Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills/Archive 1

857:

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 pr

2000:

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

1116:

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.

31: 481:, 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. 615:, 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. -- 173:, 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. -- 2141:

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.

579:(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. — 460:. 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 2197:

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. --

736:

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.

2426:), 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! - 2214:

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

2106:

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

1115:

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

1063:

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

986:

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.

735:

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

2140:

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

1554:

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

412:

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

367:

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

279:

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

87:

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

2261:

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

1999:

proposal for an appreciation week to end on Knowledge (XXG) 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

1310:

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

1006:

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

426:

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

2613:

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

2146:

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

2125:

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

2019:

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

1790:

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

1622:

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

293:

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

2186:

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

1757:

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

856:

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

2279:

I was recently looking at the new updated version of Google Earth and realised that it's got integrated Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) article on the place. Quite a lot of

1085:

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,

801:

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

476:

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

264:

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

2181:

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

498:

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.

1569:

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

1086:

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

994:

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

2196:

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

2107:

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

753:

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

2507:- 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, 2062:

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

2101:

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.

693:, 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. 2474:

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

1870:

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.

1045:

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

169:"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 2126:

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

2502:

on the English Knowledge (XXG) is not to put any kind of disclaimer on article pages. (I say English because the Spanish Knowledge (XXG), among others, does provide a prominent link to the medical disclaimer at the top of relevant articles - see for example

2412:

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 -

1974:— 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 2219:

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.

1457:

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.

1348:

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.

2215:

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

1558:

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.

280:

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. --

1890:

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 Knowledge (XXG) all use Beinn Fhada, the Gaelic version, rather than the anglicised Ben Attow.)

386:

and have uploaded a number of new images for it. I can't find any pictures on 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

2483:

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.

802:

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.)

968:

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:-

2375:. 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. 1861:, 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. 88:

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.

2372: 2529:

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",

2524:

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

2363:. 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 507:. 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 2057:

page is already one of the better articles on British hills in Knowledge (XXG). But if you're looking for ways to improve it, I'd start by taking a look at another of Knowledge (XXG)'s best articles on hills — and at present,

2004:

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.

2368: 335:

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

987:

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.

2067:, 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. — 2364: 1129:

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?

677:. 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 610:

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

1261:

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

2229:

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

592:

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.

2135:

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

427:

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

2303:

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

886:

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

2280:

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?

567:

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 ;-).

2453: 2399: 775:

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

632:

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 Knowledge (XXG) in search

66: 499:

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

2423: 926: 606:

Certainly there's plenty of space in Knowledge (XXG) 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

2340:

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!

2440: 152:. 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 294:

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

1816:

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

777: 332: 1936: 1911: 1770: 140:

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

242:

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! --

2398:

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

1364:

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

2111:, 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. 892:

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. —

1832:

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,

1809: 477:

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

366:

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 : -->

780:

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

2479:

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.

1915:

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

698:

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

2356: 1111:, 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). 47: 17: 524:

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

331:, but it doesn't seem to be catching on, and it certainly isn't Knowledge (XXG)'s job to be promoting a particular term.) Most short British lists of hills by prominence, 2360: 1768:

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 (

2305: 383: 266: 402:

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. —

205: 718:

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

1360:

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

929:, 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. -- 464:, 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 2081: 1812:

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

1805: 699: 1909:' 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 457: 1754:-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. 1020:

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

2001: 395:) 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 1395:. I think this demonstrates how information on extra tops can/could be encompassed in the text. I would definitely recommend this approach for Munro 659:

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....

1213:, 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 " 639:

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:-

2550:

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!

269:, 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? — 2638:

article are all genuine. None of them have been electronically altered. My earlier comments are withdrawn and I have apologised to xxyzy. Bob

478: 156:, 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. — 1748:

in line with current policy of accepting OS maps as definitive unless clearly wrong, most Marilyns in region 24 now have new official names.

1287:

What do others think? A good idea? Or are we losing valuable information? Do the subsidiary Munros in fact deserve articles of their own? --

2499: 1669:

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.

473: 1967:

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?

2076:

Thanks I've taken that advice & expanded the sports & leisure & other sections & have copyedited etc. I've now put the

1948:

as Sron a' Choire (TACit don't do accented characters). Unfortunately, it's a typo that's starting to gain currency elsewhere — as a

1623:

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. --

1420:

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

2590:

about whether images whose focus are people are appropriate for depicting features of the landscape visible in the background. Since

495: 469: 1228:

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? —

1778:), which would suggest the accent ought to be present. Is anyone who understands Gaelic better than me able to comment on this? 465: 1960: 1919:

which incorrectly gives the grid reference of Sgurr an Doire Leathain (a real mountain) as NH015199 instead of the correct NH015

1853:

or "Saddleback", or even "Saddleback or Blencathra" (which is, after all, the form used on OS maps)? And then there's the whole

1680:

Describing Kinder Scout as a Plateau is surely the answer. I personally regard it (being local) as a boggy plateau with a Pike.

