Talk:Aconcagua/Archive 1

Archive 1

Co-ordinate discrepancies

"This member of the Andes mountain range covers 59°-68° W and 32°-39° S with its boundaries marked 
by the Valle de las Vacas to the north and east and the Valle de los Horcones Inferior to the West and South" 

Okay now that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Could somebody tell me what the hell it's meant to mean? Anyhow, I'm removing it regarless, as it is unintelligible.

I also had to change the co-ordinates as when mapped they were found to be wrong. The correct longitude is 70'00W not 70'14W; if the longitude of 70.14 were taken to be correct then the peak would be in Chile. I have checked Google Mapping and confirmed that the correct longitude is in fact 70.00W.

Further, I've adjusted the location. According to Google Mapping, Aconagua is located some 112 km West-by north (WbN) of Mendoza proper. TydeNet 06:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Volcano??

Where did you get this is a Vocal?? I believe it's not. --Marianocecowski 15:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

wat r u on about????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.168.233.93 (talk • contribs) 19:43, November 15, 2005 (UTC)

Darwin wrote he "heard" it was active in Chapter 14 of his Voyage of the Beagle, but Chileans and Argentinians know otherwise (1, 2, 3). It may have been a lightning storm. I've searched everywhere and found no records of an eruption other than the one Darwin proposed. --Dr. Funko 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Aconcagua.

The Aconcagua is on the Argentinian side of the border with chile. Mendoza is the nearest province in Argentina which has become the launching point for endless streams of adventurers seeking to conquer this magnificent yet unforgiving mountain. Anyone seeking to climb this mountain should contact the Argentinian mountain experts in Mendoza. An internet search for mendoza aconcagua tours will return relevant information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.28.101 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Ranking

Is there a commonly accepted ranking for Aconcagua among the world's highest mountains? The list of highest mountains gives the 100 highest peaks in the world, all of which are in Asia. As Aconcagua is the highest mountain outside of Asia, it would be interesting to know its ranking. For example, if Aconcagua is the 128th highest mountain in the world, then the world's 127 highest peaks are in Asia, which is an interesting factoid. —Bkell (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said. Aconcagua IS NOT Ranked 2nd Bcartolo 18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The ranking depends on the cutoff (such as by topographic prominence) used. If one uses the 500 meter prominence cutoff used on the list of highest mountains, I believe Aconcagua ranks somewhere between 300 and 500. It would indeed be interesting to nail down the number and include it in the article. -- Spireguy 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

The external links section might need to be looked at, per WP:EL. The whole set of random trip reports is probably not necessary. -- Spireguy 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Aconcagua River

The Aconcagua River doesn't rise in the Acongacua Mount. The whole mountain is in Argentina and the river is entirely in Chile so, they only share its names. Please see the spanish article of Aconcagua River where is a map with the river and the international border line. Regards Luiscardo 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedro the Aeroplane

Wasn't he in Saludos Amigos first?

Main Picture

The main picture is somewhat confusing. The main mountain in the picture does NOT appear to be Aconcagua. This is obvious because all other pictures show the mountain as an elongated ridge with several peaks. PLUS just look at the timberline! Trees are almost at the top. This is a 22,000+ ft mountain. It looks to me that Aconcagua is actually the mountain in the BACKGROUND. Just compare it to the other pictures. I think this needs to be changed immediately. can anyone identify the actual mountain in the picture??

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.240.242.74 (talk • contribs).

Yes, this is suspicious, well spotted. There is no sign of the south summit or the Polish glacier. I replaced the image, but if anyone cares to attempt to identify the old one, it is here. Viewfinder 10:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite positive the old picture is Aconcagua as well. The picture is taken from the west, which is why you don't see the east-west summit ridge or the Polish Glacier. You can see the scree slopes from BC to Alaska/Nido to the left, and parts of the south face to the right. The green stuff that appears to be trees is just due to incorrect colors in the image. The new picture is not familiar to me, I assume it's from the Vacas/Polish Glacier base camp. I would prefer the old one to the new, but neither of them shows the "classical" view of the mountain. —Gsv 10:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gsv, thank you for your contribution. I looked at this again with the help of Google Earth and concluded that you are right. Infact it is from the south west, so the south and main summits line up and appear to be indistinguishable. The GE terrain is not 100% accurate due to the lack of a decent source topo map to fill the Aconcagua SRTM void, but I think this shows a reasonable likeness. The background mountain on the right fooled me for a time, GE is not good for longer distance stuff, but by moving the eye around a bit, I got this, and there is a reaonable likeness to the Cordillera del Tigre (HP Cerro Tambillo 5680m), 50 km to the north east, shown at 040 from Aconcagua summit here. Sorry about my prevoius post! Viewfinder 13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the original poster of this, and after reading your responses, I realized that you guys are correct. The color of the original picture was the main thing that was causing me confusion. Upon very close inspection, the "trees" are just rocks in shadow with a strange green tint (possibly an artifact of an older photograph scanned into a computer?). Converting the photo to greyscale instantly stops the illusion.

Youngest ascent

Googling "jordan romero aconcagua" appears to show up several positive hits, enough to suggest that fraud is unlikely. Viewfinder (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Move

I dunno but I think it should be moved to Mount Aconcagua but I dunno how to do the template or whatev. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, it seems customary to call the Andes peaks by just their names and not with the prefix "Mount". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Simply "Aconcagua", not "Mount Aconcagua", is the standard usage. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Near Chile?

The area of Argentina is 2.8 million km². The summit of Aconcagua is situated just a few kilometers from the Chilean border. Hence the information that Aconcagua is "near the border with Chile" is not at all irrelevant.

NOTE: The Chile-Argentina limits are defined by the highest peaks of the mountains. Therefore, Aconcagua is technically the limit between Chile and Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.217.217 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not. The limit is defined by the water-divider line, and as a stream flowing east commences west of Aconcagua, the peak is wholly within Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.220.84.55 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

which country?

there is no direct information which country aconcagua is in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.153.48.82 (talk • contribs) 17:45, December 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is a big infobox on the right that says "Mendoza, Argentina". :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, they should enter CLEARLY, that the Aconcagua is LOCATED IN ARGENTINA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.126.241 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Small changes

The elevation was changed from 6962m to 6963m but no source was given. I don't think that the 2007 expedition surveyed Aconcagua, and unlike the previous Monte Pissis and Ojos del Salado elevations, the 6962m elevation had become well established and widely quoted. Please can we avoid making small (<10m) elevation adjustments each time there are new surveys, unless such changes are confirmed by multiple surveys, or are formally recognised by the appropriate national survey agency. Such changes generate undesirable inconsistencies within Wikipedia and among sources generally. Viewfinder 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The elevation of Nido and some other places are wrong in Secors book (-200m) and many other sources. The present numbers are based on several GPS measurements during 10 years of expeditions to the mountain. Various other sources exists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnlantz (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)