Talk:Five Peaks Challenge

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

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

Notability

Why is this notable? The website talks about 12 lads from Bristol - hardly notable. Can someone enlighten me on this? --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's AfD time. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, would you be making this challenge if the article didn't contain the words BRITISH ISLES. Err, no. Mister Flash (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, the article is over 1-year old & therefore I will not be participating in a potential AfD (see AFD of Edward O'Brien (Irish republican) for re-assurance). -- GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't challenging you GD. Was challenging HK. Mister Flash (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you think this article is notable? The only reference is the lads own website! I know where my vote would go. Jack forbes (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33,600 Google hits, of which [1] Mister Flash (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good on the lads for doing it and raising money for charity. It still doesn't make it notable enough for an article though. Jack forbes (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tag?

Why is there a citation tag, next to the word British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation tag is I presume for the whole sentence. Is there a hill climbing challenge that's well known as the five peaks challenge, or is it a name conjured up by the lads who climbed them. Jack forbes (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

To User:Snowded and User:Canterbury Tail. Like another user who will remain nameless, you seem to have very tough requirements for references on this low importance article. Here's a selection of references. Would you like to comment on each of these, and if none of them are to your liking perhaps you could explain just what type of reference you want.

As for the notability tag, I've removed it again. Notability has already been tested with an AfD, the result of which was KEEP. So there we have it. Mister Flash (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are mostly to personal or amateur web sites, hence the concern. However I know the challenge exists so I am relaxed about the article. However each of the articles lists the countries. The original lede did this so adding in BI is superfluous and not supported by the references --Snowded ^TALK 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the AFD [6] you will see the decision to keep wasn't very decisive. The decision was actually to take it to this talk page and discuss whether or not it should be merged with Three Peaks Challenge. As far as I'm concerned, if, as the article said, it is an extension of the three peaks challenge then it should be merged with that article. Jack forbes (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More people voted KEEP than anything else, and there wasn't a decision to talk about merging it (which no doubt would result in losing BI), that was just a suggestion. Sheesh, you guys 'll stop at nothing to shift BI. If you can't get it deleted you'll hit it with inappropriate calls for references, and if that don't work you'll try for merge or claim OR or anything. Your imagination in these matters knows no bounds. Mister Flash (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the above references, each and every one of them notes that the challenge relates to mountains in the British Isles. For this article most of them would be sufficient, or are we saying that a source from a reputable academic institution is needed here? Mister Flash (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the exact wording with the original decision to merge overturned.

"The result was merge, while there are still 10 hours left, a clear consensus has been determined to merge to National Three Peaks Challenge. no consensus, the articles show minimal notability, though it does seem to pass. I'd suggest discussion on the talk page, whether the content should be merged or not."

As you can see, the suggestion was to discuss here whether or not it should be merged, so I thought I would start it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so let's merge but keep reference to the fact that the 5 peaks challenge relates to the five highest peaks in each of the major countries of the British Isles, or words to that effect. Mister Flash (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and being such a small article there is no need for any information to be lost when it is merged. Jack forbes (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll accept that. I'd prefer to keep it separate though. Mister Flash (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no concerns about weither we use British Isles or not in any article. However, I'm against the usage of British Isles and Ireland; that's an unacceptable alternative. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve before merge

Only one of the references above looks even vaguely "official" and that does not mention the British Isles.
It is an inaccurate term, if British Isles is to be used then the challenge would have to include Snaefell in the Isle of Man which it doesn't.
If it was being used geographically then it would not include a peak in Northern Ireland.
If you qualify BI with "Major countries" then you are using a mixed term for a sovereign state and non-sovereign ones, added to which the Isle of Man and the the Scilly Islands are not countries.

Its a challenge to climb the highest mountains in the constituent countries of the UK and Ireland. We then have the nonsense of the opening sentence correctly listing those countries which makes the earlier reference to any collective name redundant. At the moment the vast majority of editors want to get rid of NI in this case (including Canturbury Tail on his talk page in response to Flash), the only people holding out are Flash and an IP address with only four prior edits months ago. --Snowded ^TALK 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one?
Rubbish. And thew "highest peak" in Anglesey as well? And Holy Island etc.
No. The constituent countries of the British Isles is fine.
??

It's a hill climbing challenge in the British Isles. Full Stop. Accurate statement. No need for a reference. Self Evident. Pad it out with whatever other embelishments you like, but please stop dreaming up yet more excuses for getting rid of British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being obdurate, refusing to address reasoned argument, insisting on the use of BI regardless of context. None of your edits or positions show any evidence of an attempt to treat the subject objectively, instead you blindly revert. Aside from being wrong on this one you are clearly in a minority of one (if we ignore the IP which looks dubious). I suggest you reflect on your position and attempt to some degree of objectivity. --Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wrong; you are. Then again, we may both be right, or wrong. I do not insist on BI regardless. Further, more general discussion, at User talk:canterbury Tail. On the point at issue here, I am not in a minority of 1. Jack Forbes has said we could merge the article while maintaining content. Mister Flash (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me examples of where you have agreed to BI being removed. --Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to make my position clear on this. Whether BI remains on this article or not when it is merged was not my reason for asking for a merge. My reasoning for this is that if this is just an extension of the three peaks challenge then a merge should be the only solution. When MF asked to keep the words to that effect I presumed it would not be set in stone, as words to that effect implies rather that the discussion on BI's usage would still debated. MF does say he does not insist on BI regardless. I said no information should be lost and whether using BI's or another form of words it still wouldn't lose any. As I've already said, first and foremost it should be merged and anything else is up for discussion. Jack forbes (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would go ahead and redirect exactly as is with no alteration to the existing Three Peaks text which describes exactly the extra peaks involved. The Five Peaks article is of so low importance (at the moment) as to be hardly worthwhile porting any further info across. If it becomes important enough to have its own article (which I doubt) then the redirect can be deleted and a separate article created. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are diregarding the recent AfD. If it gets merged - by agreement - then the text of this article should be copied to Three Peaks. For the moment, my vote is not to merge. Mister Flash (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking

Does anyone other than Flash object (i) to a merge and (ii) to simply listing the countries as per the offical site citation without BI --Snowded ^TALK 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not I. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to be merged. Listing the countries if that's how the official site does it is also ok with me. Jack forbes (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment that I have already merged the articles once. Additional Material was merged by an uninvolved editor. What more is there to be done? Þjóðólfr (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just doing a quick headcount on both issues (i) merge and (ii) use of BI Þjóðólfr --Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you better make it quick, while you hold the majority, deletionist view. There is one thing clear here - no consensus due primarily to low interest, so if you merge it on the basis that you seem to be lining up, I'll revert. Mister Flash (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it will always be interesting to see how that behaviour would be treated. For the moment lets see what those editors who are interested say --Snowded ^TALK 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see MF is not only back, but still breaching civility policies and attributing political motives to those that don't agree with his view, while pointedly ignoring reasoning and discussions. Why are we even entertaining this sort of disruption? I agree to merge and list the constituent countries as per Snowded. --HighKing (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

Come on Snowded - just admit it; you don't really mind what happens so long as the term British Isles disppears. Regarding the merge - go for it, but keep the succinct leading statement that 5 peaks is a hill-climbing challenge in the British Isles; which is exactly what it is. Mister Flash (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of three current cases Flash where I think the use of BI is inappropriate. I have supported its use on others. In all cases I have tried to use arguments and citations to make the decision. Your speculation as to my motives is wrong and not supported by the facts. Its a common error to ascribe your own motivational framework to others, not advisable but common (sic) --Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]