Talk:List of P600 mountains in the British Isles/Archive 1

Too short?
Is this list not a bit short? Its not my area I just though I should ask. Is there not 284 Munros (mountains in scotland over 3000 feet (914 metres) see here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munro Also I think there are at least 200 over 2000 feet (610m) in Ireland alone. I think there a book by Paddy Dillion on the subject. Mel Dublin


 * The list includes all Marilyns in Northern Ireland, Wales, England and the Isle of Man, as well as all Welsh Hewitts (and a bunch of other peaks), but does not yet include all Scottish and Irish Marilyns. That would be a lot of work, and it's only through laziness that it hasn't happened yet. One downside would be that the page would become very large, and might have to be split into sections. I think the Munros should all be listed already (excepting where one mountain has several Munro summits), but, as you point out, Irish Hewitts are not all there yet. Feel free to add to the list! --Stemonitis 13:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sgorr Ruadh wrong or right ?
Sgorr Ruadh seems to have the wrong relative height on this list. TACIT tables give it a relative height of c. 307 metres not the 727 metres it is given here. Around 300 metres seems right looking at the OS map or am I completely wrong ? --Mick Knapton 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mick - I have checked this carefully and found that 727 metres is correct. I cannot find the appropriate TACit table online and I do not have a printed copy, but the appropriate files in the RHB e-group list it as 727m. Perhaps you are muddling it up with a namesake. Re the OS map, if you can find a higher summit which can be reached without descending to at least 962m - 727m (235m) then please tell me, but I can't. Viewfinder 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I think the problem is I don't really understand Relative Height, I got the info from here but I notice it says "drop" and not relative height. --Mick Knapton 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that drop and prominence (see wikilink for definition of prominence) are usually considered synonymous, but it seems that the list of Murdos linked above defines "drop" as the minimum vertical distance which it is necessary to descend in order to reach another Murdo. Prominence, or relative height, demands that the drop must connect to higher summit. Viewfinder 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The TACit tables have at various times used two different definitions of 'drop'. The earlier lists (such as the Murdos) used a slightly odd definition of 'drop' — for sub-Marilyns, the usual definition of prominence was used (i.e. the minimum descent to a higher peak), but for Marilyns, the minimum descent to reach any other Marilyn was used.  This usage has gradually been phased out.  For example, the lists of Hewitts use the standard definition of prominence is used and the older definition shown in brackets.  The newest tables (e.g. the Graham Tops) have stopped showing the older definition entirely. -- ras52 11:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Rois-Bheinn or Beinn Odhar Bheag
I've seen various lists disagreeing about which of these two Moidart Corbetts has a 600m+ prominence. Having looked up their heights, it seems that all (recent) sources are in agreement of their height (882m), collective prominence (774m) and separating drop (524m). As they have the same height, it's arbitrary which one is chosen as the 600m+ prominence, though I've never seen it discussed in quite so many words. I hope this doesn't constitute original research; I'm just trying to clear up a potential ambiguity and pre-empt any "discoveries" of a 112th 600m+ prominence. -- ras52 11:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the use of the -style footnotes as opposed to -style ones is to avoid clashing with the style footnote used for citations elsewhere in related articles on British hills. I'm aware that it is deprecated, but I can't find an alternative that is visually distict. -- ras52 11:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not original research; it's the best (and only?) way of dealing with a problem that had been (in this article) overlooked before. Good work. --Stemonitis 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Parent question
How is it possible for Carrauntoohil to be the parent of Lugnaquilla? It does not make sense when there are other Irish mountains that are nearer, like Galtymore, Mount Leinster and Knockmealdown, to Carrauntoohil where no parent is mentioned though none are in the same range as, nor even near, Carrauntoohil. It just seems wrong. ww2censor (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A mountain's parent peak has to be a higher mountain on the same island. The only mountains in Ireland higher than the Wicklow Mountains are those on the Iveagh and Dingle peninsulas.  One you add in the requirement that the parent is more a prominent peak (that is, one with a larger relative height), the only possibilities are Carrauntoohil and Mount Brandon, both on the opposite side of the country.  Looking at a good topographical map of Ireland, it becomes clear that Carrauntoohill is the correct parent.


