Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 10:52, 5 August 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Redlinked hatnotes

Several articles have a redlinked hatnote to Lists of mountains and hills in Britain and Ireland. Per WP:REDHAT something needs to be done about this - either a list-of-lists article written or the hatnote deleted. I note that none of the pages linked to mentions Ireland. Narky Blert (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it into a redirect to Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles, which means the same, give or take the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, I think. PamD 21:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "mountain" (UK)

User:Douglal and I are struggling to achieve consensus at List of hills in the Peak District (see also my talk page). He has added the sentence "Kinder Scout and Bleaklow are the Peak District's only mountains, with summit elevations over 600m and rising more than 30m above the surrounding land (although by other definitions Bleaklow does not meet the prominence threshold of a mountain)." I maintain that no such formal definition of a mountain exists, other than in popular myth. Douglal cites various authorities but to my mind these criteria are either:

  • unreliable, merely perpetuating a commonly held but erroneous belief that a definitive cut-off altitude – variously 1000ft, 2000ft or 600m, sometimes with qualifications based on prominence – exists, or
  • an over-interpretation of criteria that are intended for specific, limited purposes (categorising tops for peak-bagging purposes, defining "mountain areas" in a legal sense for access legislation, etc.) and were never intended to define the vague word mountain or divide summits into "mountain" and "not mountain".

Any views? Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couple of interesting articles:
  • "Calf Top Cumbrian hill re-categorised as a mountain". BBC News. 6 September 2016.
  • "Calf Top - Britain's New Mountain". www.ukhillwalking.com.
  • Unfortunately the OS blog at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/newsroom/blog/calf-top-englands-last-mountain ( a ref in Calf Top) is a dead link and not in the Wayback machine.

PamD 08:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those fall into my first category, IMO. Both talk about "the Ordnance Survey's 2000ft threshold" but I've never found evidence that the OS has any such threshold. That's the trouble with this belief; it's widely held and frequently cited, often by reliable sources such as the BBC, but I've never found any definitive proof that it actually exists. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no unequivocal definition of a mountain. However there appears to be a very broad acknowledgement that summit elevation of 600m is an important characteristic:
  • UK government ONS uses 600m to define mountainous areas
  • The UK SIMM stands for Six-hundred Metre Mountain, whilst lower categories refer to hills "Hill Bagging Glossary".
  • The Mountain article's Definition section says: Whittow's Dictionary of Physical Geography states "Some authorities regard eminences above 600 metres (2,000 ft) as mountains, those below being referred to as hills."
Collectively I am convinced that this is sufficient justification for the statement made on List of hills in the Peak District and is consistent with List of mountains of the British Isles by height which states "The list is sourced from the Database of British and Irish Hills ... for peaks that meet the consensus height threshold for a mountain, namely 600 metres" Douglal (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no unequivocal definition of a mountain. In that case, why object to the removal of the statement at List of hills in the Peak District that implies that there is? However there appears to be a very broad acknowledgement that summit elevation of 600m is an important characteristic. I disagree, and I'm always suspicious of phrases like "broad acknowledgement" and "general consensus" and "most authorities". Dealing with these citations one by one:
  • UK government ONS uses 600m to define mountainous areas." "Mountain" <> "mountainous area". This is a classic example of my second category. This criterion is a necessary cut-off for a specific legal purpose. It was never intended as a means of defining what is and isn't a mountain.
  • The UK SIMM stands for Six-hundred Metre Mountain, whilst lower categories refer to hills. Flimsy. By the same argument, the title at the top of that page says "Hill Classification", so are we to conclude that all categories listed are hills?
  • The Mountain article's Definition section says: Whittow's Dictionary of Physical Geography states "Some authorities regard eminences above 600 metres (2,000 ft) as mountains, those below being referred to as hills." Who are these "some authorities"? 600m is not the same as 2000ft, so which is it (important if we are to make fine judgements near the borderline)?
It seems to me that there are summits that are clearly mountains, and there are summits that are clearly not. And then there is a grey area in between (into which Kinder Scout and hills of similar height/prominence fall). It's like trying to divide average-height people into "tall" and "not tall", or (to quote Saul Bellow in Herzog) telling "the hairiest bald man from the baldest hairy man": a needless attempt to make a definitive distinction where none exists. I'm actually not bothered whether Kinder Scout is a mountain or not; I'm more concerned about the perpetuation of the myth that the word mountain has a specific and measurable limit. List of hills in the Peak District gives all the necessary information about the hills in question (their heights). Why add a subjective interpretation of these figures (masquerading as a definitive statement) when it's not necessary and not particularly relevant? Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Counties, old and new etc

I was looking for guidance around the description of UK hills and mountains in respect of the modern and former administrative areas in which they lie. Can anyone point me in the direction of any or have such guidelines not yet been assembled? thanks Geopersona (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with List of Wainwrights

This large list compiled from an external database by a now-inactive editor needs attention. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Lancashire and Cumbria#Problems with List of Wainwrights if you are interested. Thanks in advance for any help! PamD 21:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I have created a proposal to reverse an undiscussed split at Talk:List of Nuttall mountains in England and Wales#Merge proposal. I believe that may be of interest to members of this wikiproject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountains and hills of County Dublin needs attention

This list is in a bit of a mess. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#List of mountains and hills of County Dublin. Does anyone here want a nice little project working on upgrading this list of Irish hills? PamD 13:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a good beginning by researching and citing a reliable source to cover the deficiencies. It should be easy to find more; it's just a question of finding time, which I will do. Spideog (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_and_Irish_hills&oldid=1238725831"