This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mountains Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Nepal High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tibet Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet 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.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Has this rename been discussed somewhere? It seems passing strange... Ratagonia (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely inappropriate move regardless. The usage in English is simply "Makalu". This seems to be some sort of misguided attempt at standardization of mountain names of Chinese (or Chinese border) peaks. -- Spireguy (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Spire Dude - would you move it back (I suspect you are more wikiadept than I). Ratagonia (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First I'll see if this is supposedly backed up by some Wikiproject or if it's just one user. -- Spireguy (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did the move. TrueColour, if you have objections, please address them on this talk page. -- Spireguy (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because of the Chinese. That's what the locals call it. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article gives an elevation of 8,481m. List of highest mountains gives an elevation of 8,485m. List of mountains gives an elevation of 8,463m. The supporting reference in this article is that "The height is often given as 8,481 m or 8,485 m." which is unfortunately rather vague. The 8,463m figure appears on the Jagged Globe and Seven Summit Treks websites so it appears to be a genuine measurement.
Is the variance caused by different survey methods or official recognition by one or more nations? Is it worth clarifying in the article? Road Wizard (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several sources supporting each of the three figures. I personally prefer Peaklist.org in situations like this if they also give an explanation of their primary sources. Where did the measurements come from; how and when were they made? In this particular case, peaklist states in footnote 8:

Makalu: The world's fifth highest mountain and fourth highest ultra. The 8485 meter elevation comes from the modern Finnmap survey (see note above.) Most sources still cite the 8463 meter elevation that is found on the Schneider maps as well as the Chinese Snow Map series. The saddle elevation is also taken from Finnmap. - Peaklist

In a section above, a sort of lead section to the footnotes, peaklist explains the primary source data:

Research in Nepal has been aided greatly by access to a new topographical survey at 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 conducted between 1995 and 2002. This survey extensively employed new aerial photography with GPS positioning and GPS surveying. The survey was conducted jointly by FinnMap, a survey company based in Finland, and the HMG Survey Department of Nepal. The Finnmap series establishes many new elevations for the Nepali summits. Most of the saddle elevations and some of the summit elevations are derived from Soviet topographic mapping and analysis of the SRTM data. Where there is a high degree of concurrence, published elevations are used. However in some regions, where SRTM strongly disagree with published elevations, we provisionally favor the SRTM data. - Peaklist

So according to to all this 8,485 m is from the FinnMap survey conducted between 1995 and 2002. It is implied that this measurement is compatable with the SRTM data. Also the primary sources of the 8463 m figure is revealed as from the Schneider maps and Chinese Snow maps, which I believe are detailed but older topographic maps. Please note, this is not an open-and-shut case as far as I'm concerned because unfortunately I have yet to spend any time and effort to find any info on the primary source of the other figure (8,481) so it's possible there have been more recent and more accurate surveys conducted since then. My point to all this is I would go with the source that has the most information on the most recent primary source (survey). Good luck. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 14:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]