Category talk:Mountains and hills of the Peak District

What is a 'minor top'?
Currently Shining Tor appears in the main listing and Axe Edge Moor in the minor tops. They're very similar really, and on my edition of the Peak District Tourist Map both are picked out on the 'Area covered by the Map' on the back cover, together with The Roaches (already listed) and Black Edge, (of the tops near Buxton). Views? Bob aka Linuxlad 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not the happy distinguishing "minor tops" at all. It seem to me that such a thing is purely subjective, i.e. dependant on one's point of view. Shining Tor is a Marilyn, so obviously not a minor top, but for example, Mam Tor has no listng but is a well known hill, deserving of a wiki entry. Axe Edge Moor seems to fit into the latter categroy. I'm going to give a mountian box and listing in the main category anyway. Grinner 09:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grinner; there is no objective criterion for a "minor top" (except possibly for relative height, but that's only one definition of "minor"). The best solution would be to list other tops that seem to be somehow interesting, and remove them as and when they get their own articles. I don't like the idea of drawing a dividing line between "major" and "minor" peaks at all, no matter where it's drawn. I suspect that the minor tops listing could be subsumed into the Peak District article, which would render this whole discussion void. --Stemonitis 10:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to speak up for my original intent - it's the characteristic of an area like the Peak that it doesn't have peaks (!) in the Marilyn sense (Because eg the limestone area is mainly an eroded plateau). But it does have a lot of defined tops which are well-known amongst walkers. So on a 'relative height' basis you find few named tops listed (because you rarely get the 'required' height drop in all directions). But almost all able-bodied walkers in the East Midlands will have staggered up Thorpe Cloud for instance and many will make a detour to Wetton Hill and Wolfscote Hill (which are all NT-properties I note). Axe Edge is in a slightly different class, because of physical bulk, and the fact it's source of 5 rivers!, though it's actually not a particularly distinguished top, I recollect. Let's move Axe Edge, and keep the 'minor tops' bucket for a bit :-) Linuxlad


 * My solution would be to make a page, say List of peaks of the Peak District, a list the Marilyns and Hewitts, and then have a selection of other peaks (which would basically be your list, plus any other peaks in this category that haven't already been mentioned, e.g. Mam Tor). Grinner 11:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC).
 * (Put the major/minor issue to one side a ticky). The division between peaks and tops is a fairly standard one in other GB mountain areas I suggest, and so seems preferable. The former should satisfy some sort of absolute or relative height criterion, though the Marilyns one is too stringent for the area, for the reasons I've mentionned. Tops should be 'named points of significant elevation'. Linuxlad 11:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Aye, but unless there is an established criteria then we are running the risk of falling foul of the "No original research" rule. We can't unilaterilly decide what is peak or not, other than by using recognised listings. Grinner 11:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Tosh! cataloguing in Wiki is not research. (People invent spurious new catagories daily!) And there is no accepted definition of peaks in Derbyshire (certainly not the Marilyns one ), -  I don't object to what you've done so far (which, as you say yourself, already departs from any published list). However, there are lots of named high points in such hill areas and they are often mentionned in articles - how should _they_ be brought into greater common visibility - calling them 'peaks' is not really appropriate. Calling them 'tops' is...Bob aka Linuxlad
 * Well OK how about calling the page List of peaks and tops of the Peak District? Seems overly long for mine though. Grinner 11:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A "List of peaks of the Peak District" would be fine, even if it includes tops as well, but couldn't it all be included in Peak District? And I still don't like the division into "peaks" and "tops" (= "minor peaks"). Why not just list the notable ones (notable for whatever reason) and mark those which are Marilyns, Hewitts, etc.? Or perhaps list all the peaks in the National Park with a rel. ht. of more than 50m, and only any others which have articles of their own. Trying to invent our own scheme of peaks and tops of the Peak District is going to lead to all sorts of problems. (Furthermore, having "peak" and "Peak District" in the same title suggests a link between the two, which there isn't.) --Stemonitis 12:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I started work on List of peaks of the Peak District, so I've saved it now. Whether this is a Good Thing or not, well discuss! Grinner 12:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)