Talk:Tan Hill, North Yorkshire

Comment

I'm probably mistaken, but I always thought that the Kirkstall Pass Inn was the highest pub in the UK ? Are we talking pub or inn here ( inn including accomodation ), or am I just wrong either way ?--JRL 10:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean the Kirkstone Pass Inn in the Lakes. If so, no, that's at number 3 (about 1530 ft???) I recollect, well behind Tan Hill and the Cat & Fiddle.

The C&F used to say it was the highest pub open all the year, but Tan Hill (which _used to_ shut over winter) is certainly slightly higher. Bob

Merger proposal

I see no point in having separate articles for Tan Hill and the Tan Hill Inn. They are, to all intents and purposes, the same thing, and without the pub material this article will never be more than a stub. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

...and if the split remains, Tan Hill should no longer be in various pub- and beer-related categories. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I also cannot see the point in splitting out the information on the Inn as it leaves this article rather thin on the ground. May be the one who did the split can comment on the reasoning for the move? Keith D (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Formally proposed merger. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections, I've been bold and merged the articles. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tan Hill, North Yorkshire/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires infobox Geo-data requires sorting out as currenly has map ref and external link to maps. Will become more important if infobox added with co-ordinate data completed. Keith D 10:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Highest pubs in UK

Given this is no. 1, there no need to discuss no. 2. That would belong only in a list by height.--FDent (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This deletion, IMO, is a poorly thought-out retrograde move. Without a qualifyer, the remaining assertion - retrospectively cited - more later - is meaningless. It could be .5 metre, 5 metre, or 50.

The original 'height' prose goes back to the first upload, 26 April 2005 (permalink) which was the only content. The newspaper article is dated Feb 2012, which suggests a lazy journalist keyword-searching and taking content from WP for expediency (as we all know they do). The original University paper goes back to 2002 at Wayback Machine and was first cited 17 April 2006.

I've knocked this out at the kitchen table having my brunch, but already have spent too much time (including looking at the image-uploader's work list - this image File:Tan Hill Sign.jpg) on what is a disputatious, minor point. So, well done for deleting a necessary and interesting qualifyer, and for interfering with the citation history by deletion, instead of using an archived version!

I have been criticised (by one knee-jerk prima donna, with a foul-mouthed tirade) for not being creative-enough, and for being a "robot"; I am an editor, not really a contributor, and most of my time is spent disbelieving the content of WP and trawling back though the edit history to try to understand who-did-what. Suggest you consider self-revert?-0-Semperito (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Stating the height of the no. 2 pub is useful for a comparison, without it the reader has no idea when reading this article whether the Inn is highest by a hundred feet or just one or two. Excessive detail is not necessary - just the name and height will do (with citation) and although it would appear in a list by height that doesn't stop it from also being relevant here too. EdwardUK (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Noting the height of what was formerly the second highest pub seems to be very much a footnote comment on this pub which is noteworthy beyond just height. The name and height of what is currently the second highest pub should to be mentioned ahead of the closed pub.

So, you're now denying history? If, indeed, the Cat and Fiddle has origins back to the early 1800s, it suddenly becomes not the second-highest, due to a recent-only unexplained closure? And where is this elusive List of highest pubs/inns in the UK to be found? There's nothing here - List of public house topics. I'd guess that the Cat and Fiddle had origins as a coaching inn, so also noteworthy. I imagine Dave.Dunford, who hasn't edited for several days, would want to comment, so deliberately un-pinged for now.

It all depends on whether one is a deletionist or inclusionist; if there is no qualifyer (=comparator, relative scale) there's no need to include Tan Hill as the highest - as already stated immediately above - "this pub which is noteworthy beyond just height." #selectivedeletionist? -Semperito (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the claim of being the first wedding pub (which comes from its own website) the notability of the pub is based primarily on its height, which is a reason why it was featured on TV shows and ads.

While I think a height comparison would be useful, for now it may be easiest to leave it out, as what to include (current, former, both?) would be a problem - the Cat and Fiddle Inn may or may not reopen and the current no. 2 is unclear. The Kirkstone Pass Inn claims to be but this is disputed - though the site that does so www.garydickson.co.uk/pubs.html is a self-published list with rounded figures and for reliability something better would be needed. EdwardUK (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I was invited to comment. I'm no expert, but I've been to both pubs in the past. To be honest I have no real opinion either way but, given that the Cat and Fiddle is currently closed, has been for several years, and seems to show no sign of reopening, I marginally support FDent's the removal of the Cat and Fiddle information. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough - thank you for your comments.-Semperito (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)