Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome to the project!

Let's kick off with a couple of matters arising from a conversation with Stemonitis:

• Before we go too far, would this project be better titled "British and Irish hills"? (Pro: a lot of the same contributors cover both islands, the same issues apply to both, and coverage of Irish hills needs improving; con: there are very few Irish users working systematically on Irish hills, British contributors tend to stick mostly to British topics, and in practice Ireland is likely to be ignored whether or not it's part of the project.) In any case I don't think it would make sense to include Northern Ireland and exclude the Republic.

• Are all hills notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? What about all Marilyns? Wainwrights? Donalds? Nuttalls? --Blisco 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really mind what we call the project, though I do think the project should include Irish hills. As a geographical unit, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man form an obvious unit and, I think, deserve to be treated as one, especially as many lists (e.g. Hewitts and Marilyns) include Ireland and Man. I think my preference, name-wise, would be Hills of the British Isles, though I realise this may irritate the inhabitants of Talk:British_Isles. I agree that the Irish coverage is currently fairly poor — but then, so is coverage of the Scottish Lowlands. Converting the lists of Marilyns in Ireland to the newer table format used elsewhere has been on my to-do list of some time. I'll try to get around to doing this soon. As you point out in this conversation, most Irish hill pages are by British contributers; as this is the case, it'll probably be more convenient to keep them all in one place. — ras52 11:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"British Isles" isn't going to work -- imagine the revert wars and general ill-feeling if "This article is part of WikiProject Hills of the British Isles" was added to every hill in Ireland! Plus, if most Irish people are as against the term as is made out at Talk:British_Isles, it would be a sure way of guaranteeing that no Irish Wikipedian ever joins the project. You're probably right that Ireland ought to be included though. "British and Irish Hills" is shorter than "Hills of the British Isles", and I don't think any Manx people are going to object if their island is included in the project scope but not (explicitly at least) in the title. --Blisco 19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right about the name. So long as it it's not too verbose, I really don't care what we go for. — ras52 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, as there's been no further comment I'll move to Wikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hills and update the banner accordingly. --Blisco 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Banner

Thanks to everyone who's added the banner to talk pages. Please note that the template is now at {{BIhills}}, to take account of the new name and scope; {{WPBH}} still works but is a redirect. "BIhills" also has the advantage of being a bit more transparent, and anyone who wants to think of BI as standing for British Isles is welcome to do so! --Blisco 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging lists

The current lists of Nuttalls and Hewitts in Wales (and similarly for England) have a considerable overlap as three quarters of Nuttalls are Hewitts. Also, I'm not particularly happy with the way that the list of Nuttalls is arranged alphabetically, or that the Hewitts list is not in table form. I've spent a few days playing with some ideas for a merged list, and whilst its still quite incomplete, I think I've done for the idea to be apparent. So what do others think? Is it worth finishing it? — ras52 14:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging the lists seems like a good idea to me, and I like the look of what you've done. The categories need to be distinguished by more than just colour though, partly for ease of understanding (it's hard to remember which colour is which) and partly for the sake of the colour blind (and indeed the blind). How about having columns labelled "Marilyn", "Hewitt" and "Nuttall", with crosses in the appropriate boxes? I'm not sure "600m prominences" is a useful category either, since it's not the basis of any list and is therefore somewhat arbitrary. --Blisco 19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

From a visual persective, "Marilyn", "Hewitt" and "Nuttall" columns are likely to take up quite a lot of horizontal space because of their column headings, perhaps to the extent of causing lines to wrap for users with narrow displays. (I've just tried the current implemention in both a 80x25 text browser, and in a 640x480 graphical browser, and both are already close to being problematic.) Perhaps a single "Class" column with the word "Marilyn", "Hewitt" or "Nuttall", or even just M, H, N?

As to the "600m prominences" class, I personally think this is quite a notable list: it just doesn't have an associated name. (Majors seems to have been suggested, but it doesn't seem to be catching on, and it certainly isn't Wikipedia's job to be promoting a particular term.) Most short British lists of hills by prominence, Wikipedia's included, seem to choose either a 600 m or a 2000' (610 m) cut-off, and this applies (particularly to the 2000' limit) outside the British Isles too. For example, there are published prominence lists of Europe to 600m, and 2000' list of US peaks seems to be of active interest.

But if the consensus is against including a 600m / 2000' prominence class, I'm quite happy to remove it. — ras52 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I use a 2000'-based list quite often, but I accept that it's not widespread. I would also prefer that cutoff to be used than 600 m, because logically a peak with >2000' of relative height in England and Wales must qualify for each of the other categories, but a 600-m peak need not. (This is of course entirely academic, because the only peak between 600 and 610 m is Cadair Idris, which is a Marilyn, a Nuttall and a Hewitt anyway.) We are only marking them in a separate colour, which is not the same as proposing them as a novel, notable list, and the category need not be named. --Stemonitis 08:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've finished merging the lists and have uploaded a number of new images for it. I can't find any pictures on [geograph.org.uk geograph] for the Elan Valley peaks, and the Berwyns could do with one more. I've currently left the "600m prominences" class alone — so far there's been one vote for removing it (Blisco), one for changing it to 2000' (Stemonitis) and one for keeping it at 600m (me). I've put merge tags up on the old lists, and if no-one objects, I'll move the page out of my user area to new List of Hewitts and Nuttalls of Wales page.