 * As to why Galtymore, Mount Leinster and Knockmealdown don't give parents, I expect it is either because no-one has got around to adding it, or because no reliable source can be found specifying the parent. All of these mountains do have parent peaks, and it is quite possible that it is Carrauntoohil in some cases.  Unfortunately, I don't have good enough maps of the relevant parts of Ireland to answer that question.


 * Many of the bigger peaks on this list have a parent that is a long way away — Snowdon's parent is Ben Nevis, for example; and Scafell Pike, Ben Macdui and Càrn Eige all have quite remote parents. As the mountain gets larger, you have to look further afield to find its parent.  For example, the parent peak of Mont Blanc is Mount Everest.  — ras52 (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Having been mountaineering for more than 25 years it is still a weird concept indeed, but well explained. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

These assignations as parent are semantic pedantry, having no geological or geomorphological basis whatsoever.

e.g. Scafell Pike's parent is Snowdon, whose parent is Ben Nevis, 3 mountains, orogenies of 3 continents, previously seperated by ocean basins.

older posts
Sorry, but this list contains several unacceptable errors. I have checked several discrepancies against OSGB mapping and SRTM and found the Wiki to be in error every time. So I am restoring the position of the link to the more accurate list [here] until such time as these errors have been corrected and any attempt to remove it will trigger a formal dispute. Start by getting rid of Knockboy. Clem Clements, the leading authority on Irish prominence, has told me personally that the earlier 610m prominence was based on older mapping (the best available at the time) and that he agrees with me that more recent mapping shows that its prominence is lower.

Jonathan de Ferranti Scotland


 * The better solution would have been to correct the list here, not to whinge about it! I did not delete your link, but merely moved it to the end, where it fits better. It does not need to appear twice. By all means improve the article, but don't just point to a better one. If we followed that rationale, many articles would simply read "Look it up in Britannica!". --Stemonitis 07:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Too late, I've done it myself now. --Stemonitis 08:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the list. It is now OK with the possible exception of #111 Ben Loyal. Ben Loyal is marginal and could just possibly be under 610m so if you left it out deliberately then OK. But if was merely an oversight then please add it.

I have added "grid references" to the link to peaklist in the main article but now that the list is correct I am happy for this link to stay at its foot.

I think it is important that prominence information is as consistent as possible throughout the internet.

Jonathan


 * Indeed, the omission of Ben Loyal was an oversight, which I have just corrected. I agree that uniformity of information is a good target, but may not always be possible. Different maps (e.g. from different mapping agencies, not just newer / older editions) will always give slightly different spot heights (and see, for example, the never-ending squabbles over height at Mont Blanc and Mount Everest), but that's just something we've got to live with. --Stemonitis 09:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - disagreement completely settled, no hard feelings I hope. I welcome anyone who recognises the significance of relative height.


 * The drop on Ben Loyal has been discussed more than once on the rhb e-group. The current consensus is that the drop is 609m.  I have amended the data and added a footnote. Galltywenallt (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Imo squabbles over a metre here and there are trivial, especially in the case of Mont Blanc whose elevation varies with the thickness of its summit ice cap which varies seasonally. Also the new 8844m elevation for Everest could be the creature of self-publicising Chinese (cf the guy who in the 1980s reported that K2 was higher and whose claim was eagerly taken up by sensation seeking journalists). Imo where modern sources agree that a claimed summit or saddle elevation is in error by at least 10 metres (slightly lower in the case of items close to widely recognised cut off points) then it should be corrected but otherwise I, personally, am not bothered. Jonathan

