Talk:Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles/Archive 1

Links to lists from infoboxes etc
At the moment infoboxes link to Corbett (hill), Nuttall (hill) and so on, which all redirect here. Perhaps it would be better for them to link directly to the relevant lists, such as List of Nuttalls in Wales? We already do that in part, with "county top" linking to List of English counties by highest point for instance. It would involve a fair amount of work to change all the existing links, but I dare say it could be semi-automated with AWB. --Blisco 10:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

English Marilyns & Black Mountain
I've removed the comments about Black Mountain, as although it sits on the English/Welsh border it's only counted in Wales. I've amended England's Marilyn count appropriately. Unfortunately when I was writing my edit comments I hit return with a spare finger and nothing I'd written made any sense. Hopefully this does. Miss Saff 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is counted in both countries in both The Relative Hills of Britain and The Hewitts and Marilyns of England  (or at least the online versions). To quote from the notes to The Hewitts and Marilyns of Wales:


 * Black Mountain: A unique fivefold summit: Welsh Hewitt, Welsh Marilyn, English Hewitt, English Marilyn, and the County Top of Hereford and Worcester. It is also the highest point of the Offa's Dyke Path. The summit is extremely flat and the highest point difficult to pinpoint. A traverse is recommended.


 * (I agree with the latter point incidentally - I managed to walk over the summit in complete oblivion, even though I was looking out for it!) --Blisco 17:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As of May 2007, Black Mountain is counted as being in Wales only for the purposes of lists and databases, as such evidence as exists points that way. This change was made by Alan Dawson and reported in Marhofn.79.66.76.32 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hewittoids in Scotland
While merging Hewitt (hill) I deleted the following paragraph because it is completely unsourced. If a reliable source is found it can of course be reinstated.


 * a survey has recently been completed which documents all the mountains of 'Hewitt status' in Scotland. The list is a very long one, and comprises the Murdos, the Corbett Tops and the Graham Tops (see above). In total, there are 2112 such tops, one of which lies on the Scottish border and is therefore also a Hewitt.

-- Blisco 20:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to add sources for these in the next day or two. As I recall, I got the figure by adding together the numbers of Murdos, Corbetts Tops, and Grahams Tops from the three appropriate TACit printed booklets of lists.  -- ras52 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think that would count at original research under the heading "new analysis or synthesis of published data". If TACit published a list of Hewitts in Scotland then we could of course mention it, but we should only mention lists that have recognised sources, not make up our own. -- Blisco 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding three numbers together seems a rather overzealous definition of original reseach, and is no different from adding the numbers of English, Welsh and Irish Hewitts to get the total of 525. TACit don't call the Scotish 30m prominences Hewitts, but in all other respects they are treated that way -- unlike Munro Tops, Graham and Corbett Tops have an exact 30m prominence cut off, so together the Murdos, Corbett Tops and Graham Tops together form the Scottish equivalent of the Hewitts.  For example, in The Angry Corrie, #61, when advertising the then newly published list of Graham Tops, it says "thus the listing of the 2638 British Isles 2000ft hills with 30m drop is complete".  From memory, the introduction to TACit's printed list of Graham Tops contains something similar.
 * Reading the current description of Hewitts, there is no discussion as to why the Hewitts include England, Wales and the whole of Ireland, but exclude Scotland. To someone not familiar with the reason, this must seem a bizarre decision, and we should at least aim to explain it by saying (as the old article did), "Scotland is not included because it has so many mountains".  In my opinion, the paragraph you removed simply quantifies this, as well as pointing readers to where they can find the equivalent information for Scotland (viz., the lists of Murdos, Corbett Tops and Graham Tops, which I agree need proper citations).
 * -- ras52 10:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No further comments, so I've put some similar text back. It's now properly sourced, which was the original reason why it was deleted, and the citations should make it clear that it's not original research.  (The figure of 2638 is given explicitly on the first proper page of the book of Graham Tops, so that cannot be "new analysis or synthesis of published data".)
 * I've also changed the comment re Scotland from "Scotland is excluded from the list of Hewitts because its mountains are extensively covered by other lists" to "Scotland is excluded from the list of Hewitts as it would add a vast number of relatively minor Scottish hills to the list". Although there's no doubt truth in both statements, I think the latter is more relevant as back in 1997 when the list of Hewitts was published, a list of 2000ft/30m hills in Scotland did not exist.
 * -- ras52 09:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason Scotland was excluded was that (a) there is a long tradition of listing English and Welsh 2000ft hills dating back to the 1930s, but no comparable tradition in Scotland (the Grahams are much more recent), and (b) because of the number of hills, it took Dawson and co-workers a long time to research them. Hewitts by definition exclude Scotland; they would otherwise be Hewsitts!  I have clarified this in the text.Galltywenallt (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Prominent Peaks section
I've just deleted this section. As per my edit summary, there is simply not enough coverage to suggest that any of the content is notable. It's all based on Jim Bloomers personal website. I've no idea whether User:Fatslob7 is Jim Bloomer, but when a new account appears and makes an edit like this as his/her first edit, I'm somewhat suspicious that there may well be a conflict of interest here.