Incidentally, don't let the fact that the page is in my user area stop anyone from editting it if they want. I've finished making the changes that I want to make. — ras52 18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, good work. This might come a bit late, but is the parentage column necessary? It makes sense for purely relative-height-based lists, but not necessarily for mixed lists. This might also be a good time to consider the notability problem (which no-one seems enthusiatic about, understandably), and decide whether every Nuttall is really important. Is Lliwedd Bach worthy of an article in its own right? I would suspect not. --Stemonitis 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about the parentage column being unnecessary. My rational for leaving it in was that it can provide a useful reminder as to where the hill is. For instance, Bwlch y Ddwyallt in the Brecon Beacons. Despite having been over it several times, I don't think I'd remember which top it is without the reminder that it's in the Waun Rydd area. Admitedly, though, in some areas (e.g. the Black Mountains), the parentage column doesn't really help. Perhaps if the parentage always contained the prominence parent, that would improve things, but I can't see how to do that without original research. — ras52 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains doesn't explicitly list any notability criteria, referring only to "named mountains". Still, I think that's a start. I would therefore like to propose that any summits without an individual name (either on Ordnance Survey maps or in common usage elsewhere) should not be given separate articles. Explicitly, I mean that subsidiary summits like "Kirk Fell East Top", "Manod Mawr North Top" should be considered descriptions rather than names and these peaks should not have articles separate from Kirk Fell and Manod Mawr. This is perhaps stating the obvious, but you've got to start somewhere. The only meaningful summit I can think of which isn't named by the OS is the highest point of the Nantlle Ridge, which is unnamed by the OS, but is called Craig Cwm Silyn by Alan Dawson and other list-makers. --Stemonitis 09:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There's always going to be exceptions as the example of Craig Cwm Silyn suggests. As you mention above, it's doubtful whether all the obscure Nuttalls are notable. Lliwedd Bach is a good example — though I think I would handle this by making Lliwedd Bach a redirect to Y Lliwedd and mention it in passing on that page. We do this elsewhere, for example Striding Edge redirects to Helvellyn and Hobcarton Crag and Hobcarton End both redirect to Grisedale Pike.

Other examples are less easy. Take Gwaun Lydan in the Arans for example: a tedious expanse of peat at the end of a long SE ridge of Aran Fawddwy. I think it would be hard to justify a mention on the Aran Fawddwy page, and I'd be surprised if enough could be said about it to justify a page of its own. Googling, the only description I can find of it is "irritating and insignificant". That kind of sums it up ;-).

But then, perhaps something can be found to say about even the most insigificant seeming Nuttalls. Armboth Fell and Mungrisdale Common (neither of which are Nuttalls: the former failing on absolute height, the latter on relative height) both have pages, and both manage to find something to say about the fells. Indeed, Wainwright manages a whole page on each. Perhaps we should aim to find something, however trivial, to say about them all? I'm really not sure. — ras52 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Wainwrights are all worth doing and we'll get there eventually. There's something very British (and Irish) about a list based more on love than logic. I'm not in favour of an arbitrary 2000' cut-off for the same reason.

Shouldn't we concentrate on putting more hills into wikipedia, before we worry about taking things out.Bobble Hat 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there's plenty of space in Wikipedia for additions, but I do think it's worth working out what we would want to add. If we had established criteria, then it would be harder for an AfD to pass on one of our hills; a lot of people from other countries would find many of our "peaks" risible. Also, to spend hours carefully crafting an article on Gwun Lydan would be a waste when we've got no article on Sgurr na Lapaich, for instance. But it also affects the formatting right now. If we don't expect there ever to be an article about Gwaun Lydan, then we won't link to it in the lists we make now; a red link is always a temptation to create an article. So, it's not about taking things out, but more about directing our efforts to put things in. It's not of vital importance, but it is worth discussing. --Stemonitis 12:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See where you're coming from. But we do have a long way to go writing-wise. I did want to put in a word for the old curmudgeon amid all this talk of Nuttalls and whatnots. Wainwrights and Munros are still the two lists that 'laypeople' are most likely to have heard of and start bagging, and thus go to Wikipedia in search of.

I've read this page again and no-one actually seems to have made a firm proposal for what we're aiming at. As a basis for negotiation how about:-

• Munro (284)
• Wainwright(214)
• Marilyn (2000ish less those covered elsewhere)
• Hewitt (with distinct name)
• Corbett

That gives us a couple of thousand pages to write. And you see I'm hoist with my own petard- I logged on to write the article on Kentmere Pike.... Bobble Hat 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a distinction to be made between what is notable/permissible and what is useful/desireable. I agree with Bobble that Munros and Wainwrights are well known enough to deserve an article, with the proviso that there should be only one article on named Scottish mountains containing more than one Munro, such as Buachaille Etive Mor and Liathach. Even if there's not a lot to Buckbarrow or Bonscale Pike, there's at least sufficient material in Wainwright's own books to form a decent article, and no doubt other Wainwright enthusiasts have written about them elsewhere. Marilyns, Corbetts and most Hewitts would also have little difficulty fitting any notability criteria.