Removal of near misses
I can see no reason for this. It is not unusual for mountain lists by absolute or relative height to include near misses, and for a relative list to 600 m, a 10 m near miss margin is fairly standard, see and. I think that a better reason should be given for the deletion of the 590-599's from this list. Otherwise I will restore them. Viewfinder (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I support them being reinstated. None of the heights are exact—all have an measurement error associated with them.  And frequently we see the the heights of hills being revised by a couple of metres as mountains are resurveyed.  Col heights are even more error-prone, resulting in a significant uncertainty in the prominence of many mountains.  Including near misses is simply a way of recognising that, inevitably, there are some mountains excluded from the list of 600 m prominences that should be on it.  That's why providing a list of near misses is common practice.  — ras52 (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also support reinstatement - seems reasonable part of article as per Viewfinder above. PamD (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not bringing this here first; I didn't think it would actually be controversial. I strongly oppose reinstating this section. Saying that a mountain is a "near miss" is, quite simply, unencyclopedic. I know you have mentioned the "within 10m" margin, but why should it be 10m? What defines "near"? It comes down to one's own opinion, and that counts as original research. In addition, I cannot find any similar list on any other Wikipedia list of mountains, eg. List of highest mountains of North America, List of mountains of the Alps, etc. --Schcamboaon scéal? 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the above-mentioned NA and Alps lists is ranked by relative height, and the cut-off points are arbitrary. Sorry, but the 10-metre cut-off point is not OR; I have given two examples of its use on two separate relative height sites, by two separate researchers. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to include near misses. Therefore, subject to reconsideration if more users wish to delete these near misses, I am restoring them. Viewfinder (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also List of highest mountains and List of peaks by prominence, both of which were intended to cover the top hundred, but which were extended to cover possible error margins. Viewfinder (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The former is described as a list of 100+ mountains. No problem there. The latter is just as unencyclopedic as this article - even though it is a list of most prominent peaks, it includes Eiger, whose prominence is just 356m! --Schcamboaon scéal? 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wales missing from 3500-4000ft
"Breakdown by region and height" "Wales" "3500-4000ft" "0". Snowdon. Sulasgeir (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right - 3560ft - corrected table. PamD (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Parents and relative height
A couple of things.

(a) What does "HP" mean in the Parent column? I presume "Highest Point" or something similar, but either the abbreviation should be explicitly defined or it shouldn't be used.

(b) The parent in the list seems strange. I've read the Topographic prominence article briefly and I think it can be visualised as "If you flood the world and slowly lower the water level, you'll have peaks as separate islands. As the water level lowers, islands will join and then the lower peak has the higher peak as a parent". If that visualisation is correct then the list may be correct, but scafell pike having snowdon as a parent just seems odd - is it really the case? -- SGBailey (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me to be clear enough that HP means highest point of, but other editors may agree with the above user who wishes to clarify it. If the flood waters lower to the point at which Scafell Pike ceases to be the highest point of an island, Snowdon is the highest point of the island which contains Scafell Pike. Viewfinder (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Parent Peak
Why are the articles on the hills and mountains of the British Isles so concerned with the "parent peak" thing? Parent peak has no geographical or geological significance at all. It's meaningless and serves no purpose other than to confuse. It is little more than geographical play. I'd remove it from the hundreds of articles that are infested with this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.88.163 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Article name: "... of the British Isles" is enough
This article was recently moved to List of mountains of the British Isles and Ireland by relative height. I have moved it back. British Isles (as described in the Wikipedia article) includes both Great Britain and Ireland, two main islands, as well as assorted smaller islands. There is no need for this title to include "and Ireland", as Ireland is included within "British Isles". PamD (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh noooooo it doesn't. The term "British Isles" is entirely the product of British nationalist claims to Ireland. No more, and absolutely no less. It is invariably the most xenophobic and offensive little minds over in Britain who claim Ireland to be in this "British Isles" myth of their tribal claims to Ireland and the Irish people. There are currently 26 archives over on Talk:British Isles detailing the politically-loaded nature of this description, a term which only dates to 1621 during the British conquest of Ireland, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. This ridiculously archaic term is, furthermore, not only widely objected to in Ireland and by the Irish state but it is, as a matter of record, explicitly avoided in all official business between the democratically-elected governments of Ireland and Britain. So, what's it going to be: your outdated British nationalism, or a smart, informative and inclusive article accurately and intelligently covering Britain and Ireland? The past or the future. Your choice. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have to recognise that, irrespective of our personal opinions, the use of the term "British Isles" is controversial when it comes to whether or not Ireland is included. See British Isles naming dispute for more information.  And you only have to look briefly at Talk:British Isles and Talk:Ireland to see that this is something that many Wikipedians feel passionately about.  I can sympathise with your view that the phrase "British Isles and Ireland" is tautologous—it is to my eyes too; but many Irish readers (and no doubt others) will vehemently disagree.
 * Perhaps in the spirit of WP:NPOV, we should try to find neutral phrase that avoids assuming either definition of "British Isles". Looking along my bookshelves for inspiration, I see Irvine Butterfield's "The High Mountains of Britain and Ireland". Perhaps we should adopt this style and move the article to "List of mountains in Britain and Ireland by relative height"?  This is also consistent with the naming of WikiProject British and Irish hills.
 * The Scottish islands included in the list (Skye, Mull, …) are not in Great Britain if you use a strict geographical definition, but it's common to use the term more laxly to include the islands. A more serious objection might be that the Isle of Man is not part of "Britain and Ireland" in any sense.  (Butterfield's book doesn't list any Manx mountains, so we have no direct comparison there.)  But I think "List of mountains in Britain, Ireland and Man by relative height" is getting too long.
 * —ras52 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand Irish sensitivities about the term "British Isles", which some Irish nationalists see as implying that the whole of Ireland is still part of Britain. But topographic lists should not be about politics and should transcend political divisions. To split this list between Britain and Ireland would be a shame, would not make topographic sense, and the placing of Slieve Donard on the Irish list would probably annoy unionists. It is also worth noting that much of Scotland, especially Western Scotland, has more in common geographically (and perhaps ethnically and culturally) than with England.