413:

decide whether every Nuttall is really important. Is Lliwedd Bach worthy of an article in its own right? I would suspect not. --

1483: 2642: 2624: 2603: 2571: 2554: 2538: 2495: 2488: 2459: 2447: 2430: 2417: 2406: 2344: 2334: 2320: 2297: 2287: 2266: 2246: 2234: 2224: 2201: 2168: 2115: 2088: 2071: 2047: 2009: 1985: 1875: 1795: 1784: 1758:

tables and for wikilinks) where giving both forms would be inpractical, and this is when I would suggest using the OS form.

1701: 1684: 1673: 1640: 1627: 1592: 1574: 1563: 1462: 1428: 1403: 1372: 1353: 1337: 1315: 1301: 1291: 1247: 1232: 1222: 1195: 1134: 1068: 1014: 958: 933: 896: 865: 839: 740: 726: 663: 619: 600: 583: 515: 485: 439: 417: 406: 372: 353: 284: 273: 246: 212: 194: 177: 160: 117: 1158: 153: 80: 2040: 1258: 396: 2395: 2383: 368:

separate colour, which is not the same as proposing them as a novel, notable list, and the category need not be named. --

1007:

we going to use such POV gems as 'drab', 'tedious', 'impressive' or 'exciting' in our descriptions of hills and routes?

1280:

et al - have many more summits and tops than just the two Munros, and would be better dealt with in the article proper.

2293:

Sorry I have no idea how one would do this! However, I agree it would vastly increase the audience these pages get. -

1048:"the section above the loch especially is found tedious by many who attempt it, as there is little variety in scenery" 1025: 714:

the content we already have, especially the major peaks (maybe even attempting FA status for one or two), rather than

110: 2614:(or "improve") the images. An electronically altered image is essentially a fake - and it should never be published. 921:

No, that was my mistake. For some reason (I'm struggling to think what), I assumed that 284 was the number of peaks

2308:. Not sure how it then appears on Google Earth though. To convert from grid references, there is a useful tool at 1368:!! now has an article, this has four "tops" which need inserting in the article if the new idea gets the go ahead. 1273:

For the general reader who doesn't understand the concept of lists and peak bagging, the two columns are confusing.

1206: 1185: 1175: 1147: 38: 2036: 1210: 190:

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. —

1612: 1602: 1389: 1165: 257: 628:

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

1719: 261: 722:

as yet has no article, for instance), just suggesting that depth might be at least as important as breadth. --

1970:

If we're trying to move towards some general principles, it's probably best to avoid thinking too much about

2316: 2216: 1581: 1417: 702:, and for every reader interested in a minor Hewitt or Marilyn there will be ten looking for information on 2359:

and thought it would be great to be able to rate articles currently in this wikiproject using the standard

990:

I can imagine two main reasons that someone might read a B&I Hills page. Presumably for the article on

349:

But if the consensus is against including a 600m / 2000' prominence class, I'm quite happy to remove it. —

2386:

so that it is possible to rate an article. You can see what it looks like on a real talk page by putting

1996: 1653:

Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up. Would anyone care to comment on the discussion at

482: 1762: 1103:, it should be perfectly possible to convey subjective information in a neutral way by citing sources. 596:

Shouldn't we concentrate on putting more hills into wikipedia, before we worry about taking things out.

2156:, this is already covered in the article of that name. Originally it was an area for grazing, such as 1239:

I can see no reason for this other than to act as a travel guide, which Knowledge (XXG) explicitly is

461: 2639: 2621: 2444: 2427: 2403: 2294: 1449:: the main article is on the whole massif, with particular reference to the summit of Yr Wyddfa, but 1277: 678: 2619:

I appreciate your interest in Cross Fell, but please try to understand my concerns. best wishes. Bob

2330:

I'm fairly new to Knowledge (XXG) and I'd like to join this project. How do I go about that? Thanks!

2031:), but I'm not a hills expert. The Mendip plateau doesn't really have a "peak" just highest points. 1693:) in a climbing book that supports my contention that Kinder isn't a mountain, so I've reverted the 797:

This has a rather undesireable Scottish bias, so what about adding everything that is both a Hewitt

571:

But then, perhaps something can be found to say about even the most insigificant seeming Nuttalls.