As to the content itself, Prominent Peaks certainly isn't a notable name for the 500m/100m class of hills. That term must have used dozens of times by lots of authors to mean completely different things. And I'm far from convinced that the 500m/100m class of hills is notable enough to warrant Wikipedia coverage in the first place. We don't, for example, cover Deweys, Humps, New Donalds or Birketts, and I would suggest that each of these is more notable than this class of hill. (In the case of the Birketts, an AfD was passed on it, with support from most of the British & Irish hills WikiProject.) Dividing peaks into areas by parents / ancestors is nothing new. I've been doing it for years, and it's been talked about on various Wikipedia talk pages on lots of occasion (c.f. this discussion); though I'm certainly not going to claim that I/we were the inventors of it.

I don't want to sound negative about the site, which I actually think is rather good. Similarly, I'm gradually coming round to the idea of using 100m / 200m / 500m cut-offs rather than the more traditional 150m / 300m / 600m. However it's not Wikipedia's job to publicise new walking lists — it's our job as Wikipedians to give coverage to those that already are notable. If and when that site and the lists on it come into more common usage, that's the time to add it to Wikipedia.

—ras52 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikipedia so am not even sure if I am using this discussion page correctly; I am starting on the learning curve. I appreciate you commenting on the rationale for the page development to date.

I have been a Wikipedia reader for years and wanted to try out my first edits following the instructions on getting started. I noted that there were some "missing" lists from this article so thought about updating this page. I also wanted to update the Ramsons page. I started with Prominent Peaks due to the article request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports for Bloomer's Challenge which oddly is listed under orienteering. I had not then seen the previous discussions on what is considered notable enough for inclusion. I accept that printed references are desirable but many Wikipedia articles have only website references.

Fatslob7 (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to www.hill-bagging.co.uk ?
Is it possible to have a link to this website? http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/

Assuming people reading this wiki page have an interest in scaling some of the peaks mentioned on these lists, and possibly logging those walks, this website is easily the most relevant.

I am in no way affiliated to the website, it's just an idea!

Mattwinner (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the absense of any feedback here, I added it myself. Mattwinner (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Metric/Imperial