However, I'd question whether this is the right time to be creating lots of stubs and short articles about minor summits of interest only to committed baggers. There are already more articles than we can hope to keep track of, and for every reader interested in a minor Hewitt or Marilyn there will be ten looking for information on Ben Nevis or Scafell Pike. I'd therefore be keener for us to concentrate our efforts on improving the content we already have, especially the major peaks (maybe even attempting FA status for one or two), rather than creating new content. I'm not saying by any means that no new articles should be created, and there are certainly still some glaring omissions (I was surprised to find that Wetherlam as yet has no article, for instance), just suggesting that depth might be at least as important as breadth. --Blisco 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was going to say just Munros and Wainwrights, which is a manageable number of well defined and described hills to do properly. But then I thought, were I Welsh, or Irish, or come to that a Pennine enthusiast, how impressed would I be? Hence Marilyn and Hewitt. Then of course there's Corbett to be fair. The whole thing just snowballs. (Avalanches?) Since I'm only planning to work on Wainwrights it doesn't affect me personally, but I take Stem's point that we have to know where we're going and be able to defend it. How about Wainwrights, Munros, Hewitts in Wales, Hewitts in Ireland; which is still 846. Bobble Hat 23:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A few numbers. There are 284 Munros, 214 Wainwright, 1765 Marilyns, 525 Hewitts and 220 Corbetts. However, there is a lot of duplication here — all the Corbetts are Marilyns as are about two thirds of Munros and a number of Hewitts and Wainwrights. In total there are (I think) 2512 different hills. Clearly this is a lot.

I think I agree with Blisco that we'd be better concentrating on improving what we already have and filling the more glaring omissions. How about this for a suggestion for prioritising work: there are 119 mountains with a 600 m prominence (or 111 over 2000', whichever)— most of which are in Scotland. Most of these have articles but many are only stubs. It's hard to argue that these are not notable, and it would be nice to get decent articles on all these.

This has a rather undesireable Scottish bias, so what about adding everything that is both a Hewitt and a Marilyn — i.e. both high and prominent. This adds another 166 peaks giving, bizarrely, 284 in total (87 in the RoI, 82 in Scotland, 53 in Wales, 50 in England, 11 in N Ireland, and 1 on Man). That seems to redress the balance across the British Isles without introducing unreasonably many new hills that need text writing (lots in the RoI, 34 in Scotland, 19 in Wales, 7 in England and 7 in N Ireland). (Though given the general lack of enthusiasm for Irish peaks, expecting decent articles on all the Irish ones is perhaps asking too much.)

Obviously any attempt at producing a list of what is notable is going to be controversial; for example, I've included Trum y Ddysgl in the Nantlle range but not Carnedd Dafydd or Crib Goch. But how about this as a start? — ras52 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. The trouble with defining priorities based on lists is that you run into the same problem as the lists themselves: our instinctive feelings for what hills are worth including frequently don't tally with height or prominence data. This is probably why so many lists exist, many of them engineered in an attempt to include those hills the author thought too good to miss out, by using either a ridiculously small drop requirement (Nuttalls) or a complicated formula (Donalds). The most successful lists, the Munros and the Wainwrights, are precicely the ones that are partly or wholly subjective (even if the SMC insist on trying to objectivise the Munros). But as you say, we have to start somewhere, and as a target for this project – not as any kind of proescriptive rule – expanding the 284 peaks you propose seems like a good plan. --Blisco 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see we are now saying 337 peaks — what are the extra ones, or did I simply miscalculate? I've no problem with adding some more (within reason); I'd just like to know what they are. We're also now saying all Marilyns over 2000 feet which subsumes the > 600 m drop list and adds 564 (I think) Scottish hills that would otherwise not be included — in my view this is far too many, and I doubt is what was intended so I've changed this. — ras52 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that was my mistake. For some reason (I'm struggling to think what), I assumed that 284 was the number of peaks already on the list, and not the total number. So, when I added the Welsh Hewitt-Marilyns to the list (of which there are 53), I increased the number by 53. I'll undo that. Sorry. --Stemonitis 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Meanings of names

For the meanings of names of the hills, I can supply a good amount of info. SunStar Net 11:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Content

Never finish one debate if you can start a new one. When we've settled which hills we're going to write about next, what exactly will we put in? For an encyclopedia article on an area of the earth's crust it seems to me that you have to stick to:-

• location
• topography (shape, texture, ridges, watersheds, boundaries etc)
• present and historical use of the land.
• names and meanings.

Which on its own is frankly a bit dull. I also think its fair game to talk about the view, and say where it can be climbed from. BUT I've fought shy of providing detailed route descriptions, because my understanding is that a travel guide (or how-to manual) is one of the things that wikipedia is not. I have however seen plenty of articles with detailed descriptions, and they do convey a bit of human interest, something of the reason why people love the things. And we could remember the gentle reader for whom we write.

I can imagine two main reasons that someone might read a B&I Hills page. Presumably for the article on Ben Nevis there will be plenty of people from around the world who want to learn about B&Is tallest peak for its own sake. But for most of the other hills I would imagine the majority of the hits are either from people who have climbed it, or people who want to. For them the most important bits of information are

• How do I climb Little Piddling Pike from Grimdale? (non-encyclopedic), and
• Is it worth the effort? (Almost certainly POV)

So where are we going to aim in the continuum between 'can be climbed from the surrounding valleys' and 'after the third rowan tree, you will see a flat brownish rock....'. Are we going to remove this sort of detail from existing pages, or add it in to all of the ones we decide are notable? And are we going to use such POV gems as 'drab', 'tedious', 'impressive' or 'exciting' in our descriptions of hills and routes?