453: 128:

the project, though I do think the project should include Irish hills. As a geographical unit, the

2594:

is within the scope of this WikiProject, perhaps some of the members would like to comment there. —

2183: 1765:, but it's also a more general issue worth settling irrespective of the outcome of that argument.) 824: 133: 102: 2331: 1108: 1024:, for example). And I'd add wildlife, for example the Golden Eagles' eyrie on Riggindale Crag on 2567:

As long as everything is properly referenced we are merely passing on the information of others.

2312: 2084:& I'd reallyappreciae any comments there as I'm hoping to put it up as a FA candidate soon.— 2006: 1054:.) It also mentions the Carn Mòr Dearg arrête and some of the climbing routes on the north face. 576: 222:

Thanks to everyone who's added the banner to talk pages. Please note that the template is now at

170: 145: 1742:, etc. TACit (which I regard as one of the most definitive sources of British hill lists) have 1555:

data isn't available. The linguistic elements are also not included for much the same reasons.

2599: 2243: 2182:

understood outside northern England, and IMO ought to be used sparingly; if a particular fell/

1698: 1670: 1589: 1369: 1361: 1333: 1218: 629: 149: 148:. I agree that the Irish coverage is currently fairly poor — but then, so is coverage of the 2164:. Both usages are acceptable and the comments above dispute this without citing references. 1857:

debate: "Llywelyn" is almost certainly the more "correct" form, and the one more widely used

1849:(used by the OS) or "Scafell" (probably the more common spelling, used by Wainwright et al)? 1665:, though I've undertaken not to change it; it may be considered to be by some but I consider 1100: 2436: 2379: 1971: 1854: 1774:), for example.) I've generally heard it pronounced /kɑːrn/ (I think; I'm not too up on my 1681: 1445:

There's no reason why separate articles shouldn't be created on the subsidiary Munros. Take

1365: 955: 612: 226: 2508: 1240: 1051: 607: 2587: 2551: 2485: 2456: 2414: 2231: 2221: 2165: 2137: 1945: 1906: 1792: 1715: 1571: 1400: 1312: 1011: 930: 737: 660: 616: 597: 521: 512: 508: 414: 392: 369: 106: 432: 320: 94: 1949: 2258: 2242:

Looks good to me. Neat idea. Think I'll nip up to Innominate Tarn and tell Wainwright.

2127: 1940:) which, on the Explorer and Landranger (but not 1:250,000 maps) is printed as Sròn a' 1931: 1817: 1619: 1082: 1010:

Also, are there any other areas of content that we want to see included where possible?

828: 549: 541: 129: 98: 816: 781: 1953: 1924: 1723: 1690: 1654: 1450: 820: 690: 559:

in the Arans for example: a tedious expanse of peat at the end of a long SE ridge of

545: 533: 337: 236: 2595: 2077: 2064: 2054: 2032: 2024: 1975: 1658: 1637: 1425: 1350: 1329: 1214: 1192: 1087: 707: 572: 564: 560: 525: 2402:

for example?) What do people think about the whole concept? Is it worth using? -

1898:

rather than "Scafell" precisely because this is what the OS use. In the case of

1328:

It gets my vote, if a 2nd peak is notable surely it should have its own article "

1243:. Climate is encyclopedic; tomorrow's weather isn't, even in an external link. -- 328: 2568: 2535: 2517: 2341: 2284: 2263: 2198: 2157: 2112: 2108: 2028: 1883: 1872: 1624: 1580:

How about trying it just as trial to see what it looks like ? Why not try it on

1560: 1459: 1288: 1263: 1244: 1131: 862: 861:

escriptive rule – expanding the 284 peaks you propose seems like a good plan. --

723: 589: 388: 281: 243: 209: 174: 137: 114: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2039:, but I'd appreciate edits or suggestions to make it better & maybe into a 1761:(I should point out that this is relevant to the argument in full flow over on 2635: 2610: 2591: 2161: 2122: 2103: 2068: 1982: 1899: 1850: 1821: 1781: 1298: 1229: 1065: 893: 836: 686: 580: 504: 436: 403: 350: 270: 191: 157: 2516:

That's not to say the risks shouldn't be mentioned, of course. An article on

2422:

Well i'm happy to do some rating (probably from the work already done at the

1886:

arguments for using English rather than Gaelic names seem incontravertible —

1743: 1416:

Aye, Kirk Fell loos fine like that, I would still think that both Munros on

1105:

The section above the loch especially is found tedious by many who attempt it

1081:

a few weeks ago, until I ran out of information and enthusiasm and created a

2085: 2059: 2044: 1825: 1813: 1751: 1618:, with instructions for use located at the former template, and tried it at 1585: 1454: 1382: 1126: 1078: 1060: 1042: 1021: 991: 954:

For the meanings of names of the hills, I can supply a good amount of info.

