Talk:Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles
 | UK geography Low‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Scotland Low‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Ireland Low‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Mountains Low‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Lists Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
England's 1,000-Foot Peaks (The Kents) (self-named list)
Regarding:
01:13, 17 February 2022 Nick Moyes talk contribs 82,531 bytes −1,306 Reverted good faith edits by Snoobysoo (talk): WP:TOOSOON to be an addition to this page; citations are to bookshops and the book, and do not show recognition of a 'Kent' as a formal name in mountain literature ; editor has a WP:COI which should have been declared on their userpage or in this edit. Discuss on talk page to gain consensus as to whether this insertion is appropriate at this moment in time.
KentsThe highest 3,805 hills in England, all of those between 1,000.00 feet and 1,999.99 feet, are identified and listed in the England's 1,000-Foot Peaks book, by Jeff Kent, which was published in 2021. The author called the peaks, as an entity, The Kents in honour of his parents. There are 3,805 Complete Kents and 1,640 Greater Kents, which have a relative height of at least fifty feet. All the Kents have a rank, height (in feet and metres) and a grid reference of their summits. The highest Complete Kent is Tynehead Fell, in Cumbria, at 1,999.67 feet (609.50 metres) and the tallest Greater Kent is Slack's Ridge, in the same shire, with an altitude of 1,995.41 feet (608.20 metres). The Kents are spread across 18 English ceremonial counties. Cumbria contains the most 1,000-foot peaks, with 929 Complete Kents and 389 Greater Kents, and Gloucestershire the fewest, with 5 Complete Kents and 4 Greater Kents.[1][2][3][4][5]
Thanks to Nick Moyes for his comments.
In this regard, one of the citations is to a regional newspaper article ("The Sentinel", 22. 12. 2021) and another to a hills and mountains website (https://www.walkingenglishman.com). There is also a citation, which can be added, to a further hills and mountains website (https://www.muttalls.com), that of John and Anne Nuttall, of the Nuttalls list in the article. So there is already some acceptance of the list in mountain literature and other references may appear.
It would be helpful to know how much recognition there needs to be for a list to be accepted on the article, over what period of time.
I cannot say whether it's too soon for the (or an) insertion to be made into the article. How long normally has to pass?
Also, the list exists. Is it primarily the existence of appropriate lists that the article covers or only those lists which are recognised (By whom? By when? On what criteria?)? Can someone advise, please?
And finally, I didn't know I needed to declare a WP:COI, which I'm happy to do. I do know the writer of the book, but all my Wikipedia contributions are factual, heavily citated (for which I've received a barnstar) and objective (completely without the use of superlatives), to try to add information and knowledge to the encyclopedia.
I will be grateful for any comments and guidance.
Thanks in anticipation
Snoobysoo (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)SnoobySoo, 3. 3. 2022Snoobysoo (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop the Kentspam. You say that you know the "writer of the book", but that person is also the publisher, and by some terrible accident you uploaded a photo of Kent and said it was your photo. Outside of the Kentverse, nobody cares about this selfpublished bilge, and wikipedia is not the place for it. 2A02:C7E:1028:F700:405B:40E9:205C:9405 (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the IP editor. I have just looked through ScoobySoo's contributions over many years here, and virtually every one of their edits have been to add detail, large numbers of very similar citations to make minor points and to promote the achievements and publications of one man - Jeff Kent. The WP:COI is obvious here. For openness, this declaration would best be done on the user's own userpage per instructions at WP:COI, listing all the articles to which they are connected. Individual edits should also contains a COI statements. But until such time as a broad swathe of the hillwalking fraternity actively recognises and uses any published list of summits on a regular basis, there is no place for a self-published and self-defined list here. I could publish a book about hills over 500ft and call them "The Little Buggers", but that wouldn't make them noteworthy as a collective noun for such tops until they were broadly recognised. Wikipedia is not the place to help that happen. There is no timeframe before such stuff is added (if ever); it's all about whether the world at large takes note of any such list as a useful tool and broadly starts referring to them as such. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: I concur. There may be a similar case for axeing the SOIUSA article which appears to be a one-man Alpine classification that has not been accepted in 16 years. Bermicourt (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt I tend to agree, as the only place I've ever seen it used is in a few puffed out Wikipedia articles. Might be worth starting a discussion on its talk page or gaining consensus at WP:ALPS and assessing WP:RS. If we follow the rationale that the classification isn't accepted, then all these articles really ought to have that irrelevant content removed. Certainly worth a further look. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- From everything I'm seeing here, and on Snoobysoo's edits, the whole concept of Kents is purely one person's ego trip that has zero reliable support and sourcing outside their own vanity press. Sounds like we should just completely nuke an mentions of them across the project and this also means that anything published by this person isn't a reliable source and any such sourcing should also be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt I tend to agree, as the only place I've ever seen it used is in a few puffed out Wikipedia articles. Might be worth starting a discussion on its talk page or gaining consensus at WP:ALPS and assessing WP:RS. If we follow the rationale that the classification isn't accepted, then all these articles really ought to have that irrelevant content removed. Certainly worth a further look. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: I concur. There may be a similar case for axeing the SOIUSA article which appears to be a one-man Alpine classification that has not been accepted in 16 years. Bermicourt (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the IP editor. I have just looked through ScoobySoo's contributions over many years here, and virtually every one of their edits have been to add detail, large numbers of very similar citations to make minor points and to promote the achievements and publications of one man - Jeff Kent. The WP:COI is obvious here. For openness, this declaration would best be done on the user's own userpage per instructions at WP:COI, listing all the articles to which they are connected. Individual edits should also contains a COI statements. But until such time as a broad swathe of the hillwalking fraternity actively recognises and uses any published list of summits on a regular basis, there is no place for a self-published and self-defined list here. I could publish a book about hills over 500ft and call them "The Little Buggers", but that wouldn't make them noteworthy as a collective noun for such tops until they were broadly recognised. Wikipedia is not the place to help that happen. There is no timeframe before such stuff is added (if ever); it's all about whether the world at large takes note of any such list as a useful tool and broadly starts referring to them as such. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)