Also, are there any other areas of content that we want to see included where possible?Bobble Hat 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also add geology — although very few of the B&I hills pages mention it, it is something that a traditional encyclopedia would mention (see the 1911 Britannica article on Ben Nevis, for example). And I'd add wildlife, for example the Golden Eagles' eyrie on Riggindale Crag on High Street.

Regarding details of ascents, my personal opinion is that we should include some information, and that this can be done in an encyclopedic manner. Take Ben Nevis for example — I think this article strikes a reasonable balance. It devotes several sentences to the "tourist" route, without getting into excessive detail — and as I'm sure this must be Scotland's most popular mountain walk, this seems appropriate. (Though "the section above the loch especially is found tedious by many who attempt it, as there is little variety in scenery" is POV.) It also mentions the Carn Mòr Dearg arrête and some of the climbing routes on the north face.

However the article doesn't get into too much detail. For example, in the Navigation section, it specifically doesn't mention the 230° and 280° bearings needed to find the start of the tourist route when descending in the mist. I think it would be irresponsible to include this level of route detail unless we are sure we can keep it accurate. Far better to do as the article does and reference an external website. — ras52 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I did quite a bit of work on Ben Nevis a few weeks ago, until I ran out of information and enthusiasm and created a to-do list instead. The current state of the article combined with the to-do list is probably a fair indication of what I think an article should include. Of course there'll always be more to say about Ben Nevis than your average Stob Dearg/Middle Fell/Y Garn, but basic sections might be topology, geology, ascent routes, any other activities or uses associated with the hill (climbing etc.), and any other notable issues (e.g. conservation). History is going to be difficult or irrelevant for most mountains but notable for a few, especially those with a history of early ascents or rock climbs (or landmark experiments).

Per WP:NPOV, it should be perfectly possible to convey subjective information in a neutral way by citing sources. The section above the loch especially is found tedious by many who attempt it may be weaselly, but it's not a subjective statement in itself: it's hard to dispute that many people do find it tedious (though you couldn't change 'many' to 'most' without a proper source). ...as there is little variety in scenery is on shakier ground: are we saying that there is little variety, or that the people who find it tedious consider the scenery unvaried? Can variety be objectively measured? It's certainly true and verifiable that the angle of the slope is constant, the terrain is stony throughout, and the broad flank occupies much of the view. But there are dozens of guidebooks and other sources that convey the same information: if we attribute an opinion to a source, and present any significant conflicting opinions, we should be able to avoid accusations of bias. As aesthetic appreciation of the environment is such a major part of hillwalking, it seems reasonable that a good article should give some indication as to why people climb the mountain in question.

I actually think it would be worth trying bring Ben Nevis up to Featured Article standard. It's well known, has potential for a lot of interesting content, and has more written about it than most other British mountains. Perhaps this should be another long-term project goal? --Blisco 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding Google maps to Infobox, or starting {{Geolinks-UK-mountain}}?

Please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox Mountain for discussion about whether to add Google maps to {{Infobox Mountain}}, or to start using {{Geolinks-UK-mountain}} (and {{Geolinks-IE-mountain}}) in the external links section. -- hike395 10:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Weather

Would anyone object to a template similar to Template:Geolinks-UK-mountain but entitled Template:Weather-UK-mountain, I appreciate the difficulty is most of the weather channels will just be nearest station, but it could be useful to those planning trips/walks "TheNose | Talk" 12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the need for this. But if you think it's necessary, perhaps you could explain what you want it to include? — ras52 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see no reason for this other than to act as a travel guide, which Wikipedia explicitly is not. Climate is encyclopedic; tomorrow's weather isn't, even in an external link. --Blisco 18:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox british hills double

This infobox is currently used for hills containing two listed summits, especially some Munros. I've been wondering whether it wouldn't be better to replace it with the standardised mountain infobox, and have piloted my ideas at An Teallach. Here are some arguments:

1. Conformity with other mountain articles.
2. For the general reader who doesn't understand the concept of lists and peak bagging, the two columns are confusing.
3. Many of these mountains - notably An Teallach, Buachaille Etive Mor et al - have many more summits and tops than just the two Munros, and would be better dealt with in the article proper.
4. Aesthetics: the double box is wider than most and looks rather cluttered.