832: 719: 703: 537: 529: 500: 2309: 1059:

However the article doesn't get into too much detail. For example, in the

532:

and mention it in passing on that page. We do this elsewhere, for example

2504: 999:

How do I climb Little Piddling Pike from Grimdale? (non-encyclopedic), and

2526: 1995:

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of

1895: 1846: 1694: 1662: 1283:

Aesthetics: the double box is wider than most and looks rather cluttered.

682: 1399:, although perhaps not for mountains with two (or more?) full Munros. -- 2394:

on the talk page and pressing show preview. Follow the instructions on

1887: 1833: 1829: 1731: 1666: 1446: 1297:

I fully agree. Let's leave the details to the body of the article. —

2147:

main volume. You can't climb Birker Fell because its hasn't got a top.

2521: 2015:

Simple guidance on what hill articles should contain esp Mendip hills

1894:

I'm less convinced in other cases, though — I would say it should be

1421: 431:, that would improve things, but I can't see how to do that without 2178: 2153: 1588:(also five). Might as well try it on something awkward. Regards 2257:

It seems a great idea to me (if you have the time!) After that

1697:

page. The person who objected before hasn't yet done so again.

976:

topography (shape, texture, ridges, watersheds, boundaries etc)

710:. I'd therefore be keener for us to concentrate our efforts on 1775: 1570:

probably contain little more than "|}" to close it all off. --

25: 1033:

Regarding details of ascents, my personal opinion is that we

2121:

This is a debate as is stated above primarily regarding the

1952:

shows. (The editor's comments on the penultimate letter on

315:

As to the "600m prominences" class, I personally think this

784:, and it would be nice to get decent articles on all these. 2443:

page to organise things. Any question feel free to ask. -

1978:

where the original OS typo has become the accepted form.

1820:

currently use English names when they are available (see

819:

is going to be controversial; for example, I've included

669:

I think there's a distinction to be made between what is

2357:

Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot

1944:

hoire and is fairly universally believed to be a typo —

1902:/ "Saddleback", the OS give both so it doesn't apply. 563:. I think it would be hard to justify a mention on the 520:

There's always going to be exceptions as the example of

144:, though I realise this may irritate the inhabitants of 97:

enough for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)? What about all

18:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills

79:

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

2160:. Now it has come to mean a mountain or hill, such as 1845:

Other cases might be more controversial. Should it be

1750:" Although personally I find that the –bhal forms of 1657:? I wince inwardly every time I see the reference to 815:

Obviously any attempt at producing a list of what is

2498:

which is linked at the bottom of every article, and

2306:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates

1930:

A less straightforward example is Sròn a' Choire on

204:

OK, as there's been no further comment I'll move to

2390:{{User:Suicidalhamster/testpage |class= |key= }} 1161:for discussion about whether to add Google maps to 206:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject British and Irish hills