 * Both the Hewitts and Murdos section state the height as feet(metric), but then the prominence as metric(feet). Firstly should it not be consistent with the rest of the article as be feet(metric), and secondly, 98 foot seems a strange number.  Is it not 100 foot, and the strange number being the metric conversion and not vice versa? The source does the same, so I'm a bit stumped on if it's really correct or not. Ben robbins (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise for Donalds, Murdos, Grahams and Nutalls. Often it may not matter when using the figures inaccurately becuase mountains may not fall within this narrow band. However the criteria for list inclusion was surely a set of either metric or imperial pre requisites. Ben robbins (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This oddity has already been tackled: see http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2009/05/27/new-metric-challenge-faces-hill-baggers for instance. Not sure if the resulting "Bloomer and Urquhart" list is officially-recognised sufficiently to merit its inclusion in this article, but I thought it deserved mention. Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Deweys
Is the Dewey (hill) list or category notable or recognised enough to be mentioned? Hugo999 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think so. The list has been around since c.1995, is kept up to date, and attracts plenty of interest within the bagging community, generally amongst those who have completed the 2000ers. Importantly, the LDWA maintains a register of completions. Galltywenallt (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Article name: "... in the British Isles" is enough
This article was recently moved to Hill lists in the British Isles and Ireland. I have moved it back. British Isles 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) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest "Hill lists in Britain and Ireland" per my comments here. —ras52 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Ras52. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reject. Name should be "...in the British Isles." Ireland is part of the British Isles, so that covers it. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  13:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support also. --Pierre67 (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support 'Hill lists in Britain and Ireland' also. "British Isles" is something from the dark ages. Dunlavin Green (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

>>> Actually, having read the article 'Hill lists of Great Britain' is much more apt as it is almost entirely about Britain. Dunlavin Green (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Moves won't work, as this article contains info on Ireland, Great Britain and Isle of Man. And if you're going to have an article titled "Hill lists in Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man" it makes much more sense to have it using the common international name for the collection of those islands. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

>>> And if I put information on other parts of Europe I suppose by your above logic we can rename it something like 'Hill Lists in Europe' or would that just not suit the politics of some people? Do we just let people with certain political views decide the context under which this article can be titled? Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering the term "British Isles" is not common in Ireland, your entire "international" logic falls on its head. Asserting a name over an area when that name is widely and verifiably rejected in a very large part of the area makes this article under the title "British Isles" simply a political claim, and a very controversial one at that. You know it, so please try and be honest about it. Of course, it is interesting that the pro British Isles people have no interest in writing a genuinely geographical article about hills as if they did they would choose a genuinely geographic name and context like Europe and then Irish people would bother editing it. Instead they are simply massaging their bruised post-Empire egos by running over and claiming Ireland as one of their "British Isles". The same old story, century after century. Predictable. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a place for a discussion over the use of the term British Isles, use the talk page of that article for that discussion, but it has been shown that it is a common term worldwide, and is a term used in Ireland as well. Some in Ireland may not like the term, but it is still a used term, and has international usage even being directly translated into dozens of languages and used heavily. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I'm broadly albeit reluctantly in favour of a rename to 'Hill lists of Britain and Ireland', I strongly disagree with a move to 'Hill lists if Great Britain'. Yes, many of the lists here don't include Ireland. But equally most of the lists either don't include Scotland or don't include anywhere except Scotland. Both the Marilyns and the Hewitts include Ireland, for example. So too does the notion of county tops, although Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on Irish county tops. (In fact, in some ways Irish county tops are more notable than their English, Scottish or Welsh equivalents simply by virtue of the fact that Irish counties have been more stable than their English counterparts.)