What do others think? A good idea? Or are we losing valuable information? Do the subsidiary Munros in fact deserve articles of their own? --Blisco 22:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. Let's leave the details to the body of the article. — ras52 23:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. I came across one of these recently, and was astonished to find a remnant of the old "Infobox british hills". None of our articles is so big that we need to split off the subsidiary tops; there's plenty of room in the article. Then again, if it gets really long, then there'll be space for a second infobox! --Stemonitis 08:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It gets my vote, if a 2nd peak is notable surely it should have its own article "TheNose | Talk" 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather see it stay, if only because it seems right that every Munro should have an infobox entry. Probably just my Munrocentrism, and the fact that I (think I) created the double infobox in the first place. Ah well, I'llbow to the majority. Grinner 20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the new idea, I think all the "tops" should be listed in the article, not just the Munro summits, but perhaps thats just me going into too much detail. BTW Beinn a' Ghlò has three Munros on it, so how do you fit that onto one info box (I didn't try) or does it deserve three separate articles or three infoboxes. Also the most wanted mountain in Britain Sgurr na Lapaich !! now has an article, this has four "tops" which need inserting in the article if the new idea gets the go ahead. Mick Knapton 12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I converted Kirk Fell this morning from the old infobox_double to {{Infobox Mountain}}. I think this demonstrates how information on extra tops can/could be encompassed in the text. I would definitely recommend this approach for Munro tops, although perhaps not for mountains with two (or more?) full Munros. --Stemonitis 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, Kirk Fell loos fine like that, I would still think that both Munros on Buachaille Etive Mòr deserve an infobox entry. The three Munros (or Corbetts/Marilyns) thing is a puzzle, I suppose there is the option of what I did with Quinag, but I'm not entrirely happy with that. Grinner 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason why separate articles shouldn't be created on the subsidiary Munros. Take Snowdon: the main article is on the whole massif, with particular reference to the summit of Yr Wyddfa, but Garnedd Ugain and Crib Goch have their own articles (albeit fairly short and stubby ones, but with potential for more), with infoboxes. I think I said above that I thought such articles shouldn't be created, but on second thoughts it seems reasonable, if not of the highest priority. --Blisco 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tops infobox

Listed summits of Grisedale Pike
Name	Grid ref	Height	Status
Grisedale Pike	NY198225	791 m	Marilyn, Wainwright, Hewitt, Nuttall
Hobcarton Crag	NY193220	739 m	Hewitt, Nuttall
Hobcarton End	NY194235	634 m	Nuttall

How about a supplementary infobox along these lines? It's flexible enough to include all summits of all listings, and incorporates the most essential elements from the main infobox. I've missed out 'Prominence', partly because it was making the box too wide, and partly because in many cases reliable data isn't available. The linguistic elements are also not included for much the same reasons.

I'm a bit out of my depth with table formatting, so feel free to make it look prettier. I don't know how easy it would be to convert into a template, given that the number of fields is open-ended, but it could always be copied wholesale into the article. --Blisco 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible to make an open-ended version by using three templates: something like {{UK-peak-list-start}}, {{UK-peak-list-entry}} and {{UK-peak-list-end}}, where {{UK-peak-list-start}} sets up the header, each {{UK-peak-list-entry}} creates a table row, and {{UK-peak-list-end}} would probably contain little more than "|}" to close it all off. --Stemonitis 09:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How about trying it just as trial to see what it looks like ? Why not try it on Sgurr nan Ceathreamhnan which has five tops or Glaramara (also five). Might as well try it on something awkward. Regards Mick Knapton 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now templatised it as {{GB summits start}} and {{GB summits entry}}, with instructions for use located at the former template, and tried it at Grisedale Pike in place of the supplementary infoboxes that were there. Comments and improvements welcome (especially regarding how to increase the cell spacing so that the grid ref link doesn't overflow into the next cell.) I'm also not sure whether or not it's best to include the name of the main summit in the box: on the one hand it's useful for the sake of completeness, but on the other hand it duplicates information in the main infobox. --Blisco 20:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it, could be the perfect solution. Grinner 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinder Scout

Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up. Would anyone care to comment on the discussion at Talk:Hayfield? I wince inwardly every time I see the reference to Kinder Scout being a mountain, though I've undertaken not to change it; it may be considered to be by some but I consider plateau to be NPOV and more accurate. I've set out my arguments there so I won't repeat them here, but I'd be interested in any views either way. Dave.Dunford 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Describing Kinder Scout as a Plateau is surely the answer. I personally regard it (being local) as a boggy plateau with a Pike. Myles 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a citation (see Talk:Hayfield) in a climbing book that supports my contention that Kinder isn't a mountain, so I've reverted the Hayfield page. The person who objected before hasn't yet done so again. Dave.Dunford 16:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of hill names

I notice that the Ordnance Survey have started to use the Gaelic forms of mountain names in the Western Isles — for example, An Cliseam instead of Clisham, Uisgneabhal Mòr instead of Uisgnaval Mor, etc. TACit (which I regard as one of the most definitive sources of British hill lists) have stated that "in line with current policy of accepting OS maps as definitive unless clearly wrong, most Marilyns in region 24 now have new official names." Although personally I find that the –bhal forms of Old Norse-derived –val names look rather odd, I would like to suggest that we too adopt the policy of regarding the OS maps as definitive unless clearly wrong.

Obviously, in articles, all forms of the name that are in common usage should be given, but most of these hills are obscure enough not to have articles — Clisham is the only exception (and if we start following this convention, I would suggest moving that page); however, there are places (in some tables and for wikilinks) where giving both forms would be inpractical, and this is when I would suggest using the OS form.

(I should point out that this is relevant to the argument in full flow over on Talk:Carnedd Llewelyn, but it's also a more general issue worth settling irrespective of the outcome of that argument.)