1836:and similar hills ought to follow the same rules. 323:list: it just doesn't have an associated name. ( 1806:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (use English) 1125:I actually think it would be worth trying bring 1804:Such a policy would probably also fall foul of 1276:Many of these mountains - notably An Teallach, 700:more articles than we can hope to keep track of 2494:Definitely not. Knowledge (XXG) already has a 1963:opts for Càrn, which makes me think we should 1923:99 which was propagated by the OS. (See 4b on 1002:Is it worth the effort? (Almost certainly POV) 649:Marilyn (2000ish less those covered elsewhere) 1205:Would anyone object to a template similar to 458:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council/Directory 232:, to take account of the new name and scope; 8: 2435:I have implemented the necessary changes on 2187:enough to be unequivocably called mountains. 1385:this morning from the old infobox_double to 1143:Adding Google maps to Infobox, or starting 1956:mention this and other similar examples.) 1636:I like it, could be the perfect solution. 1478: 2002:User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week 1424:, but I'm not entrirely happy with that. 1041:be done in an encyclopedic manner. Take 479:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council/Guide 1270:Conformity with other mountain articles. 1113:...as there is little variety in scenery 1037:include some information, and that this 511:by Alan Dawson and other list-makers. -- 2152:To the more general point of what is a 979:present and historical use of the land. 1791:TACiT authors. Examples would help. -- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1520:Marilyn, Wainwright, Hewitt, Nuttall 835:. But how about this as a start? — 496:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Mountains 397:List of Hewitts and Nuttalls of Wales 208:and update the banner accordingly. -- 7: 1191:) in the external links section. -- 1022:1911 Britannica article on Ben Nevis 555:Other examples are less easy. Take 2378:To try this out I have altered the 2177:Despite having written most of the 2023:I'm particularly interested in the 1959:On the Carn versus Càrn issue, the 2210:Articles on the 7 Wainwright Areas 1064:reference an external website. — 24: 2511:give advice on the best route up. 1981:Apologies for such a long post. 1311:be space for a second infobox! -- 391:), one for changing it to 2000' ( 29: 2470:Safety notice for hill articles 1722:forms of mountain names in the 685:. Even if there's not a lot to 340:seems to be of active interest. 1159:Template talk:Infobox Mountain 1: 2460:21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2448:17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2431:00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2418:12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2407:23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 2396:User:Suicidalhamster/testpage 2345:23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 2335:23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 2298:17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2288:20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2089:12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 2010:19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 1986:02:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 1876:18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 1796:16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 1785:16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 1674:15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1641:21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1628:20:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 1593:11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 1575:09:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 1564:22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1463:20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 1429:15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1404:13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1373:12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1207:Template:Geolinks-UK-mountain 1077:I did quite a bit of work on 2247:22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2235:21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2225:22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 2202:20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2169:09:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 2116:08:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 2072:22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 2048:20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 2027:(as it's local to me in the 1702:16:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 1685:16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 1354:20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1338:17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1316:08:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1302:23:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 1292:22:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 1254:Infobox british hills double 1248:18:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 1233:12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 1223:12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 1211:Template:Weather-UK-mountain 1196:10:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 1135:20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 1069:12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 1015:10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 959:11:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 