This is a great hiking list, imo far better than the Munros, which are almost all confined to parts of the Highlands. But it is still not well known. I would like to link it to the prominence field of more of the individual mountains, but am reluctant to do so while there remains a naming dispute. I don't mind if it is not "British Isles" but it is not easy to find an alternative. Note that Snaefell is in neither Britain nor Ireland. Viewfinder (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The quality or otherwise of this list is not been commented upon; it looks like a good on British mountains. What is being commented upon is that the title of this article claims that Ireland, and therefore the Irish people, are in what British people view as the "British Isles". This title represents British nationalist education, British viewpoints and British cultural and historical traditions, namely its enormously political claim to Ireland. Under no circumstances is the term "British Isles" a geographic claim in reality. To expect that the term is mere coincidence is, with all respect, just insulting. If people really want to include Ireland and have an article with Irish contributions, then this article will suffer from this name. If you don't really wish to include Irish mountains, just rename it 'Mountains of Great Britain'. In the meantime, it looks like an article on Mountains of Great Britain that is making a political point by redesignating itself as 'Mountains of the British Isles'.  86.42.90.145 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you persist in what seems to me to be the view that the geographical term "British Isles" is a thinly veiled cover for a political claim on the Republic of Ireland which, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in the UK makes. According to British_Isles the geographical term "British Isles" is derived from Pretani which dates back to classical times, easily pre-dates the United Kingdom, and implies no UK political claim on Ireland whatsoever. The official business between the UK and ROI governments. which you cite, is political, unlike this list which is wholly geographical and topographical. Viewfinder (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that some irrational Irish nationalists make a point of being immune to the simplest and clearest of facts on this issue and choose to be offended by the historic name for the archipelago within which their state is found is no reason whatsoever to change the name of the article. There are signficant minorities who find things like evolution or the world being a globe to be offensive but we arent going to change those articles simply because certain people make a point of being offended by reality. This argument has been done to death on other pages and the standard of argument, or raving would perhaps be a more accurate description, of the likes of User:86.42.90.145 who embaresses himself by ranting with impressive irrationality and immunity to facts with regards to the history of the term. Ironically while complaining about the supposedly "mythical" antiquity of the term "British Isles" he manages to more or less invent his own "mythical" idea of a "British race" who colonised Ireland. There is, of course, no such "British people". Great Britain was, and is, inhabited by the Scots who share the same Gaelic ancestry as the Irish as well as the Welsh (the very descendants of the "British" for whom these islands are named) and the English (the people he and his kind have in mind when moaning about the "British). "British" has no modern ethnic meaning and simply came to be used to refer to the to the people of the United Kingdom and thus the Southern Irish were, until the 1920s, just as British and just as much a part of this mythical "British race" that 86.42.90.145 has invented in his fantasy version of Irish history. Nobody is denying that the Republic of Ireland is no longer a part of the United Kingdom and nobody is denying that the Irish are no longer British (as they once were) but breaking away from the UK can no more stop Ireland being a part of the British Isles than could Scotland leaving (and thus ending) the United Kingdom suddenly mean that Scotland ceases to be a part of the island of Great Britain. siarach (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that many major geographical organizations are changing their map names to avoid "British Isles", so does the UK govt - at least where there'll be contact with Irish people. The problem with the term has been described in many serious references. Siarach's arguments (and 86.42.90.145's too, mostly) are classic examples of people who don't know the history of the term, or what's happening with it recently.  79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * British Isles includes Ireland, so leave as it is. MidnightBlue (Talk)  13:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish to add my vote to the name proposed above, which is accurate and unprovocative: List of mountains in Britain and Ireland by relative height. --O&#39;Dea (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Breakdown by height
