Talk:Aconcagua

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aconcagua article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Mountains Top‑importance

	Mountains portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Argentina Top‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Aconcagua, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climbing Low‑importance

	Climbing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Height

IMO, the height of a mountain peak is one of the most interesting pieces of data, and thus IMO it should be one of the first things mentioned in the article, like "Cerro Aconcagua (xxxx m) is a mountain peak in ...". For some reason, height is not mentioned in any of the opening paragraphs, and it's the same with a lot of other articles on mountains, so I'm not going to just change this, but rather, I'll ask: why? 94.191.162.213 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a Volcano?

There are a number of sources on the net that either claim this mountain is an extinct volcano or of "volcanic origin". [1]However a recent edit claims that "Aconcagua is NOT and never was a volcano". Is there any verification for this? Road Wizard 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the mountain consists of Miocene volcanic rocks, uplifted later to their present height. I've cited one source for it not being a volcano in our article; here is another site giving more detail. There is also some discussion of this in our Volcanic Seven Summits article. -- Avenue (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it look volcanic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puede ser un Volcan pero solo cuando haya un calentamiento de el sol muy fuerte ya que esta recubierto...Digamoslo nieve o hielo. :) 8D ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.158.230.221 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation people ?

how the f*** do u pronounce this effinname ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.201.242 (talk • contribs) 14:13, October 17, 2006 (UTC)

I don't do the IPA gibberish, but I can tell you in plain English: ah-cone-CAH-gwah. Colloquially, some also say ah-cone-CAH-wah, as if the "g" weren't there. Wahkeenah 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not "colloquially" but the second pronounciation you give is the only correct one. 93.219.151.239 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate spelling?

Is Acongagua an alt spelling? worthy of a redirect? AHands (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Acongagua" gets 9,900 hits on Google (compared to 2,000,000+ for "Aconcagua"), so maybe yes. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't... it's just a mistake... --B1mbo (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no "Mount"

Is there any particular reason why there is Mount Everest and Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount McKinley and just plain Aconcagua which is not a "Mount".Eregli bob (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, because the other places belonged to the British Empire, and Argentina never did. 93.219.151.239 (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K2 isnt mount k2 these are just names. 2601:646:8101:2CF0:4C2A:BD42:DF2C:C894 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad math in the number of climbers (cited source has the same problem)

According to the text, most climbers are from the US, followed by Germany and the UK. However, the text also states that 25% of climbers are Argentineans. Logically, it follows that more than 25% of climbers are from the UK, Germany, and the US each. Together with the Argentineans, this adds up to more than 100%.

Clearly, Argentineans must be among the top three nationalities of climbers if the 25% is correct. However, since the cited source contains the same mistake, it is not clear whether they rank first or not.

I am going to change the text to say that the ranking is only among foreign climbers. 190.233.56.106 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aconcagua/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Only start class as it needs geology info and inline citations before being considered for B. Top importance as one of the 7 summits. RedWolf 20:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Still missing geology/geography section. The climbing section needs inline citations and needs to be restructured to remove the point form or possibly most of it moved to a WikiBook. RedWolf (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 06:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Prominence

This, and several other pages on Wikipedia, list the height of Aconcagua as the same as its prominence (height relative to surroundings/base). Looking at the map of the Andes mountain range that holds Aconcagua, there is no way that the base is at 0m elevation, and that the prominence is the same as its height. It looks like the base this should be measured from is about 4000M, giving it a fairly low prominence. Any experts in this area able to correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.92.46 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See prominence. It isn't the height above base, but the elevation difference between the summit and the lowest contour line that encircles the summit but doesn't contain a higher peak. Aconcagua is the highest peak in the Americas, so the lowest such contour line would be sea level. The value is correct. —hike395 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Aconcagua Agentina Animation Video.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Aconcagua Agentina Animation Video.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]