Talk:Five Peaks Challenge

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Wasn't challenging you GD. Was challenging HK. Mister Flash (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 33,600 Google hits, of which Mister Flash (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Citation tag?
Why is there a citation tag, next to the word British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolve before merge
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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Give me examples of where you have agreed to BI being removed. -- Snowded TALK  11:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me examples of where you have agreed to BI being removed. -- Snowded TALK  11:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * No prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Not I. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)