Talk:Haystacks (Lake District)

Untitled
There is a proposal at WP:RM that this be moved because the editor is writing Haystacks (Monet).
 * Oppose No reason to move; both articles can co-exist, with dab headers. Septentrionalis 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. A dab page is for the case when two articles about different subjects would be properly titled by the same name. If neither one is significantly more important than the other the proper title should host a dab page, as I am suggesting in this case. I will start working on the Haystacks article Thurs or Friday and it will be as important an article if not more important than the current Haystacks.


 * Support move to Haystacks (mountain). It appears that neither is the primary use, but the Monet article might have a better case.  So do the move and leave a DAB.  Vegaswikian 19:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We also have articles on Murphy's Haystacks, Giant Haystacks. And one could argue that this should be a redirect to Haystack.  Vegaswikian 00:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

propose rename to Haystacks (Lake District)
Will move shortly to Haystacks (Lake District) if no objection.

This will be consistent with other fells such as Sail (Lake District), Pillar (Lake District), Raise (Lake District), Steeple (Lake District), Haycock (Lake District) etc.

Also spares Haystacks blushes at being described as a mountain when even its most ardent admirers would privately admit to it being a hill.Bobble Hat 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ascent
"Dubs can also be reached from the summit of Honister via the Drum House, significantly reducing the ascent required". What!!! it's a horrible climb from Honister!, and by the time you reach Dubs quarry you are more-or-less halfway back down again. I've tried both routes, and think it is misleading to say that starting from Honister gives any advantage elevation wise, unless you sell car park tickets, of course.ChrisRed (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Approximate prominence
The prominence was given as 'c 92m'. This makes no sense. the prominence is about 90m or about 100m but it is 92m (without qualification). This is common on many fells including one that claimed the prominence was c 171 m. No! c should be confined to rounded figures. The problem is that metres are large units so a metre figure that is correct to ±500mm is only accurate to 19". It is common for our favourite historic figures to be altered by metric rounding. Examples include Scafell Pike at 3210' whose metric height of 978 m converts to 3209' and Slight Side whose height was accurately measured to be 2499' but whose metric height of 762 m is 2500'. Nevertheless when a value is give to the nearest metre this declares the accuracy and there is no need to say this is circa.

That is why I changed the prominence from 'c 92 m' to '92 m'. OrewaTel (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)