It is certainly the case that this article under-represents Ireland, and we should work to correct that. But that is true of Irish hill and mountain related topics in Wikipedia in general. And it's not specific to Ireland: the Scottish Lowlands are under-represented too. The fact of the matter is that when writing about hills, many, many authors either concentrate on a specific area (e.g. the Scottish Highlands) or look at the whole of the British Isles (or whatever name you choose to use to refer the island group including Great Britain and Ireland). Butterfield's The High Mountains of Britain and Ireland is a case in point. The SMC's definition of a "furth Munro" or "furth Corbett" is another example: Irish peaks qualify; Faroese, French or Philippino peaks do not. — ras52 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This article will get minimal Irish involvement while it considers the Irish people "British". This is so obvious that it should not need an Irish person to tell anybody. Read the British Isles article and 26 archives if anybody has a doubt about Irish objections to this hegemonic term. Irish people do not (to put it euphemistically) like to be "represented" as British. But of course Irish involvement in this article, while nice, is not as nice as claiming Ireland to be in this "British Isles" pipedream of British nationalism. The solution, if people actually want one, lies in something like the apolitical (and thus inclusive) title of Butterfield's above book. Even then, the vast majority of Irish people view themselves as European in geographical terms, and never as "British" as the separatist (from Europe) context of this article is attempting to do. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. 'British Isles' is correct geographically but is seldom used within the Republic of Ireland, and the Irish Embassy discourages its use. 'Britain and Ireland' has the same coverage with regard to hill lists and has been adopted by The Database of British and Irish Hills. Galltywenallt (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Furths?
Two questions, is there a list of Furths and secondly, is it notable? Sologoal (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Aye, there's a full list with heights, locations and links to individual mountains here on Wikishire. Howard Alexander (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the Humps?
I've created a new section using some content that has been previously removed from this article. This is mainly because I'm working on a new article for a hill called Warton Crag, which unless or until someone tells me otherwise is categorised as a HuMP. While I have no clue how widely these lists are used I've also brought back the Hardys and added the Deweys because there are articles about them so they obviously should be mentioned here. If they aren't notable enough then those articles need to go to AfD, assuming they get deleted and are unlikely to return, then maybe the relevant info can be removed. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Title
I see there was a long debate about whether the title should be "British Isles" or "British Isles and Ireland". I have no interest in reigniting that. However, shouldn't the name be "Lists of hills in the British Isles" (with or without Ireland) per WP:NLIST? Pburka (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No; they are known as "hill lists". Could you not have waited a wee bit for a reaction before moving the page? Hogweard (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't even see how WP:NLIST is relevant to the name of this article? Frankly I think it should be moved back ASAP. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the term "Hill list" doesn't appear anywhere in the text of this article. I meant to refer to WP:NCLIST, rather than WP:NLIST, which is clear that lists should start with the term "List of". If these are indeed hill lists (which the text doesn't support) then it should be "List of hill lists in the British Isles". I waited for five days before moving the page. This suggested that no regular users were watching the page or had an interest in the name. Pburka (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hardys
