Talk:List of mountains of the Alps over 4000 metres

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Mountains: Alps Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Alps task force (assessed as High-importance).

I removed this subpeak list from the page. Note that I'm not fondamentally opposed to have such a list on Wikipedia, but if we have such a list then it should be *reasonably* exhaustive and not contain summits only in one region (in this case: the valley of Zermatt). Hope I wasn't too bold! Let me know otherwise. Zach (Talk) 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List

@Zacharie Grossen: I think that so long as the entries left behind correctly match the published and definitive UIAA list of 82 official list of 4000m summits, plus the 46 'enlarged lists',^[1] then anything else should be removed. If it's in either the UIAA's 'Official List' or its 'Enlarged List' of 1994 (or later updates) then these points should stay in. (I haven't checked for an absolute match as yet, though that was going to be my one of my tasks) This page certainly should not become a place to list every single mappable point above 4,000 metres. In principle, you appear to have done the right thing by removing most, if not all of them. (They could be listed within the individual mountain's page, if cited to a published map or guidebook, of course)

The problem I am seeing is that various editors have produced various Wikipedia 'List of mountains' with somewhat randomly selected prominences, and then these Wikipedia lists are getting re-used to incorrectly assert 'second highest' 'third highest', 'seventh highest' positions in other articles. They probably can't be blamed, as it's the naming of these articles that I think is the cause of the problem (see this for the latest erroneous claim about the [[Dom (mountain]|Dom]] being the third highest mountain in the Alps).

As you may have seen I have been attempting to address this issue by correctly naming those pages entitled 'List of mountains over xxxx m' to 'List of prominent mountains over xxx m' and by improving the explanatory text so that they are not so accidentally misleading. In a way, Wikipedia editors can't be blamed for such articles because mountaineers and geographers have not, themselves, been at all good at creating definitive lists - that is, not until the 1994 UIAA definitive list appeared. (As an aside, it did piss me off somewhat, because it meant I couldn't claim to have climbed anything like as many of the alpine 4000mers as I was able to claim in 1992!) But now that the

No worries, the 46 entries left below the main list match the UIAA enlarged list. If that was not clear, the list I removed contained only non-UIAA "summits" and exclusively unnamed points, which is a strong indication of non-notability (at least from a generalist encyclopedia point of view). Ok, the UIAA enlarged list also contains unnamed points on the map, like on the Alphubel. But you know, they're the UIAA, they must work in mysterious ways... ;-)

As always, the best solution is to be explicit when describing the matter, plain and simple. Truth never hurts. (And I think you did a good job!) Zach (Talk) 11:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the confusion described above, and the definitive nature of this list, plus my recent renaming of other alpine 'List of mountain' pages to more correctly reflect that they are simply selections based on a seemingly randomly chosen topographic prominence, I propose that this page would be better named List of mountains of the Alps over 4000 metres.

My rationale is that, firstly, it is the only modern and clearly-defined list produced by any internationally recognised body (the

Secondly, whilst recognising that many lovers of these summits may refer to them as the 'Viertausander', the 'Alpine four-thousanders' or just the '4000mers', the actual title of 'Alpine four-thousanders' is quite unlikely to make much sense to anyone unfamiliar with the alpine mountains and mountaineering terminology. It is perhaps for this reason that such confusion and misleading statements have managed to appear across alpine mountain articles when the wrong article was used as the basis for assertions of where, in the league of height tables, a particular mountain falls.

Thirdly, the article title should reflect formatting used in other mountain list articles. Recognising that the UIAA's definitive list of 82 summits includes some significant points which others might deem falls outside their own perception of discrete or 'prominent' mountains, it's possible that List of mountain peaks of the Alps over 4000 metres might be more suitable - but I would welcome opinions before making changes.

But whatever it is renamed to, I firmly feel that its contents must always accord with the definitive UIAA list, or whatever updates that organisation might subsequently publish. Note that I have today expanded the lead to refer to the criteria used by the UIAA in the selection of their 82 official 4000mer summits. (Pinging @Ericoides and Bermicourt: who, like Z.G. have had a lot of input to these lists.) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountains of the Alps over 4000 metres is fine by me. There's also List of Pyrenean three-thousanders that would need standardising to this form, and most probably others too. What's the convention on using commas, i.e. 4000 or 4,000? Ericoides (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think no comma is the consensus for best practice in titling. I can find nothing specified in