On a vaguely related note, the OS occasionally put an accent on "Carn", and related forms. (See Geal-chàrn, Diollaid a' Chàirn and Càrn Dearg on the ridge above Culra (NN469746), for example.) I've generally heard it pronounced /kɑːrn/ (I think; I'm not too up on my IPA), which would suggest the accent ought to be present. Is anyone who understands Gaelic better than me able to comment on this?

ras52 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While this sounds perfectly laudable, I think trouble may come with the phrase "unless clearly wrong". In any argument about spelling, one side will see the OS spelling as "clearly wrong". Perhaps you could explain in more detail what you wanted that phrase to convey, orhow it's interpreted by the TACiT authors. Examples would help. --Stemonitis 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a policy would probably also fall foul of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). In Ireland-related articles the convention is to use the English forms of names unless the Irish one is clearly in common use; this applies even where the Irish form of place names in the Gaeltacht has been declared "official". It seems sensible to me to apply a similar policy with Scottish Gaelic place names. Furthermore, hills shouldn't be seen as a special case: all places in the Outer Hebrides currently use English names when they are available (see Leverburgh, Callanish, Garenin et al), even though the OS now exclusively uses the Gaelic forms for all but the largest places. Unless and until consensus decrees that these should be moved to their Gaelic forms, Clisham and similar hills ought to follow the same rules.

Other cases might be more controversial. Should it be Sca Fell (used by the OS) or "Scafell" (probably the more common spelling, used by Wainwright et al)? Blencathra or "Saddleback", or even "Saddleback or Blencathra" (which is, after all, the form used on OS maps)? And then there's the whole Carnedd Llewelyn debate: "Llywelyn" is almost certainly the more "correct" form, and the one more widely used in some contexts, but "Llewelyn" is the more common form in situations where OS maps are used as a main source. As those of us who create and contribute to articles on British hills tend to fall into the latter category, systemic bias is a potential problem.

In cases of dispute I'd favour treating the OS map as a last resort rather than a first: use it as a reliable published source like any other, assessing each on its own merits, but go with the OS form if the most common form can't be determined by other means. --Blisco 18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Blisco's arguments for using English rather than Gaelic names seem incontravertible — Clisham it can remain, then. (There are one or two borderline cases though: should it be Beinn Fhada or Ben Attow — the OS print both. The lists I've checked in Wikipedia all use Beinn Fhada, the Gaelic version, rather than the anglicised Ben Attow.)

I'm less convinced in other cases, though — I would say it should be Sca Fell rather than "Scafell" precisely because this is what the OS use. In the case of Blencathra / "Saddleback", the OS give both so it doesn't apply.

In answer to Stemonitis' question about what "clearly wrong" means, I was thinking of those rare cases when the OS have put a name that's uncontroversially bogus for example, at NH015199 near the summit of Beinn Fhada, the O/S Explorer has, in large letters, a label "Sgurr an Doire Leathain". This is generally believed to be because of a typo in the 1997 edition Munro's Tables which incorrectly gives the grid reference of Sgurr an Doire Leathain (a real mountain) as NH015199 instead of the correct NH015099 which was propagated by the OS. (See 4b on this page.)

A less straightforward example is Sròn a' Choire on Creag Meagaidh (NN448877) which, on the Explorer and Landranger (but not 1:250,000 maps) is printed as Sròn a' Ghoire and is fairly universally believed to be a typo — TACit list this as Sron a' Choire (TACit don't do accented characters). Unfortunately, it's a typo that's starting to gain currency elsewhere — as a Google search shows. (The editor's comments on the penultimate letter on this page mention this and other similar examples.)

On the Carn versus Càrn issue, the OS Gaelic glossary opts for Càrn, which makes me think we should perhaps regard all uses of Carn as mistakes and gradually change them. I'm in favour of that, I think… but perhaps that would be controversial?

If we're trying to move towards some general principles, it's probably best to avoid thinking too much about Carnedd Llewelyn — as they say, hard cases make bad law. It combines too many different issues — "Llewelyn" is often an intentional anglicisation of "Llywelyn", which would favour the Llew– form; or it could be regarded as a typo, which would favour Llyw–… unless it's like Scafell Pike where the original OS typo has become the accepted form.

Apologies for such a long post. ras52 02:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple guidance on what hill articles should contain esp Mendip hills

Hi, I've been reading through a lot of your discussion (particularly about infobox's), as I'm looking for some simple advice on what should be included in an article about range of hills. Many wikiprojects have something which gives general suggestions/guidance about what should be included in all relevant articles.

I'm particularly interested in the Mendip Hills (as it's local to me in the Chew Valley), but I'm not a hills expert. The Mendip plateau doesn't really have a "peak" just highest points. Mendip Hills is already listed as a good article, but I'd appreciate edits or suggestions to make it better & maybe into a featured article one day.— Rod ^talk 20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the Mendip Hills page is already one of the better articles on British hills in Wikipedia. But if you're looking for ways to improve it, I'd start by taking a look at another of Wikipedia's best articles on hills — and at present, Ben Nevis is probably the best. In the "Sports and leisure" section, you mention caving, climbing, hillwalking, gliding, stock-car racing and folk festivals. Ideally, you could get a short (sub)section about each of these activities. In the walking section you could mention how to reach Beacon Batch, the highest point; any notable ridge walks; any way-marked or long distance paths that cross them; and any regular fell races over them. I don't think it would take much at all to get this up to Good Article status. — ras52 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I've taken that advice & expanded the sports & leisure & other sections & have copyedited etc. I've now put the Mendip Hills up for Peer Review & I'd reallyappreciae any comments there as I'm hoping to put it up as a FA candidate soon.— Rod ^talk 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of a "Fell"

