The list was kept by User:Sephiroth BCR 09:49, 12 December 2008 [1].
This article fails Criteria #3 as it doesn't cite any real-world impact to show notability. じん ない 08:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I've withdrawn the nomination じん ない 09:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by User:Gimmetrow 19:21, 10 December 2008 [2].
Notified: User:Hike395
Fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 1 and 2. Also, it lacks sources. — Chris! c t 06:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Reopen discussion I have written an introduction, which seems to be the main objection. Feedback is welcome. hike395 ( talk) 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
In response to Golbez, I have copied to my sandbox an example of how the table could look if many of the columns were combined. As of the moment, my example is unsortable, but that and other issues can be remedied. Take a look and tell me if you think it would be an improvement. -- Millbrooky ( talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
____
Done: I (and other editors) tried to address all of the issues raised, above:
Given that we've addressed all of the issues, I hope that we can Keep this list as featured. hike395 ( talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep As a person interested in geodetics and and geography in general I find this list to be well researched and of interest. The fact that it is difficult to find reliable documentation in some cases is by itself of interest. I don't think that the list itself is of great intrinsic value but the fact that it is wikified makes it of value. Each high point is linked to an article where more information can be found. The fact that it is a work in progress adds to its value rather than detracts from it in my own opinion. -- DRoll ( talk) 03:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep There appears to be strong interest in improving this list, significant improvements have already been made, and the material is useful and interesting. Parts of the list that do not conform with standards can be tagged like any other Wikipedia article; at this point delisting seems like a "nuclear" solution. --
Pgagnon999 (
talk)
04:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Calamitybrook ( talk) 05:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply
As Chris points out, the discussion is about whether the list fulfills the featured list criteria. Collectively, we've made numerous edits to the page (summarized above). After these edits, does the list fufill the criteria? I think so. Golbez thinks so (he struck out his "delist", above). Presumably Pgagnon99 & Calamitybook think so? (yes? no?). Any other opinion? hike395 ( talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, sounds like everyone who has commented, except for Pgagnon999, is now in favor of keeping it featured. There are several calls for expanding the lede: I've added a paragraph, will continue to do research.
hike395 (
talk)
02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggestions: remove the subjective term "ruggedness"; modify the first paragraph or move it; your first paragraph should speak directly to the exact nature of the list (i.e. summarize). -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
hike395 ( talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Delist. The table is wider than normal wikipages on my screen - i didn't even know it was possible to do this, but it makes the page annoying to use, and certainly not "the best of wikipedia". Maybe abreeviating feet to ' would narrow it. In fact, why are the units written in every column instead of once in the header? Thats how proffesionals would do it. "Elevation in feet (metres)" is clear enough. Maybe adding a note for the stupid readers, to be sure. Dillypickle ( talk) 13:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The map (showing high and low points for each state) looks great except for one thing: it's missing the low point of Vermont. Assuming it lies along the shore of
Lake Champlain, you can't show it as a point but you can show the lake.--
Pgagnon999 (
talk) 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind; I resolved it.--
Pgagnon999 (
talk)
02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Struck Delist; filing Keep.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The reference date formats should be consistant; currently more than one formats are being used.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 05:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:02, 9 December 2008 [3].
Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1
The article fails to meet
featured list criterias 1 and 2. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The list was removed by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:02, 9 December 2008 [4].
Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1
The article fails to meet
featured list criterias 1 and 2. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The list was removed by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:02, 9 December 2008 [5].
Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1
The article fails to meet
featured list criterias 1 and 2. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The list was kept by User:Sephiroth BCR 09:49, 12 December 2008 [1].
This article fails Criteria #3 as it doesn't cite any real-world impact to show notability. じん ない 08:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I've withdrawn the nomination じん ない 09:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by User:Gimmetrow 19:21, 10 December 2008 [2].
Notified: User:Hike395
Fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 1 and 2. Also, it lacks sources. — Chris! c t 06:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Reopen discussion I have written an introduction, which seems to be the main objection. Feedback is welcome. hike395 ( talk) 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
In response to Golbez, I have copied to my sandbox an example of how the table could look if many of the columns were combined. As of the moment, my example is unsortable, but that and other issues can be remedied. Take a look and tell me if you think it would be an improvement. -- Millbrooky ( talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
____
Done: I (and other editors) tried to address all of the issues raised, above:
Given that we've addressed all of the issues, I hope that we can Keep this list as featured. hike395 ( talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep As a person interested in geodetics and and geography in general I find this list to be well researched and of interest. The fact that it is difficult to find reliable documentation in some cases is by itself of interest. I don't think that the list itself is of great intrinsic value but the fact that it is wikified makes it of value. Each high point is linked to an article where more information can be found. The fact that it is a work in progress adds to its value rather than detracts from it in my own opinion. -- DRoll ( talk) 03:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep There appears to be strong interest in improving this list, significant improvements have already been made, and the material is useful and interesting. Parts of the list that do not conform with standards can be tagged like any other Wikipedia article; at this point delisting seems like a "nuclear" solution. --
Pgagnon999 (
talk)
04:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Calamitybrook ( talk) 05:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply
As Chris points out, the discussion is about whether the list fulfills the featured list criteria. Collectively, we've made numerous edits to the page (summarized above). After these edits, does the list fufill the criteria? I think so. Golbez thinks so (he struck out his "delist", above). Presumably Pgagnon99 & Calamitybook think so? (yes? no?). Any other opinion? hike395 ( talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, sounds like everyone who has commented, except for Pgagnon999, is now in favor of keeping it featured. There are several calls for expanding the lede: I've added a paragraph, will continue to do research.
hike395 (
talk)
02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggestions: remove the subjective term "ruggedness"; modify the first paragraph or move it; your first paragraph should speak directly to the exact nature of the list (i.e. summarize). -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
hike395 ( talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Delist. The table is wider than normal wikipages on my screen - i didn't even know it was possible to do this, but it makes the page annoying to use, and certainly not "the best of wikipedia". Maybe abreeviating feet to ' would narrow it. In fact, why are the units written in every column instead of once in the header? Thats how proffesionals would do it. "Elevation in feet (metres)" is clear enough. Maybe adding a note for the stupid readers, to be sure. Dillypickle ( talk) 13:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The map (showing high and low points for each state) looks great except for one thing: it's missing the low point of Vermont. Assuming it lies along the shore of
Lake Champlain, you can't show it as a point but you can show the lake.--
Pgagnon999 (
talk) 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind; I resolved it.--
Pgagnon999 (
talk)
02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Struck Delist; filing Keep.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The reference date formats should be consistant; currently more than one formats are being used.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 05:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:02, 9 December 2008 [3].
Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1
The article fails to meet
featured list criterias 1 and 2. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The list was removed by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:02, 9 December 2008 [4].
Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1
The article fails to meet
featured list criterias 1 and 2. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The list was removed by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:02, 9 December 2008 [5].
Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1
The article fails to meet
featured list criterias 1 and 2. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
reply