Everything in this article is, correctly, metric, but the breakdown by height and country. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I was about to post the same comment. I think it should be changed to be metric (or at least include metric). -- SGBailey (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ben Nevis
1345 metres as per http://www.digitaljournal.com/life/travel/ben-nevis-is-actually-higher-than-realized/article/460550#hv33254 Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Relative height" or "Prominence"
To what degree is this really a UK/US distinction? My impression is that certainly, some terms are particularly BrE (such as the "drop", with its slightly quirky definition for Munros, was it?)... but generally I (an Englishman) would (fairly) immediately understand either "prominence" or "relative height". It also seems that elsewhere in the BrE topography pages (Marilyns for example) people are happily using the "prominence" term. Personally, I don't ever remember any of these terms in my mountaineering days (um, like the 60s, 70s...) except for the concept of "minimum drop" to determine whether something is an independent peak. So I wonder if any particular terminology is really "established". I have made a start by redirecting "relative height" to the prominence page (previously it went to "elevation"!); but if people feel that "relative height" is really "the" BrE term, then I think it should be restored to the lede in "Topographic prominence"; quite reasonably the list of "other names", of highly varying notability has been relegated to a footnote. If really there is no particular point in using "relative height", then perhaps this article should be moved to List of mountains in the British Isles by prominence. Opinions please! Imaginatorium (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, this article should be about relative topographical prominence, which is what P600 is defined as, and is a term used in all mountain classifications; any other definition is getting towards WP:OR and should be deleted in my view. If this article is not TP, it should be changed. Britishfinance (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having read this article again, this is getting into OR and also mixing in Primary sources which are not ideal. I propose replacing this with Alan Dawson's 2006 table of P600 peaks in the British Islands (which I think was the original goal of this article, and it quotes Alan's table), which is definitely secondary, and Dawson is one of the most credible sources regarding mountains in the British Islands.  Also, WP needs a proper P600 article (as per Marilyns and Munros). Britishfinance (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have replaced the table with the proper table of P600s from Alan Dawson (et al) and soured and referenced it. Am also going to change the name of this article to a "List of P600 mountains in the British Isles", which is what this article was trying to be (e.g. it only used a version of Alan's table). Britishfinance (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not think copying Dawson's list in every detail is a good idea at all. I also spot that "P600" is an undefined term. For goodness sake, what does the "proper" in reference to Dawson's list mean? There is also considerable confusion over the whole "prominence" issue: I do not think there is any debate at all about the meaning, i.e. the concept, but there is a slight question over the best term to use. So I have no idea what you mean when you say "this article should be about relative topographical prominence": no, this article is about the peaks in the British Isles ranked by prominence. I agree with changing the term used - and personally I find "prominence" slightly more immediately understandable than "relative height", and no-one has come forward with any counterargument (but then, you are the first person to be kind enough to respond to my comment). I think the best title is as proposed above: List of mountains in the British Isles by prominence. You also seemed to remove chunks, such as the "Breakdown by region and height" for no obvious good reason, and replaced a very readable page by a sort of paeon to Alan Dawson's personal idiosyncratic terminology, "region codes" and so on. So I think the original page was much better: please outline any substantive differences in the factual claims involved. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear. The original article IS Alan Dawson's P600 list but with additional edits that are WP:OR (and also primary-sourced, so are also not usable on WP). The article cannot stand in such a state (and has been noted several times by others) and tagged as such. Also, Alan Dawson is one of the most noted cartographers in British Isles mountain naming (having created several other well-regarded lists, including Marilyns, and written several noted books, some of which name P600s), so him producing a label,and table, on it (and others updating it), is notable and useable on WP.  