I'm a bit concerned as to whether Hardys are sufficiently notable for inclusion on this list. This page doesn't include every hill list, only the most notable ones. There are no Birketts, Deweys, Tumps (or whatever we're supposed to be calling the Jackson P30s these days), for example, and we chose to remove the section on Jim Bloomer's challenge. Hardy's list is not included on http://hill-bagging.co.uk/ or http://hills-database.co.uk/ (these use the same dataset, so shouldn't be considered independently as evidence of it's non-notability). The sole mention that I can find mention of them on the uk.rec.walking newsgroup was in 1998. I can only see one short and mostly negative thread on the RHB mailing list. For what it's worth (which is very little), I'd never heard of them before today, despite being pretty enthusiastic follower of hill lists. But I'd be interested in what others think, and in any case it's several years since I've been an active editor and our policies may have changed in my absence. 91.135.11.161 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC) (formerly ras52)
 * As no-one is willing to defend their inclusion on this page, I'm about to remove them. 91.135.11.161 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody seems to be making a determined attempt to reinstate the Hardys to this page (could he be Hardy??). I endorse the comments above. The list had made a negligible impact on the bagging community, and the only completer seems to be Hardy himself. If the article is to include other lists, there are many others that attract far more bagging attention e.g. the Birketts (for which the LDWA maintains a register of completions), tumps, and the various Irish lists on mountainviews.ie including the Arderins and Vandeleur-Lynams which both have quite a following. In fact the article is very GB orientated, beginning with "British Isles" (offensive to many of the Irish) rather than "Britain and Ireland" in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galltywenallt (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No it could not be Hardy, I've responded on your Talk page and can't be bothered to edit it for use here --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that the Hardys are a) the subject of a book and a website and b) have been recognised by at least 2 independent and authoritative bodies (the LDWA and Ordnance Survey) suggests they pass both the WP:NOTABILITY and the WP:VERIFIABILITY requirements. So let's move on with improving Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Birketts
I've removed mention of the Birketts because I'm not convinced such a list "exists"; at the very least they're non-notable. As far as I can tell, the only mention of such a list is in Bill Birkett's book itself, and at stridingedge.net; all the other lists, by contrast, merit multiple web mentions. It's worth bearing in mind that virtually every guide book to the Lake District has included some kind of list of the fells, if only a short one, but (I hope) no-one would dream of listing the Baddeleys or the Wordsworths on Wikipedia. I've raised this point on Talk:List of Birketts, where any discussion on this matter should probably take place. -- Blisco 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Listed for deletion if anyone's interested. --Blisco 10:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A full list of Birketts and an associated map appears at http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/search.php?qu=B&ty=B&trig=small if anyone is interested. Mattwinner (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a case for mentioning the Birketts. The list is a common objective amongst those who have completed the Wainwrights. It's not important taxonomically, but the LDWA maintains a register of completions, which is one criterion for notability. Galltywenallt (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've decided to reinstate a brief mention of Birketts on this page, mainly for the practical reason that I need to be able to wikilink any reference to these tops when editing the pages on the Lake District Fells. I personally found it frustrating to try to look them up in Wikipedia, to be redirected to this page, and then to search it in vain and find no reference to what I was looking for.