934:17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 897:17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 866:18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 840:01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 741:23:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 727:22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 664:21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 620:12:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 601:11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 584:19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 516:09:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 486:17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 440:19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 418:18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 407:18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 373:08:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 354:23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 285:19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 274:14:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 247:20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 213:18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 195:23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 178:19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 161:11:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 124:I don't really mind what we 118:21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC) 81:conversation with Stemonitis 2321:21:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 1598:I've now templatised it as 1266:. Here are some arguments: 889:all Marilyns over 2000 feet 652:Hewitt (with distinct name) 2658: 2053:To be honest, I think the 1991:Knowledge (XXG) Day Awards 758:hills. Clearly this is a 384:finished merging the lists 142:Hills of the British Isles 2643:17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 2625:08:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 2604:17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2586:There is a discussion at 2572:16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2555:15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2539:23:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2489:22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2267:23:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1481: 1157:Please see discussion at 456:has recently updated the 1810:Ireland-related articles 1718:have started to use the 1689:I found a citation (see 891:which subsumes the : --> 2380:normal talk page banner 2262:images etc. if you ask. 2035:is already listed as a 1584:which has five tops or 1582:Sgurr nan Ceathreamhnan 75:Welcome to the project! 2630:retraction and apology 2097:Definition of a "Fell" 1710:Spelling of hill names 338:2000' list of US peaks 2452:Discussion continues 1763:Talk:Carnedd Llewelyn 256:The current lists of 42:of past discussions. 1418:Buachaille Etive Mòr 1278:Buachaille Etive Mor 1186:Geolinks-IE-mountain 1176:Geolinks-UK-mountain 1171:, or to start using 1148:Geolinks-UK-mountain 1088:landmark experiments 679:Buachaille Etive Mor 154:in this conversation 2020:relevant articles. 982:names and meanings. 671:notable/permissible 454:WikiProject Council 329:have been suggested 134:Republic of Ireland 2634:The images in the 2439:. Also created an 2424:key mountains list 2351:Article Assessment 1961:OS Gaelic glossary 1714:I notice that the 577:Mungrisdale Common 171:Talk:British_Isles 146:Talk:British_Isles 2361:Assessment scheme 2355:I was looking at 1552: 1551: 950:Meanings of names 675:useful/desireable 548:both redirect to 448:Project directory 433:original research 429:prominence parent 333:Knowledge (XXG)'s 150:Scottish Lowlands 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2649: 2534:"you should". -- 2500:current practice 2437:Template:BIhills 2400:importance scale 2041:featured article 1972:Carnedd Llewelyn 1939: 1914: 1859:in some contexts 1855:Carnedd Llewelyn 1773: 1617: 1613:GB summits entry 1611: 1607: 1603:GB summits start 1601: 1534:Hewitt, Nuttall 1479: 1394: 1390:Infobox Mountain 1388: 1366:Sgurr na Lapaich 1190: 1184: 1180: 1174: 1170: 1166:Infobox Mountain 1164: 1152: 1146: 995:information are 613:Sgurr na Lapaich 462:User:B2T2/Portal 241: 235: 231: 225: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2657: 2656: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2632: 2602: 2588:Talk:Cross Fell 2584: 2472: 2445:Suicidalhamster 2428:Suicidalhamster 2404:Suicidalhamster 2392: 2391: 2353: 2328: 2295:Suicidalhamster 2283:please reply -- 2277: 2275:On Google Earth 2212: 2138:Ordnance Survey 2099: 2017: 1993: 1946:TACit list this 1935: 1910: 1769: 1736:Uisgneabhal Mòr 1726:— for example, 1716:Ordnance Survey 1712: 1651: 1615: 1609: 1605: 1599: 1477: 1392: 1386: 1256: 1203: 1188: 1182: 1178: 1172: 1168: 1162: 1155: 1150: 1144: 966: 952: 646:Wainwright(214) 522:Craig Cwm Silyn 509:Craig Cwm Silyn 493: 450: 254: 239: 233: 229: 223: 220: 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2655: 2653: 2631: 2628: 2598: 2583: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2544: 2542: 2541: 2513: 2512: 2471: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2433: 2389: 2388: 2352: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2327: 2324: 2301: 2300: 2276: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2259:Beatrix Potter 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2211: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2172: 2171: 2149: 2148: 2143: 2142: 2132: 2131: 2098: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2016: 2013: 1992: 1989: 1932:Creag Meagaidh 1917:Munro's Tables 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1818:Outer