Talk:Adirondack High Peaks

(First comments)

Added links (to be created) for Gray Peak, Basin Mountain, and Gothics, in hopes of creating pages for these mountains soon. --WalrusFC 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite this please

Ted Keizer, the hiking ultramarathoner better known as "Cave Dog," set the current record for climbing all 46 Adirondack High Peaks in June 2002, with a time of 3 days, 18 hours, and 14 minutes.

- Aagtbdfoua (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's legit, but the only place I can find it is on The Cave Dog's own site, which I think is a step or three away from being a reliable source. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change the sentence that says neither Marcy nor Algonquin require technical skill and that A. is regarded as the more challenging climb. None of the HP require technical skill, and A is a shorter hike than M. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed: No support. Moonraker12 (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

---

I propose a merger of the article Adirondack High Peaks --> Adirondack Mountains and List of mountains of New York; and a merger of Catskill High Peaks --> Catskill Mountains and List of mountains of New York. The body text of the merged-from articles can be merged into their respective main article (Adirondack Mountains or Catskill Mountains), while the lists can be merged into List of mountains of New York. The latter does not currently include any of the mountains from the "High Peak" articles, and main articles are short enough to absorb their body text. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this would work for several reasons.

• It would be enough to have hatnotes here pointing to the high-peaks list, both of which really should be tableized. Within the context of their respective ranges they are worthy of extra note as the foci of popular peakbagging lists, which are linked directly from the infobox in the article on every mountain on those lists, and organizations dedicated to those lists.
• And, excluding them, there are still many other mountains in both ranges that we have not . This would be a long list if didn't separately break out the High Peaks lists.
• Speaking (or, rather, writing) of which, this list's defined scope is incomplete. A reader unfamiliar with the state would be led to believe that the entire state west of, say I-81 is as flat as the plains near Lake Ontario. But, of course, it isn't, as any drive across the Southern Tier would suggest. For instance, the highest point in Western New York, Alma Hill, is 2,548 feet high, higher than some of the other peaks on this list that we already have articles on. Just because you can pretty much drive a paved road almost all the way to its summit doesn't make it any less notable, any less of a mountain. The relative paucity of hiking opportunities in Central and Western New York compared to the eastern portion of the state should not blind us (In fact, I recall, Allegany State Park is New York's largest.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• This set of hills is obviously notable on its own and should be left as a separate article. Op47 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The above applies to Catskill High Peaks as well. Op47 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Case's points. Factoring in notability, the current layout seems to present the information in the best way possible. Lithium6ion (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• User:ptm121 - I agree with Case. The 46 are quite notable on their own, and incorporating them into the main page would add clutter. I propose to remove the merge suggestion. I'll check back in a few weeks and pull it if there's agreement. —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I’m closing this; there's been no support these past three months, and plenty of good reasons against. I think, also, that the proposal is somewhat unfounded; these articles look like peak-bagger lists (analogous to the Scottish Munros) so they aren’t just random collections of information. I've added some links to clarify that. Moonraker12 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.