 * I accept that they are not the most notable of hill-lists, being of only local value in the Lake District. But I think other contributors to this talk page have made the point that they are not entirely redundant. Since they are listed in the Database of British and Irish Hills, one ought to be able to find out from Wikipedia what they are. We probably don't need the old list of them all, but I believe a definition certainly is in place on this page about hill lists. Silence-is-infinite (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tops
Is there a definition of a "top"? Is it just another name for "summit" or a generic name for mountains and hills? I've not come across it except in British hillbagging articles or British lists of mountains and hills. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC) http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/CountyTops.php A top is the highest point in a county. In a generally flat area this may not even be a hill. There are even some counties where the "top" is not even a top because it's on the the side of a hill which is also in another county. http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/Munros.php For Munros the highest summit is called a "Munro" lower summits are "Tops". http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/Marilyns.php a hill is a Marilyn, and a top is prefixed with sub- and called a subMarilyn. Other lists are similar to Munros, or Marilyns. 146.90.116.187 (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The definitions are different for different lists, some lists don't define tops. So there are several definitions of a "top".

Order of Munros, Corbetts, Donalds and Grahams ?
It isn't clear why these lists are listed in the order they are. Is it date of establishment of the list (the first 3 originated with the SMC)? It's not the height range encompassed on each list. I doubt it's the most-recent updating (which would change fairly randomly anyway). So ... is there a reason for the order given (if so, what?), or if there is no (known) reason, shouldn't they be re-ordered into something that can be explained? Aidan Karley (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's a mess. I've re-ordered them as follows based on height and prominence as follows:
 * Munros - over 3,000 ft, 'independent mountain'
 * Murdos - over 3,000 ft, prominence 30 ft
 * Corbetts - 2,500-3,000 ft, prominence 500 ft
 * Grahams - 2,500-3,000 ft, prominence 150 m
 * Donalds - over 2,000 ft --Bermicourt (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought would be appropriate too but thought it appropriate to see if anyone had a good reason for a different sequence. AKarley (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tumps
I've added a short sub-section on Tumps, but thought it worth mentioning here, as you won't find many sources using the term. In fact, you won't find many sources on 'all' 30 metre prominences in GB because this is very much a niche subject and recent strand of work. The use of 30 metres (100 feet) as a yardstick of prominence is well established - it's the basis of at least two existing lists: the Hewitts (over 2000') and the Deweys (500m-2000'). Tump is used by Jackson in More Relative Hills of Britain which he has authored, but which is based on the work of several other experts - including Alan Dawson, E.J. Yeaman and Clem Clements - whom he acknowledges. Whilst he does not list the Tumps by name, he does list their numbers by region and the total - 16,644. This tallies with my other source, The Hills of Great Britain which does name all 16,000 odd hills in the category and was also created by Mark Jackson. Although the term Tump is not used in this 2nd source, the fact that the author calls them Tumps in his main book, suggests that is what he - and by inference the other experts - are calling them and thus it is currently an authoritative name for these hill lists... at least until some more authoritative body makes a pronouncement or it is overtaken by a multitude of other credible sources all agreeing some other name. I will continue to research this, however. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've found further information. At Marilyn Hall of Fame News, May 2012, there is an article by Andrew Tibbetts on Tumps Hall of Fame in which it states that "Tumps are those hills in Britain with at least 30m of prominence and named by the list compiler, Mark Jackson. They are also known by some as P30s and Jacksons, though Mark himself understands the term Jacksons to cover a slightly different hill definition. They include, of course, most other prominence based lists such as Marilyns and Humps. There are over 16,500 Tumps throughout Britain and neighbouring islands... The complete current list of Tumps is in two databases: 1. The latest version of the Database of British and Irish Hills (DoBIH) where you need to filter out or delete the P{0-29}s (and Ireland if so minded, as this is not yet P30-exhaustive); 2. The remainder are on the P30 Appendix at: . This is maintained by me and includes several updates and new P30s." It then goes on to talk about the "Tumps Hall of Fame" database of leading Tump "baggers". In another article, Alan Dawson himself refers to "Humps and Tumps", so it seems to be an accepted term in these circles. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

How can we distinguish between Tump (hill) and TuMP? The former being part of numerous place names (see List of Tumps) in the British Isles since time immemorial and recorded on OS maps since their inception (of interest, therefore, to local (and national?) historians, cartographic nuts, etc.); the latter (P30) variety obviously being of interest to peak-baggers, geographical topologists, and list-makers... I find that octopus-like I have feet in most of these camps! Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a good question. Although the above syntax helps to disambiguate, I don't know any sources that use TuMP (unlike HuMP). So we may need to find another way to do this. Tump (hill) could describe either, so maybe the hillock could become Tump (mound) or Tump (hillock) but I can't think of an easy option for TuMP. Neither Tump (prominence) nor Tump (hill type) seem quite right. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I see a possibility for Tump (mound) and TuMP (P30), if I've understood right- open to other suggestions and opinions- anybody? Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I like those, but assume you meant Tump (P30) for the second one i.e. using the normal spelling. Tump (hill) could become a disambiguation page as it's clearly caused confusion already. I'd be happy with that and with helping to mass convert the lists involved. Bermicourt (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The offer of help to mass convert the lists involved is most appreciated, thanks. I really did mean Tump (mound) and TuMP (P30), but I was thinking "Thirty (& Upward) Metres Prominence" so perhaps the latter wasn't as appropriate as, for example, T&UMP (P30), or TUMP (P30), for "Thirty & Upward Metres Prominence". -See, e.g., Hill Lists & GPS Waypoints/Hill & Waypoints at haroldstreet.org.uk / bagging-p30-tumps at haroldstreet.org.uk & Relative Hills Society mention of TUMP at rhsoc.uk. Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903161111/http://www.rhb.org.uk/marhofn/marhofn255/Marhofn255.pdf to http://www.rhb.org.uk/marhofn/marhofn255/Marhofn255.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_west/7623904.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615012227/http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/ to http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708005137/http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/sevensum.html to http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/sevensum.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000929190710/http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/england/ to http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/england/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205211419/http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/wales/ to http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/wales/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615012227/http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/ to http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