Hebrides 1799: 1798: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1676: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1631: 1630: 1620:Grisedale Pike 1578: 1577: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1526: 1525:Hobcarton Crag 1522: 1521: 1518: 1515: 1512: 1511:Grisedale Pike 1508: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1490:Grisedale Pike 1484:Listed summits 1476: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1376: 1375: 1357: 1356: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1305: 1304: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1274: 1271: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1236: 1235: 1202: 1199: 1154: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1072: 1071: 1056: 1055: 1030: 1029: 1004: 1003: 1000: 984: 983: 980: 977: 974: 965: 962: 951: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 829:Carnedd Dafydd 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 746: 745: 744: 743: 730: 729: 695: 694: 657: 656: 653: 650: 647: 644: 637: 636: 635: 634: 630:old curmudgeon 623: 622: 550:Grisedale Pike 542:Hobcarton Crag 528:a redirect to 492: 489: 449: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 421: 420: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 359: 358: 357: 356: 344: 343: 342: 341: 310: 309: 308: 307: 288: 287: 253: 250: 219: 216: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 183: 182: 181: 180: 164: 163: 130:United Kingdom 121: 120: 93:Are all hills 90: 89: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2654: 2645: 2644: 2641: 2637: 2629: 2627: 2626: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2612: 2606: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2581: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2540: 2537: 2533: 2528: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2487: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2469: 2461: 2458: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2432: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2416: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2387: 2385: 2381: 2376: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2350: 2346: 2343: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2325: 2323: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313:Pigetrational 2310: 2307: 2299: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2286: 2281: 2274: 2268: 2265: 2260: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2248: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2233: 2227: 2226: 2223: 2218: 2209: 2203: 2200: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2185: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2150: 2145: 2144: 2139: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2110: 2105: 2096: 2090: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2021: 2014: 2012: 2011: 2008: 2007:Badbilltucker 2003: 1998: 1990: 1988: 1987: 1984: 1979: 1977: 1973: 1968: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1955: 1951: 1950:Google search 1947: 1943: 1938: 1933: 1928: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1913: 1908: 1905:In answer to 1903: 1901: 1897: 1892: 1889: 1885: 1877: 1874: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1797: 1794: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1777: 1772: 1766: 1764: 1759: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740:Uisgnaval Mor 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1724:Western Isles 1721: 1717: 1709: 1703: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691:Talk:Hayfield 1688: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1655:Talk:Hayfield 1648: 1642: 1639: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1629: 1626: 1621: 1614: 1604: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1576: 1573: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1556: 1547: 1544: 1541: 1539:Hobcarton End 1538: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1486: 1485: 1480: 1474: 1464: 1461: 1456: 1452: 1451:Garnedd Ugain 1448: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1430: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1391: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1362:Beinn a' Ghlò 1359: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1347: 1346: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1317: 1314: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1282: 1279: 1275: 1272: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1265: 1260: 1253: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1209:but entitled 1208: 1200: 1198: 1197: 1194: 1187: 1177: 1167: 1160: 1149: 1142: 1136: 1133: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1089: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1070: 1067: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1008: 1001: 998: 997: 996: 993: 988: 981: 978: 975: 972: 971: 970: 963: 961: 960: 957: 949: 935: 932: 928: 924: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 898: 895: 890: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 867: 864: 860: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 841: 838: 834: 830: 826: 825:Nantlle range 822: 821:Trum y Ddysgl 818: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 800: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 783: 779: 778:119 mountains 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 761: 757: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 742: 739: 734: 733: 732: 731: 728: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 696: 692: 691:Bonscale Pike 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 667: 666: 665: 662: 654: 651: 648: 645: 642: 641: 640: 631: 627: 626: 625: 624: 621: 618: 614: 609: 605: 604: 603: 602: 599: 594: 591: 