Talk:Sangre de Cristo Mountains

Redirect fix

I removed the redirect to Talk:Sangre de Cristo Range since the division between the two articles is pretty well established now. Comments about the Colorado portion (north of La Veta Pass) should go into Talk:Sangre de Cristo Range. -- Spireguy 02:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

List of peaks

I'm not happy with the list as it now stands. This is a whole grab-bag of issues that probably were even worse before this list was made but should be fixed while there's a few editors looking at this

1. Prominence is not the primary criteria for peaks, though it is a worthwhile piece of data.
2. The 500-meter cutoff is also quite arbitrary as meters are not even used in Colorado; the cutoff that IS used is 300 feet but this is not always enforced for historical reasons (see Challenger Point). Imposing a strict cutoff of any sort will ignore some important peaks (including 14ers) and I doubt you have a source to show that there are not *unnamed* peaks that should be on the list by that criteria.
3. The subrange entry includes Sierra Blanca as one of the possibilities. I've seen different sites refer to the Sierra Blanca as part of the Northern Sangres or as their own subrange, I do not know what the USGS says about it. However my main problem is that there is no article about the Sierra Blanca, only one about Blanca Peak which isn't the same thing at all. That and the Sierra Blanca is not listed in this article as being one of the subranges!

Perhaps more to come. — jdorje (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Prominent peaks is a list of the most topographically prominent peaks of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains.

• Topographic prominence is almost universally used as a selection criteria for mountain peaks. Commonly used prominence cutoffs include 100 feet (30.480 m), 300 feet (91.440 m), 100 meters (328.084 ft), 500 feet (152.400 m), 250 meters (820.210 ft), 500 meters (1,640.420 ft), and 1,000 meters (3,280.840 ft). A minimum topographic prominence of 500 meters is commonly used as a criteria for major mountain peaks. If you wish to use a shorter minimum prominence criteria such as 300 feet, then you need to also use a minimum elevation criteria such as 14,000 feet.

The Nine Peaks of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains With At Least
14,000 Feet of Elevation and 300 Feet of Topographic Prominence

Rank	Mountain Peak	Subrange	Elevation	Prominence	Isolation	Eminence
1	Blanca Peak	Sierra Blanca	4374.111 = 14,351 feet 4374 m	1623.365 = 5,326 feet 1623 m	00166.43 = 103.4 miles 166.4 km	07.101 = 2.7 sq.mi. 7.101 km²
2	Crestone Peak	Crestones	4358.572 = 14,300 feet 4359 m	1388.059 = 4,554 feet 1388 m	00044.07 = 27.4 miles 44.1 km	06.050 = 2.3 sq.mi. 6.050 km²
3	Crestone Needle	Crestones	4329.009 = 14,203 feet 4329 m	0133.198 = 437 feet 133 m	00000.72 = 0.4 miles 0.7 km	00.577 = 0.2 sq.mi. 0.577 km²
4	Kit Carson Peak	Crestones	4319.265 = 14,171 feet 4319 m	0306.324 = 1,005 feet 306 m	00002.08 = 1.3 miles 2.1 km	01.323 = 0.5 sq.mi. 1.323 km²
5	Humboldt Peak	Crestones	4288.497 = 14,070 feet 4288 m	0360.883 = 1,184 feet 361 m	00002.27 = 1.4 miles 2.3 km	01.548 = 0.6 sq.mi. 1.548 km²
6	Culebra Peak	Culebra Range	4283.266 = 14,053 feet 4283 m	1471.270 = 4,827 feet 1471 m	00057.07 = 35.5 miles 57.1 km	06.302 = 2.4 sq.mi. 6.302 km²
7	Ellingwood Point	Sierra Blanca	4281.791 = 14,048 feet 4282 m	0098.146 = 322 feet 98 m	00000.83 = 0.5 miles 0.8 km	00.420 = 0.2 sq.mi. 0.420 km²
8	Mount Lindsey	Sierra Blanca	4281.693 = 14,048 feet 4282 m	0463.906 = 1,522 feet 464 m	00003.64 = 2.3 miles 3.6 km	01.986 = 0.8 sq.mi. 1.986 km²
9	Little Bear Peak	Sierra Blanca	4280.211 = 14,043 feet 4280 m	0108.814 = 357 feet 109 m	00001.58 = 1.0 miles 1.6 km	00.466 = 0.2 sq.mi. 0.466 km²

• The National Geodetic Survey uses meters exclusively because of the confusion between the U.S. survey foot = 0.3048006096 meter and the international foot = 0.3048 meter. Please see foot.
• Sierra Blanca or Mount Blanca is the massif that includes Blanca Peak. Please see Sierra Blanca.

References

Please let me know of any 500 meter prominence peak that is not on this list. --Buaidh 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

cool public domain photos

here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/tags/sangredecristo/ Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused....

I love the summary of the notable peaks. I am getting kind of confused, though. The list of notable peaks is different in this article than in the Sangre de Cristo Range - and the source for the list in the range article. Can someone help me out? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, missed another thought: The range article doesn't mention what are supposed to be the 2nd and 3rd highest peaks (from this article) in the Sangre de Cristo range: Mount Herard and Bushnell Peak.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Literary references

This mountain range is referred to by Paul Simon of the title track of his hearts and bones album and by Cormac McCarthy in his novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.55.112 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Prominent peaks and subranges Section

The section starts off with "...divided into various subranges, described here from north to south." and then proceeds to list peaks by elevation, with information on the subranges in the comments of various peaks. How about describing the subranges in a paragraph preceding the list and removing that info from the comment section of the list? I'd need to confirm the north->south ordering of the subranges before I do a move myself. Or has this been discussed and discarded already, and the starting sentence simply an artifact? Zybthranger (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made that change. I think the clearer differentiation between peak info and subrange info makes it flow better. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Content removed: not volcanic, stocks

Denverjeffrey, You removed content that said that the mountains were volcanic and in you edit summary that it was not volcanic, it was stocks.

Do you have a source for that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The burden of verifiability falls on the editor adding content to an article, not on the one removing unsourced (and completely wrong) content from an article.Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC).

Yes, I checked that that sentence wasn't cited from either the source before or after the sentence that was removed. But, it sounds like you have knowledge of this - are sure of its veracity - so it would be nice to have the correct information.

I'll look around.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)