New Nuttall - 444 + 1 = 446?
The BBC says that the new Nuttall, Miller Moss, brings the total to 446, but our article says There were 444 Nuttalls in total (254 in England and 190 in Wales), but increased to 446 in August 2018 with the inclusion of Miller Moss. What happened to number 445? Pam D  14:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Miller Moss is notable in itself, but have added a sourced mention to the Knott article with a redirect. Pam  D  15:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've discovered a lot of intervening changes, and tweaked the wording here accordingly! Pam  D  16:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Tidy up
This is a good article and great central reference point navigating various Wikipedia articles on mountains in the BI. I tidied up the structure and wording to make sections consistent. Also included any subsidiary definitions (e.g. real Munro, Irish definitions etc.). My final act will be to add a summary table at the front, which I think the article is lacking. Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

P600s
The numbers don't add up- is the Northern Irish one being double counted to get to 120? 119 seems more plausible. Pam D  23:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is 93 in the UK (81 Scotland + 8 England + 4 Wales) + 25 Republic of Ireland + 1 Northen Ireland (e.g. it is the UK plus NI) + 1 in the IOM = 120. Britishfinance (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The confusion is that Ireland is sometimes used to mean ROI + NI. Britishfinance (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem is that ref 22 says 119 including 25 in "Ireland", apparently the island. Better source for 120 or explanation of discrepancy is needed. Pam D  00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pam. As I read http://www.peaklist.org/WWlists/GB/GB600m.html it gives: -

1. 93 in Great Britain

2. 1 in Northern Ireland

3. (Therefore 94 in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UKoGBaNI))

4. 1 in the Isle of Man

5. 24 in the Republic of Ireland

6. (Therefore 25 in the island of Ireland)

7. (Therefore 119 in the British Isles)

If you do a wordsearch for 'Ireland' in peaklist, it gives 29 hits. Three are in the introductory paragraph, one is the 'sub-major' Purple Mountain at 594 m, and one is Slieve Donard in Northern Ireland. That leaves 24 majors in the Republic of Ireland. Alekksandr (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The list at List of P600 mountains in the British Isles has 25 Irish mountains including the one Northern Irish one, and 82, rather than 81, Scottish peaks to get to its total of 120! All very confusing. (I sorted the list by "Region" and counted. Re-counted the Irish ones, but got bored after counting the Scottish ones once and didn't check again.  Pam  D  18:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the reason why http://www.peaklist.org/WWlists/GB/GB600m.html has 119 and List of P600 mountains in the British Isles has 120 is that the former does not count Moel Siabod while the latter does. Maybe some Englishman measured it differently while going up it and coming down it ? (-) Alekksandr (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAICS, the 93 GB peaks in http://www.peaklist.org/WWlists/GB/GB600m.html are 7 in Wales (Moel Siabod not being among the 7, as it is relegated to the addendum of sub-majors), 4 in England and the rest (82) in Scotland. Alekksandr (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake here. There were 119 P600 in 2006 when Dawson and others produced a list (which is the reference in this article).  Since then Moel Siabod got added to make it 120.  People forget that tables based on prominence (e.g. the P600) are subject to material revisions over time as prominence is quite hard to measure - it requires all the contours of a mountain to be recorded, and not just one point.  So, the tally should be:


 * 82 Scotland + 8 Wales + 4 England (94 GB) + 24 Republic of Ireland + 1 NI + 1 IOM = 120.