Just a point I'd like to make regarding the use of the term "fell". Simply because a peak is included in one of Wainwright's books does not make it a fell. Fells are large upland moor areas, sometimes encompassing a peak which is referred to by the fell name, and sometimes not. Green Crag is a case in point. If you have ever been there you will know that it is simply a high knoll of rock, set in a much wider moorland fell. Green Crag itself is about 50m square. To describe Green Crag as being a "fell" in the opening line is simply wrong; it is a peak, set on a fell. Wainwright's books are titled "The xxx Fells" to define an area of walking, he did not intend to imply that every single walk included therin had an attendant fell with the same name. His Green Crag walk indicates a destination, not that you would be walking on Green Crag. The walk itself is across Ulpha and Birker Fells, both of which contain many peaks and knolls that have individual names. Sorry if this feels as though I have jumped in two boots first, but encyclopedic content should be accurate. Pyrope 08:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a debate as is stated above primarily regarding the Green Crag page, but having wider application. It began after I reverted an edit. To take Green Crag specifically first (and yes I have been there), Pyrope states that it is not a fell. To revert to published sources it is listed in Wainwright with a separate chapter as one of the Southern FELLS, by Richards with a chapter in the Southern FELLS and by Birkett in Complete Lakeland FELLS, all cited in the article. Pyrope has given no supporting reference for his view that Green Crag is only a top. To note, it has a prominence of around 145m and is close to being a marilyn.

Further Pyrope edited the article to state that Green Crag stands on Birker Fell, an upland area on the subject of which he (I assume gender, apologies if incorrect) has contributed to an article. Taking the Ordnance Survey Explorer OL6 as a further source I contend that this is also incorrect, hence my reversion. "Birker Fell" is marked on the map as the upland area around the fell road. This is a gently sloping area running down west from the Green Crag- Great Worm Crag ridge. Meanwhile to the east of Green Crag (and rather nearer) is marked "Ulpha Fell", this being the slope running down to Grassguards. Thus from what I would contend is a reliable source, Green Crag is the highpoint on a ridge between the moorlands of Birker Fell and Ulpha Fell and is subservient to neither. No contrary reference has been cited and Pyrope seems to have conceded the point above.

To answer the further point made here, Wainwright's main series is based on fells, not walks. Each chapter describes a fell and the walks available to its summit. This is not the case with his Outlying Fells (covering some of the Birker Fell area) which is indeed based on walks. Green Crag is in a main volume. You can't climb Birker Fell because its hasn't got a top.

To the more general point of what is a fell, this is already covered in the article of that name. Originally it was an area for grazing, such as Birker Fell. Now it has come to mean a mountain or hill, such as Green Crag. Both usages are acceptable and the comments above dispute this without citing references. Bobble Hat 09:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite having written most of the Fell article myself, I think both Pyrope and Bobble Hat make valid points. Hillwalkers tend to blur the distinction between the names of summits and mountains, but the distinction exists and ought to be mentioned in articles where appropriate. Furthermore, "fell" is an ambiguous term which is little understood outside northern England, and IMO ought to be used sparingly; if a particular fell/Wainwright can unquestionably be called a "mountain" or a "hill", it's probably best to do so for the sake of maximum intelligibility. That said, it's a useful word to use when referring to the Lakeland fells as a whole, or when describing those fells that are mountainous in character, but are not quite big enough to be unequivocably called mountains.

Green Crag is a difficult case. In purely topographical terms it doesn't have much of an identity as a separate hill/mountain; it is, as Pyrope points out, an outcrop of rock that happens to be the highest point of a large area of moorland. However, it probably has more notability as one of Wainwright's "fells" (and he calls them thus, frequently), and so deserves an article on the whole fell as defined by AW. Incidentally, the Oracle states that "Green Crag is a part of the sprawling upland expanse of Birker Fell", which seems to imply that it's a fell in its own right that forms part of a larger fell. --Blisco 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles on the 7 Wainwright Areas

I want to put in articles covering the 7 Wainwright areas (ie Eastern, Far Eastern etc) of the Lakeland Fells. This is partly to bring out the characters of these different groups of hills and also to aid the reader in knowing where things are. I think I've come up with a way of linking this into the existing structure in a way that adds content rather than just links for their own sake. I've also tried to come up with a form of words that justifies AWs division as notable in the first place, which I admit is potentially a bigger problem. A scheme is here and I won't go adding it into articles unless there is general consensus that it adds something. Unfortunately time has marched on and I've got the above 'justification' paragraphs written but precious little of the actual text. Let me know what you think. Bobble Hat 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly done now barring a concluding paragraph which will attempt to give the feel of the place without lapsing into rhapsodic non-encyclopedic material in a cheap imitation of the old codger himself. Oh dear...Bobble Hat 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Neat idea. Think I'll nip up to Innominate Tarn and tell Wainwright. Mick Knapton 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems a great idea to me (if you have the time!) After that Beatrix Potter film the Lake District is certainly popular. I just had a look at your sandbox stuff, looks good. Paragraphs 2 & 3 would be under an 'introduction' in each article? On the critical side you are going to need to break it up with lots of images. The Wainwright society might give you some of their images etc. if you ask.Nks487 23:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