586: 585: 582: 578: 574: 569: 566: 562: 558: 553: 551: 547: 546:Hobcarton End 543: 539: 536:redirects to 535: 534:Striding Edge 531: 527: 523: 518: 517: 514: 510: 506: 502: 497: 490: 488: 487: 484: 480: 475: 474:collaboration 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 447: 441: 438: 434: 430: 425: 424: 423: 422: 419: 416: 411: 410: 409: 408: 405: 400: 398: 394: 390: 385: 374: 371: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 355: 352: 348: 347: 346: 345: 339: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 314: 313: 312: 311: 305: 301: 297: 292: 291: 290: 289: 286: 283: 278: 277: 276: 275: 272: 268: 263: 259: 252:Merging lists 251: 249: 248: 245: 238: 228: 217: 215: 214: 211: 207: 196: 193: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 179: 176: 172: 168: 167: 166: 165: 162: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 122: 119: 116: 112: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 91: 86: 85: 84: 82: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2633: 2618: 2617: 2608: 2607: 2585: 2543: 2531: 2482: 2478: 2477: 2473: 2393: 2377: 2354: 2329: 2326:How to join? 2302: 2282: 2278: 2244:Mick Knapton 2228: 2213: 2109:Birker Fells 2100: 2078:Mendip Hills 2065:Beacon Batch 2055:Mendip Hills 2037:good article 2033:Mendip Hills 2025:Mendip Hills 2022: 2018: 1994: 1980: 1976:Scafell Pike 1969: 1964: 1958: 1941: 1929: 1920: 1916: 1904: 1893: 1882: 1858: 1780: 1767: 1760: 1756: 1747: 1739: 1735: 1727: 1713: 1699:Dave.Dunford 1671:Dave.Dunford 1659:Kinder Scout 1652: 1649:Kinder Scout 1590:Mick Knapton 1579: 1557: 1553: 1489: 1488: 1482: 1475:Tops infobox 1396: 1381:I converted 1370:Mick Knapton 1286: 1259:This infobox 1257: 1204: 1156: 1112: 1104: 1047: 1038: 1034: 1009: 1005: 989: 985: 967: 953: 922: 888: 858: 798: 759: 755: 715: 711: 708:Scafell Pike 674: 673:and what is 670: 658: 638: 595: 588:I think the 587: 573:Armboth Fell 570: 565:Aran Fawddwy 561:Aran Fawddwy 556: 554: 526:Lliwedd Bach 519: 494: 451: 428: 401: 381: 324: 316: 303: 299: 295: 265:ideas for a 255: 221: 203: 141: 125: 78: 60: 43: 37: 2518:hillwalking 2158:Birker Fell 2082:Peer Review 2029:Chew Valley 1997:Esperanza's 1738:instead of 1730:instead of 1264:An Teallach 1026:High Street 956:SunStar Net 643:Munro (284) 590:Wainwrights 557:Gwaun Lydan 470:peer review 452:Hello. The 267:merged list 138:Isle of Man 103:Wainwrights 36:This is an 2640:BScar23625 2636:Cross Fell 2622:BScar23625 2611:Cross Fell 2592:Cross Fell 2552:Bobble Hat 2496:disclaimer 2486:Bobble Hat 2457:Bobble Hat 2441:Assessment 2415:Bobble Hat 2232:Bobble Hat 2222:Bobble Hat 2184:Wainwright 2166:Bobble Hat 2162:Green Crag 2123:Green Crag 2104:Green Crag 2043:one day.— 1907:Stemonitis 1900:Blencathra 1851:Blencathra 1822:Leverburgh 1793:Stemonitis 1728:An Cliseam 1572:Stemonitis 1401:Stemonitis 1313:Stemonitis 1083:to-do list 1061:Navigation 1012:Bobble Hat 931:Stemonitis 738:Bobble Hat 687:Buckbarrow 661:Bobble Hat 617:Stemonitis 598:Bobble Hat 513:Stemonitis 505:Manod Mawr 491:Notability 466:assessment 415:Stemonitis 393:Stemonitis 382:OK. I've 370:Stemonitis 2505:es:cáncer 2384:test page 2060:Ben Nevis 1954:this page 1925:this page 1826:Callanish 1814:Gaeltacht 1752:Old Norse 1586:Glaramara 1455:Crib Goch 1383:Kirk Fell 1127:Ben Nevis 1079:Ben Nevis 1043:Ben Nevis 992:Ben Nevis 833:Crib Goch 756:different 720:Wetherlam 712:improving 704:Ben Nevis 538:Helvellyn 530:Y Lliwedd 501:Kirk Fell 327:seems to 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 2527:Sca Fell 1937:NN448877 1912:NH015199 1896:Sca Fell 1884:Blisco's 1847:Sca Fell 1771:NN469746 1695:Hayfield 1663:mountain 1661:being a 1548:Nuttall 1542:NY194235 1528:NY193220 1514:NY198225 1500:Grid ref 1109:weaselly 973:location 927:the list 827:but not 716:creating 683:Liathach 319:quite a 258:Nuttalls 136:and the 111:Nuttalls 99:Marilyns 2609:xyzzy. 2332:Rubisco 2230:dear... 2128:marilyn 2080:up for 1965:perhaps 1888:Clisham 1834:Clisham 1830:Garenin 1732:Clisham 1667:plateau 1638:Grinner 1506:Status 1447:Snowdon 1426:Grinner 1351:Grinner 1330:TheNose 1215:TheNose 1201:Weather 1193:hike395 1107:may be 1101:WP:NPOV 964:Content 923:already 823:in the 817:notable 782:notable 655:Corbett 321:notable 262:Hewitts 227:BIhills 107:Donalds 95:notable 39:archive 2582:Images 2569:Pyrope 2536:Blisco 2522:hiking 2382:on my 2342:Pyrope 2285:Mark J 2264:Nks487 2199:Blisco 2113:Pyrope 1873:Blisco 1746:that " 1744:stated 1720:Gaelic 1625:Blisco 1561:Blisco 1503:Height 1460:Blisco 1422:Quinag 1289:Blisco 1245:Blisco 1132:Blisco 1035:should 863:Blisco 724:Blisco 472:, and 399:page. 389:Blisco 325:Majors 282:Blisco 244:Blisco 218:Banner 210:Blisco 175:Blisco 132:, the 115:Blisco 2596:xyzzy 2532:never 2069:ras52 1983:ras52 1808:. In 1782:ras52 1682:Myles 1545:634 m 1531:739 m 1517:791 m 1299:ras52 1230:ras52 1181:(and 1066:ras52 894:ras52 837:ras52 581:ras52 437:ras52 404:ras52 351:ras52 271:ras52 192:ras52 158:ras52 16:< 2454:here 2373:here 2371:and 2369:here 2365:here 2317:talk 2217:here 2179:Fell 2154:fell 1608:and 1497:Name 1453:and 1397:tops 1334:Talk 1219:Talk 1099:Per 681:and 575:and 544:and 540:and 503:and 483:B2T2 435:. — 260:and 237:WPBH 126:call 113:? -- 2520:or 2509:not 2086:Rod 2045:Rod 1927:.) 1776:IPA 1487:of 1241:not 1052:POV 1050:is 1039:can 925:on 831:or 799:and 760:lot 706:or 689:or 633:of. 608:AfD 2367:, 2319:) 2311:. 1871:-- 1828:, 1824:, 1734:, 1616:}} 1610:{{ 1606:}} 1600:{{ 1559:-- 1458:-- 1393:}} 1387:{{ 1336:" 1332:| 1221:" 1217:| 1189:}} 1183:{{ 1179:}} 1173:{{ 1169:}} 1163:{{ 1151:}} 1145:{{ 1130:-- 1090:). 552:. 468:, 317:is 302:, 298:, 240:}} 234:{{ 230:}} 224:{{ 109:? 105:? 101:? 83:: 2600:n 2315:( 2130:. 1942:G 1934:( 1921:0 1153:? 1028:. 859:o 762:. 387:( 306:? 304:N 300:H 296:M 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index