Talk:List of islands by highest point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are the units here? Meters? · rodii · 21:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, metres. --Mark J 08:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I started a list very similar to this in my workspace back at the end of 2004 but never got around to taking it public. Glad you have done so - I think it makes for a very interesting list. One comment I would make is that I think it would be better to keep the information strictly physical geography related and not include names of countries. I find the flags especially a distraction from the important data. Oska 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RENAMING THIS PAGE

this page is currently called "List of Islands by Highest Point" but this is very misleading, as this page is really an assortment of Landmasses. It may be appropriate to split out the list of islands from the other landmasses, as that may be useful as a distinct group. However, right now it is "one size fits all" and as such it is not as useful.

It is also misleading because you expect to come to a list of islands and the first thing you see is Africa-Eurasia, which is certainly not an island. It is 3 traditionally-denoted continents, comprising something like 80% of the Earth's landmass, listed as a single entity - very useful.

I believe this page was probably originally a list of islands but somehow got diluted and contaminated by later additions of people who were well-meaning but very unclear about the focus of this page. However, it needs serious attention to remove and re-edit the material so that "Landmasses", i.e. continents, are not included in the content. Either that, or it's title needs to be changed. Stevenmitchell 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there really any need? There are only 4 landmasses (Africa-Eurasia, Americas, Antarctica, Australia) that are not islands, so they hardly clutter the list. Possibly a note: [1]? EdC 01:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Continental landmass; not an island
The distinction between landmasses and islands is not clear, but small islands are not landmasses. Perhaps "List of landmasses and islands by highest point"? EdC 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
List of islands by area has landmasses for comparison. EdC 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page to suggested title, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page should have its name changed. Most of the "Islands" on this page arent even islands! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.109.214 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Most? Surely you exaggerate. I count four, possibly only three by some standards.
Oppose move. –EdC 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The entry at Wikipedia:Requested moves#9 January 2007 seems broken. Do you need assistance fixing it? –EdC 15:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that either the name of the page needs to change, or the page needs a complete re-write, with headers changed and entries removed. Any decent enyclopedia would not have things that aren't islands on a a page which lists islands by height! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.109.66.150 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

As this has come up again, I oppose the move. All but four of the things on this page are islands, and it seems desireable that the four continental land masses should be included for comparison and completeness. Nor do I think that "the page needs a complete re-write, with headers changed and entries removed": it looks fine to me. — ras52 15:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why User:Solitaire190 (a bot) made this move a few hours ago, but as it was done by a bot rather than a person, and done against the clear consensus on this page, I have chosen to revert this without going through the usual mechanism. Obviously if something sentient, having read this thread, chooses to make the move, that's a different matter. — ras52 23:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record User:Solitaire190 was a fake bot account that was blocked for page move vandalism. Discussion still stands with no clear consensus yet.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Obviously I'll respect any legitimate move even if I don't personally agree with it. — ras52 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Feet column

User:Stevenmitchell added a "feet" column. I reverted because:

  • it means more work for contributors
  • it does not add any information
  • conversion between units is (relatively) easy.

I would appreciate the matter being discussed on this page before Stevenmitchell or anyone else attempts to re-add the column. EdC 01:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the foot column because a "meter" column has absolutely zero use in the United States. We don't know what a meter is and all efforts to bring the metric system into the United States have deceased more than 25 years ago. I changed it so that readers of Wikipedia in the U.S., as a source of information, can actually make use of it. Otherwise, U.S. readers will have to take that information and locate U.S. Customary conversion charts on the Internet, make the conversion and then be able to apply that information. Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and should provide as much information as possible, it should have the conversion already done. I didn't know we were trying to save steps for lazy "Wikipedians". As it stands now, if you live in the U.S. and need this information, you would be better off to own a Britannica encyclopedia. Stevenmitchell 06:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

USian scientists and engineers understand metric, as do USian geographers. However, I have reassessed my position and am willing to countenance a "feet" column, as long as it contains accurate and up-to-date information. EdC 15:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm with Stevenmitchell. This is not the place to argue the feet/meter debate (much less why the US hasn't adopted metric). The point of Wikipedia is to provide information and US users are a large portion of the people who read it.