MOS:PUNCT, but entering "List of 4,000" and ""List of 3,000" into the search box yields fewer dropdown suggestions than those strings without any comma. And none of the results shown in either case include commas, and across multiple topics. That said, in the final results box there are some articles titled such List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 500,000 to 1,000,000 square kilometers. But most seem to exclude them, and logic suggests that including a comma is more liable to restrict search queries. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks. I can see the case for no commas in the thousands (4000) but one/two in orders of mag greater (40,000, 400,000 and 4,000,000), although I personally always prefer 4,000, as it avoids the number looking like a date. But let's go with 4000 . . . Ericoides (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then, of course, there are all of the categories to change to make it all consistent: Alpine four-thousanders, the three-thousanders, the ones in the Pyrenees and elsewhere. If this can't be automated, and I've no idea if it can be, it's a big job. Ericoides (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with either name. But I agree that the list should have clear criteria, ideally those recognised by the UIAA. Bermicourt (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Ericoides, I'm fine with List of mountains of the Alps over 4000 metres. However, other pages should be renamed as well for consistency (Eight-thousander, List of Colorado fourteeners...), unless they actually reflect different usages. Zach (Talk) 13:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider one of the lists you mention, List of Colorado fourteeners, and similar lists in the States, I'd suggest that you might run up against local objections as these terms have a rich history over there (although having said that, "four-thousander" and "eight-thousander" are themselves fairly idiomatic in certain communities). But it would be nice to be consistent. I'm contacting User:Cullen328 to get his opinion on the whole matter, as the implications of renaming this Alps list extend beyond Europe. Ericoides (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point - Only too happy to have Cullen's input, though maybe the US terms are more widely used amongst non-mountaineers than they here are in Europe? My focus here has been solely on facilitating the dissemination of Alps information. But either way, there would still be a redirect from the previous title. So, whilst I'm perfectly happy (as an alpinist) to see the article title remain exactly as it is (because it makes perfect sense to me as someone who's been trying to climb every one of the b*ggers since 1988!), from the perspective of every other normal user seeking information on mountains in the Alps, a title that contains a logical order of keywords makes by far the most sense to me. List of:> Of what? > Where? > What criteria? This would require no prior understanding of what 'four-thousander' means by anyone. I suspect because of that issue we've been seeing the erroneous claims I referred to above creeping into other mountain pages, simply because all our other Alps mountain 'list of' articles have been based on informally-chosen and quite significant prominence criteria, yet have been far more logically-titled than this one, and thus have been far more more easily found and misinterpreted than this 1994 UIAA 'Official List'. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. As a California climber, I have no opinion about the article titles concerning the Alps. But in California and especially Colorado, the concept of a "fourteener" is widely known among people interested in the highest peaks. At least nine books have been published on the topic of fourteeners, which include the two most iconic peaks in California, Mount Whitney and Mount Shasta. So, I would like to be part of any conversation about renaming fourteener articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I'm the only one who thinks having pictures in lists is not a great idea, even though they can look pretty good. Without any caption there's no way to explain what the photo is showing and in this type of (inhomogeneous) list it can be misleading. For example, the Lauteraarhorn entry shows the Schreckhorn as well (see article for details), same problem for Grand Combin de Valsorey and other low prominence peaks. Maybe it can be fixed, but I'm not sure how to do it. Zach (Talk) 10:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. On the specific Lauteraarhorn issue, I've changed the pic to one that's not ambiguous. I guess a way forward would be to go through all of the pics, identify the ones where the ID of the peak is unclear and try to find a better one. I'm generally in favour of pics in these kinds of lists as a little bit of colour helps to make the contents less dry, although perhaps we don't need to try to avoid that. Ericoides (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a better picture and I'm currently putting the annotations. It probably will be more difficult to find good photos for all other summits... but we can always try, it won't hurt. Zach (Talk) 10:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I normally hate images in List articles which disrupt the usability of that list - especially long ones or where a topic such as a 'List of species of...' is so badly constructed that it is rendered unsortable. I don't find that to be the case here at all, so I'm happy to see an image used against most of the entries. I would note that the image box is about the same size as that required for the first ascensionists, so removing them would have little impact on row height. Providing the images are not inherently misleading and are used across a majority of the listed pages, I'm quite Ok with seeing them here. To be honest, I actually think this page is now not far off from being a potential a

Featured list candidate. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, given the length of the list the inclusion of pictures is reasonable and I have to admit it's kind of enjoyable to view them full screen one after another. Happy to change my mind! Zach (Talk) 12:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ALPS yet, and it would be great to get at least one of each type. As a bit of a 'Johnny-Come-Lately' I'm not sure I've really made enough contributions to it to be the main nominator, but am happy to help work on it. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know for Ericoides but I probably won't be much available the next few weeks so you really should feel free to improve the list further and nominate it for FA (when you think it's good enough). I'm not familiar with the FA/FL nomination thing (at all), but I'd say that if you feel like nominating this list then... you're probably certainly the right person to do so! Zach (Talk) 17:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded per Zach, as you have done a great deal of work on it recently, Nick, while I for one have become semi-detached. Ericoides (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]