A fact from Wicklow Mountains appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 August 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Wicklow Mountains(pictured) are the largest area of continuous high ground in Ireland?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British and Irish hillsWikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hillsTemplate:WikiProject British and Irish hillsBritish and Irish hills articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
I've added several (i.e. lots) more mountains to the list (but it's by no means exhaustive as yet), most of which are either above 500m or on or near the Wicklow Way. Now, I think we'll have to separate them somehow as the list is just too long, maybe mountains higher and lower than 600m? Suggestions please :) Schcambo 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! I don't have any problem with the list. A few good photos down the side would balance things nicely. You have created a lot of new red links.
I relish a challenge! (Sarah777 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Some of the working links are to non-County Wicklow mountains; Brockagh and Seefin which likely needs a dab page because there seem to be 3 mountains by the same name in Ireland. I'll see what pix I can get next week. Cheers ww2censor 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the way the list is illuminated here! We need about three nice pics in the style of the two already there. The manuscript pics are a bit bulky...(Sarah777 08:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The images should however be the default be determined by the user's own preferences. If we don't add too many they should not exceed the length of the list depending of course on the resolution of the viewers screen. ww2censor 14:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to do it would be along the lines of what's here, i.e. a picture of each of the ten highest mountains. Schcambo 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schcambo nice suggestion indeed. All we need now are the photos, maybe 10 will be too many but arranging them in height order does look good. ww2censor 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast!! I am surprised by the state of the col between Lugnacoilla and Slievemaan all muddy and work away. I can remember a time when we used to comment on the build up of peaty tussocks on that col. Maybe I will get a good photo of Slievemaan as I will be right beside it next week. Thanks ww2censor 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! I changed some of the pics; there were too many for a start and some were not good. We also should try and vary things; no need to reproduce a photo in this article when it already exists in the specific article. (Sarah777 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually if you wouldn't mind I'd prefer it the other way, you see this is now specifically a 'highest peaks' section, not just an image gallery (which you could perhaps put the bottom?) and so a pic of Turlough Hill for example isn't particularly relevant. Also I don't think there were too many at just ten, they fitted in perfectly with the length of the list. I don't think using the same pics here as in the articles is any problem, the point of them is to give people an idea of the type of mountains they're looking at while taking into account that most of them probably won't even look into the individual mountains (also in the example I gave earlier of the largest US cities, the pics to the side are also the lead pics in their respective articles). And sure some of the pics aren't all that great but they are the best we have at the moment. Then another posibility would be this below (tweaked with bigger pics probably)... Schcambo 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks pretty good and lists the images in height order, nice. Size shold be the users viewing default I think. I am out the door and maybe when I return I will have one or two new better photos for you. Cheers ww2censor 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is so subjective I'm not going to war over it! When I changed the pics I hadn't even noticed you'd the 10 highest. So I'd go with this scheme provided we agree that (where available) we use a different photo of the mountain than that used on the mountain's page. I'm not just saying this because I like my picture of Djouce or that the Turlough Hill pic (not mine) is a real gem! (And least you think (!) I'm biased, the Tonelagee pic (also mine) is pathetic! (Sarah777 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oi! What did you do with the LIST??? (Sarah777 18:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I see what you have done with it...good stuff (Sarah777 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yup... I've also added a new lead pic, I think it's eye-catching enough, it's just a first draft as such though cos I need to work on its stitching a little. Schcambo 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better - the Lug pic isn't the best I've ever seen, to put it mildly (now that I've checked that nobody I know uploaded it!)For the 'symbol' of the Wicklow Hills to go in the infobox there are only two real options; Lug or Glendalough - don't be reluctant to make the infobox photo bigger if it suits. (Sarah777 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Firstly let me say that Joe King has done a great job in improving this article but all of images, especially commons:User:Joe Kings commons images, appear to be over processed and rather fake looking with all the colours being much more saturated then is natural. The images just look too good to be true. Having been a professional photographer, living, walking and photographing in County Wicklow, and all over Ireland for more than 25 years, I would not have been able to produce any of these photos that look like these without post-production processing, photoshopping or heavy polarised filtration. The metadata does not indicate any custom, in-camera, adjustments. Am I just overthinking this and do modern digital cameras do a better job then film used to? The only film I was ever able to use, and often did, to enhance the color and saturation on the so often, overcast Irish days, was Agfachrome though it was never so saturated that it looked fake like these. What do others think? Can Joe comment too if you are watching. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the photos on this page look artificial, especially the one of the reservoir and the photo of Glendalough is twee. Dunno what to do though. As far as I recall I have never photoshopped any of my own photos on Wikipedia, just cropped them. Hohenloh + 16:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the best images in the article and has been removed; not hugely impressed by the quality of the photos here - a seasonal sameness about them. And there are far too many signs of post-shoot manipulation of the colours, contrasts etc. The photos should be representative of what you actually see - as far as possible. This is an article - not a work of art! Though as seen here untampered photos can be artful too. Sarah777 (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could there be scope to include a paragraph about airplanes that have crashed in the Wicklow Mountains? I can think of at least three incidents. Ridiculopathy (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