On Google Earth

I was recently looking at the new updated version of Google Earth and realised that it's got integrated Wikipedia articles - for a lot of places around the world, there's a little Wiki-logo icon which, when you click on it, brings up the Wikipedia article on the place. Quite a lot of towns, lakes, US peaks etc. have it, so what I wanted to ask was, can the British hills be added? It would vastly increase the audience that all the hill pages will reach. Does anyone know how to do this?

please reply --Mark J 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea how one would do this! However, I agree it would vastly increase the audience these pages get. - Suicidalhamster 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes they can, I think by adding {{coord|YY.YYY|N|XX.XXX|W|display=title}} to the page (it puts a little line in the top right of the article with the coordinates in). There is some further information here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates. Not sure how it then appears on Google Earth though. To convert from grid references, there is a useful tool at [1]. Pigetrational (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How to join?

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'd like to join this project. How do I go about that? Thanks!Rubisco 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Years of study, many many exams, hours of patient learning and dogged application of knowledge to... oh wait, that's becoming a doctor. Just sign your name on the Project Page and you are in! Pyrope 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I was looking at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot and thought it would be great to be able to rate articles currently in this wikiproject using the standard Assessment scheme. There are a number of advantages to using this system in my opinion. Firstly a bot will create three pages showing a list of articles by quality, a log of changes and a table summarising the results. An example for each can be seen here, here and here. Secondly having an article rated should be useful for judging how successful the project is at improving articles. Thirdly it will help people, not from this wikiproject, judge what standards are expected for British and Irish hill articles.

To try this out I have altered the normal talk page banner on my test page so that it is possible to rate an article. You can see what it looks like on a real talk page by putting

{{User:Suicidalhamster/testpage
|class= 
|key= 
}}

on the talk page and pressing show preview. Follow the instructions on User:Suicidalhamster/testpage for how to add a rating etc. I added the option of showing if an article is on the list of key mountains, however would appreciate feedback on this. (Is it worth implementing the full importance scale for example?) What do people think about the whole concept? Is it worth using? - Suicidalhamster 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Like the idea in theory, although I'll stick to editing. Do we have volunteers (preferrably those who don't author too many articles themselves) to form an assessment team? That way we get both jobs done and hopefully we can keep the whole thing objective - Bobble Hat 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm happy to do some rating (probably from the work already done at the key mountains list), I guess, there is no need for the articles to be assessed all that quickly. Hopefully editors who do write lots of articles will rate other editors' articles so that there is consistency of ratings and article standards right across the project, although we will have to see what happens in reality! - Suicidalhamster 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented the necessary changes on Template:BIhills. Also created an Assessment page to organise things. Any question feel free to ask. - Suicidalhamster 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues here Bobble Hat 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Safety notice for hill articles

Does anyone else think we may be leaving ourselves open by describing, even quite vaguely, how to get up things? The world is ever more litigious. What would you all think to a paragraph on any article describing ascent routes that said something to the effect of

There are risks associated with hill walking and climbing. Before setting out, be sure that you have the necessary knowledge, skills and equipment to complete your itinery safely.

I don't think an actual legal disclaimer would look good in an encyclopedia, but ours is probably the only web resource on walking that doesn't carry one. Admittedly I am paranoid, but such a unique position gives me cause for concern. Let me know. Bobble Hat 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. Wikipedia already has a disclaimer which is linked at the bottom of every article, and current practice on the English Wikipedia is not to put any kind of disclaimer on article pages. (I say English because the Spanish Wikipedia, among others, does provide a prominent link to the medical disclaimer at the top of relevant articles - see for example es:cáncer - but that's not something you see here.) Putting a disclaimer on hill-related articles would, in my view, conflict with the NPOV policy, as it implies that we're giving instructions, which we're not. Articles should describe common routes up mountains as given in reliable sources, not give advice on the best route up.

That's not to say the risks shouldn't be mentioned, of course. An article on hillwalking or hiking should explain the risks involved, in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion, and articles on individual mountains should mention notable risks if they are well documented. (For example, there is ample published evidence that Broad Stand on Sca Fell is an accident blackspot, and that should be dealt with fully in the article.) But the angle should always be "there have been x number of accidents here", or, failing that, "such-and-such a writer advises that this route is dangerous", never "you should". --Blisco 23:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there you go. I'd never actually noticed that we already have a disclaimer on every page. Obviously my Bobble Hat has slipped over my eyes! Bobble Hat 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as everything is properly referenced we are merely passing on the information of others. Pyrope 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

There is a discussion at Talk:Cross Fell about whether images whose focus are people are appropriate for depicting features of the landscape visible in the background. Since Cross Fell is within the scope of this WikiProject, perhaps some of the members would like to comment there. —xyzzy_n 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

xyzzy. Cross Fell currently contains a number of images, some of which are distinctly third rate - although they all contribute significantly to the article. Anyone is welcome to replace the images with better ones. The problem has come down to whether or not a North American contributor should electronically alter (or "improve") the images. An electronically altered image is essentially a fake - and it should never be published.

I appreciate your interest in Cross Fell, but please try to understand my concerns. best wishes. BobBScar23625 08:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

retraction and apology

The images in the Cross Fell article are all genuine. None of them have been electronically altered. My earlier comments are withdrawn and I have apologised to xxyzy. Bob BScar23625 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)