Anything else is not WP compatible as it strays into WP:OR and primary sources.  Something which could be additionally done, is a larger article of British Isle mountains by prominence (e.g. not just the P600 top 119 list, which this article was), as long as it is sourced properly, although the vast bulk of it will just be Marilyns (again, from Dawson), of which there are already large Wikipedia articles listing them all ? Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains, and I hope at least one other person might comment. But the list of mountains meeting a certain criterion is a fact about the universe, which cannot be anyone's "property". If there were unsourced bits, the standard procedure is to flag them as such. If the list (i.e. the substantive content) is the same, then the previous version was more readable. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the list is Alan's list but with WP:OR additions. That is not really acceptable on WP (regardless of source).  The same argument you make could be applied to lists of Hewitts, Nuttalls, Marilyns, etc. and many other definitions of mountains in the British Isles.  They are all, with few exceptions, based on specific quantitative metrics (like the P600 list).  If the article was titled "Alan Dawson's P600 List", then I think that would be too much (the many other Wikis on Dawson's Marilyns don't call them Dawson's Marilyns, however, they do reference him properly as being the creator of the first lists etc.)  The talk pages of other definitions are much smaller because everybody is clear on the definition being used (often a Dawson definition).  The talk page of this article is extensive, because it strayed from a list of P600s, which are defined and cataloged by notable cartographers, and started going in its own direction, and thus debates started (many of which are around the WP:OR nature of the article).  In all cases, you want to be referencing established, high quality, secondary (ideally) sources of information, and without additional comment (e.g. WP:SYN).  The best way to re-achieve that with this article is to restore it to the proper P600 table (of which we have a good secondary source of its data), state clearly the definitions used, and the relevant sources of definition, and any chronology of the development of the definition, and leave it at that. For example, have a look at the Marilyn (geography) article or List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in England.  Such an article is more stable long-term. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking at the List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in England article, and in the "See Also" link to this article, someone has written, "List of mountains of the British Isles by relative height—a full list of mountains in the "P600" class." Again, another indication that this article has strayed too much from being stable. Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So. Stupid question time. What's a "P600" mountain? No, I'm not being funny. I'd never heard the term before this article's title changed. It might be a common term among mountaineers; or among geographers. I genuinely don't know. But I don't think it's a common term among the general populace. WP articles should be written (and titled) for the average reader, not for specialists. Question: will the average secondary school student be able to find this article if they're looking for a list of the tallest mountains in the British Isles? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair question Bastun. Yes it is a mountaineering definition, and one of the few accepted British Isles definitions that actually agrees with the UIAA definitions.  We are trying to clean up the British Isles mountaineering tables.  Tables that are based on a particular definition or classification are being marked as such and their table re-downloaded and re-defined to ensure that it is clear what it is based on (as per Wikis on Hewitts, Marilyn, Furths etc.).  However, to your point about the student, two new larger tables have been created: List of British Isles mountains by height and List of British Isles mountains by prominence, for them.  These tables are still properly defined and sourced (e.g. they would be suitable for a BBC researcher who has to be 100% clear in what they are looking at).  While the term height is kept, the term "prominence" is used instead of "relative height".  This is so they are in line with non-British Isle wikis on prominence; it is also very easy to get confused about what somone means by "relative height" (e.g. differential between tops, or differential to cols), where as prominence is a defined term (there is a good wiki on it).  However, the term "relative height" (and "drop", and "re-ascent") is added beside prominence in brackets to help (and also get picked up in searches). Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that makes perfect sense, thanks! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)