{{sofixit}}! Writing a Python (or Perl, if that floats your boat) script to convert the tables should be trivial. Or do it in Calc, or even by hand. If you provide a feet column, I won't remove it. EdC 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Guam an ´island nation´?

I can´t figure out why you include Guam on the list of "Other notable islands" as an ´island nation´. Well, you could do so, but then you also have to include other US dependent terrirories, such as Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands. Or even French dependent areas such as Guadeloupe, Martinique, New Caledonia, French Southern Antarcyic Lans (which is an island group). You might also include the Norwegian territory Svalbard and many others. So why (just?) Guam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.160.249 (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Because they haven't been added yet. There's no reason not to add main islands of dependent territories; why don't you add some? –EdC 14:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereignty

It doesn't seem to me that saying the South Shetland Islands are British is NPOV, considering several nations either dispute or do not recognize this claim. Sowelilitokiemu 02:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, but in fact there are several territories which are disputed, and still controlled by one of the countries who claim them. The British Antarctic Territory is a de facto territory with its own flag. But of course, anyone can change this flag to the more neutral Antarctic flag. Antipoeten 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rügen

Someone has added Rügen, which is somewhat "wrong", as neither Rügen nor Germany are "island nations". Still, it might be a good idea to add the largest island mountain of each country, so I will start changing the list according to this. Antipoeten 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islands of Montenegro

I agree on deleting the island mountain of Vranjina as this is a lake island. I don´t think lake islands belong here at all. Therefore I instead add the highest sea island mountain of Montenegro, which is in Sveti Nikola Island. Antipoeten 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (1) Lord Howe Island; (2) Island nations

(1) Lord Howe Island is not in the list of "Other notable island mountains". Would someone like to add it? I do not feel confident doing it myself. Its highest point is 875-m (2,870-ft) Mount Gower.

(2) I don't understand the comments about Guam and Rügen, as the list of "Other notable island mountains" never purports to consist exclusively of island nations, right?

Simplifier 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus

Regarding Cyprus:

The highest point in the island of Cyprus is in the territory of the state of Cyprus and NOT in the UK controled military bases of Dekelia and Akrotiri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.116.134 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing this. That's why Dekelia and Akrotiri are listed in the "Other countries or territories on island" column and not in the "Country or territory containing highest point" column. I would have thought this was self evident. Oh, and by the way, your comments might be considered with more credibility if you register. — ras52 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

Is there any consensus on which islands should be included in the Other notable island mountains section? The section has been steadily growing over time, and personally I think it has too much on it and ishas too much of a Anglo-centric bias. Personally, I would restrict it to just the highest point of each country (per List of Countries) where that is also the highest point of the island on which it is situated. That would mean removing the likes of Königsstuhl on Rügen, Germany (as it is not the highest point in Germany). It would also mean removing all of the British Isles except Great Britain, Ireland, Man, Sark (containing the highest point of the Bailiwick of Guernsey) and Jersey. — ras52 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I broadly agree - but I wouldn't be quite so gung-ho. I'd leave in Guernsey - surely it is notable as it's clearly the chief island of the territory (having the same name) and it contains the territory's capital. Perhaps also retain any islands over a certain size or population, regardless of whether they contain the country/territory's highest point - these should also make the island notable. Starting suggestion - 5,000km² or 100,000 people?? Bazonka (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You have a good point with Guernsey. How about also including the highest point on the country's principal island / land mass providing that it is the highest point on the island. That would include Guernsey but not Rügen, Germany. Of course, it would still leave open the question of what the principal island is. For New Zealand, about three quarters of the population live on North Island, although South Island is larger and contains Mount Cook, the highest point in New Zealand.
I think that including all islands larger than 5,000 km2 or with more than 100,000 inhabitants will include too many places. There are 116 islands in the former category (see List of islands by area), and somewhere around 150 in the latter (see List of islands by population). The former list is heavily dominated by the Canadian Arctic, whilst the latter is dominated by the islands of Southeast Asia. — ras52 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)