other city of equal or greater size and that the closest such city is San Francisco. Isn't San Diego closer to Honolulu than San Francisco?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.227.11 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, San Francisco is closer to Honolulu than San Diego. +mt 23:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honolulu Question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Extreme points of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426171257/http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/IDeepwater-Horizon-i-Drills-Worlds-Deepest-Oil-and-Gas-Well-419C151.html to http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/IDeepwater-Horizon-i-Drills-Worlds-Deepest-Oil-and-Gas-Well-419C151.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Extreme points of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921032822/http://www.100gogo.com/bigben.htm to http://www.100gogo.com/bigben.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cuba.ija.csic.es/~danielgc/papers/Garcia-Castellanos%2C%20Lombardo%2C%202007%2C%20SGJ.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822124000/https://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/centre.htm to http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/centre.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
the paragraph headed "The longest continuous north-south distance on land", subsection starting "The longest in Africa" which ends  "...to the south coast of South Africa (34°41′30″N 20°12′0″E)". The latitude should be S not N. This applies to both the text and the geohack link.
—80.189.39.233 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks for noticing the problem. Deor (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: Wouldn't this article benefit from a merger with the very similar Extremes on Earth? I really like the idea behind articles like these, since they try to sum up all of the relevant facts about Earth's most extreme places in one convenient article, but it seems that both articles are attempting to be that "one convenient article" for all of Wikipedia.
Both are ostensibly built upon the same premise: to list, concisely and conveniently, all of Earth's superlative places according to various categories. If you were going to construct such an article from scratch, you would probably want to include geographical categories like highest and lowest points, northernmost/southernmost/easternmost/westernmost points, most remote points, etc.; as the situation currently stands, these categories are mostly handled by Extreme points of Earth (though Extremes on Earth also seems to focus on geographical superlatives and lists high and low points by continent as well as northernmost and southernmost points of land, so there is at least some redundancy between the two articles). Other valuable superlatives might include categories that are more meteorological in nature, things like hottest and coldest, wettest and driest, etc., some of which are lightly covered in Extremes on Earth and much more completely and precisely in List of weather records.
The fact that both Extremes and Extreme points seem to be attempting to present the same broad classes of information but in separate articles (and that they both explicitly reference each other in their introductions) makes me think readers might be better served if all of this information was simply combined into a single article. The presentation of Earth's physical and geographical superlatives is, I believe, a cohesive-enough concept to warrant a single all-inclusive page. As the two articles currently exist, there's a great deal of overlap between them, enough that it is confusing and even frustrating that such similar information is not listed together on a single page. Categories like "Greatest vertical drop", "Greatest oceanic depths", "Deepest ice", and the "Subterranean" extremes are certainly similar enough to geographical superlatives like "Highest points" and "Poles of inaccessibility" that I do not think putting these things side-by-side in the same article would be problematic for any reader; one article can and should capture all of these extremes at the same time, rather than merely suggesting a visit to some other page where the reader can find more of the same. Indeed, trying to articulate a precise distinction between the categories in each article is very difficult to do. It's clear to me, and I hope to others, that the information presented in the two articles is not distinct enough to remain segregated.
Both articles have valuable unique information as well as share redundancies that would obviously need to be corrected in the case of a merger. Extreme points is currently organized and streamlined much more logically than its counterpart, which seems to be more or less a random smattering of facts without any semblance of unity. Organization of the merged article would need to be addressed quickly, but if nothing else I suppose the randomness of Extremes could at least be placed in a "Miscellaneous" section or something of the sort in the final result. Extremes also has a beautiful table displaying high and low elevations and high and low air temperatures for each continent which I think would be valuable even in a merged article. The question that remains, of course, is which article title should be retained? Either would work, I guess, but I like Extremes on Earth better, if only because some categories as they are currently defined may not be best described as "points".
While meteorological superlatives are possibly relevant inclusions, I think the bulk should be left to List of weather records. Hottest and coldest, and maybe wettest and driest, are probably sufficient for this article. I'm also down with cutting them out entirely and leaving the merged article as a showcase of purely physical and geographical extremes.
Anyone else have an opinion on any of this? What are your thoughts regarding a potential merger, and what do you think the idealized article ought to include? PJsg1011 (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with WP:Extremes on Earth 

message: This seems it would be a good addition to the Highest Points section. Many believe, and/or have stated, that Mount Chimborazo is the closest point to space (as of July 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2016/jan/23/mountain-climbing-chimborazo-ecuador or https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9428163). In both of these examples, they state that Mount Chimborazo is the closest point to space in order to further explain that Mount Chimborazo is the farthest point from the center of the earth.
I think that this is incorrect however, and therefore worth adding to this article that Vinson Massif (specifically Mount Vinson 4,892 m or 16,050 ft) in Antarctica is the closest point to space. You have to define what you mean by "space" or "outer space", but by whatever definition you choose, it seems obvious that the atmosphere is far thinner at the poles (accounting for all atmospheric pressure, temperature and gravitational differences), thus making space or outer space far closer to the earth at the poles (despite the Kármán line defining space as 100km from the surface of the earth by international convention - it seems this article should be described by actual physics-based definitions).
So, it seems that the same people who share the Mount Chimborazo fact to open your mind to the idea that the earth is an oblate spheroid, have not considered that the atmosphere is as well. Therefore I think it seems a pertinent addition to this article. Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.96.130 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point closest to space 

message: "The Ticlio pass, on the Central Road of Peru, is the highest surfaced road in the Americas, at an elevation of 4,818 m (15,807 feet)." -> Chilean route 27 reaches at least 4832 metres near 23.0725° S, 67.5056° W and is completely surfaced. I do not know if there are not even higher points.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesquideus (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest surfaced road of Americas 

message: Ice is water, so shouldn't be the southernmost point on water the geographic south pole? GameFreak1337 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I've just changed "water" to "(liquid) water". PatricKiwi (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southernmost point on water? 

message: People keep deleting "Palestine" from the list of 'countries' that surround the Dead Sea (the Earth's lowest point on land).  To help prevent this, why not change "Palestine" to the (less controversial) "West Bank", as is done on the Dead Sea page itself? PatricKiwi (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be consistent with Dead Sea, which currently (and almost always) lists "Basin countries: Israel, Jordan, Palestine". I check this most times to see if the consensus on that article has changed. +mt 22:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Dead Sea does list "Palestine" in 'Basin countries' in its infobox, but it also says "West Bank" in the lead sentence.  Perhaps the people who keep deleting "Palestine" from this article haven't yet noticed Dead Sea's infobox, and are looking only at its lead sentence :-)  In any case, my point was that replacing "Palestine" with "West Bank" in this article might make these people happier. Or just leave it the way it is, if you're content with constantly reverting :-( PatricKiwi (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Palestine" -> "West Bank"?