Britishfinance (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Diagram
Ever since I first found this page a few years ago I have thought it was crying out for a diagram showing the relationship of the various classifications, so, no other diagram having appeared, I have created and added a first attempt. I have tried to be scrupulous and include all the classifications listed as active in the text (mostly on this page but "Metric Munro" appears on the "Munro" page), so that I am not making any new or separate notability judgements. I have restricted to classifications that apply to whole countries (trying to include e.g. Lake District, or Highland and Lowlands separately, made the diagram too complicated). But there are ambiguities. Are terms like "Real Munro Furths" and "P600 Munros" actual recognised definitions or just descriptions? Is "Super-Major" a recognised definition? Do Corbett and Graham "Tops" include the full Corbetts or Grahams or (as I've shown it) only the tops not meeting the full prominence criteria? (I think the page says both in different places). I am very open to people pointing out any mistakes or making suggestions for improvement, or for moving it elsewhere in the text.Johnstoo (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. This looks like a great idea. I have never seen it presented this way, but now that you have done it, I really like it.  I will take a deeper look at it over the next few days for you.  One immediate observation would be to note in the Legend that the colors also follow the color country (I would make the Legend even more prominent)? However, excellent work. Britishfinance (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The colours are a little ad hoc.  It is fairly easy to decide to use blue for Scotland-only and green for Ireland-only (though I think I need to choose shades of green with more contrast to make the words easier to read). I found it helps if the Tumps/Humps/Marilyn/Major sequence is a distinct colour and the boldest colour.  For the rest, it helps understandability if the complementary pair of Hewitts and Deweys are the same colour, likewise Simms and Dodds, and it helps if those two pairs are contrasting colours as the lines overlap.  But that then means that the colours don't follow strict national lines.  I could try colouring strictly by national lines but it may make the diagram harder to follow.  Can you post images on this talk page? If so, I'd be happy to try any suggested alternatives.Johnstoo (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments on Diagram

Again, really excellent job (I can see this approach catching on). My comments are (from the bottom of the diagram up): Anyway, great job on this. Britishfinance (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Trumps, Humps, Marilyns, P600s are correct (maybe leave out the "Majors", just to keep your diagram as simple as possible?).
 * The 6 Irish classes are correct (the "green" is so vivid that is is a little hard to read?; also would be great to fit the VLs "inside" their range as per others?).
 * Dodds are correct
 * Simms are correct (should the colour here be red as per the other British Isles classes of Trumps, Humps etc.?)
 * Deweys are correct
 * Nuttalls and Hewitts are correct
 * Corbetts and Grahams are correct
 * Munros, Munro Tops, Furths are correct (I wonder if these should not just be one arrow (add Munros and Munro Tops) on the left at the astrix; it would reduce complexity, and as there is no mathematical distinction between Munros and Munro Tops; would also only have one redline at the important astrix ?)
 * Murdos are correct (I would drop the "Murdo Furth" as it is not a major term; will help simplify your diagram?)
 * Real Munros are correct (I would drop the "Real Munro Furth" as it is not a major term; will help simplify your diagram?)
 * Metric Munros are correct (actually, we need to include this in the general article).
 * Super-Majors, P600 Munros, P600 Furths are correct (maybe just have Super-Majors here and in red colour?)
 * Further thought on the vertical Munro arrow - maybe use a single Blue one for Munros (and Tops), and a single Yellow one for EWI Furths?
 * Further thought on the yellow, which is also a little hard to read (like the green); maybe black?
 * Further thought on Donalds to include them in the legend section as not meeting test of a quantitative definition?
 * Finally, I think that you should add the colour blocks in the legend box (i.e. green=Ireland only, blue=Scotland only, red=British Isles); I understand that you need different colours for others for where the lines overlap (which makes sense).
 * Additional comment, is it possible to remove the blank space at the end of the image so that the diagram can be bigger? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on a new version building on your suggestions. But a few further things: ThanksJohnstoo (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC) In response to the three points above: Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Revised diagram herewith. I think I've found a way of doing the colours that is still reasonably clear but allows consistent use of colours for countries. Legend added. Green and yellow adjusted to give greater contrast. Labels simplified as suggested and separate lines for Munros and Munro Tops removed. Metric Munros adjusted. V-L label now inside the line. Switch to diagonal labels on "prominence" axis allows closer spacing of 30m&100ft and 150m&500ft which, whilst still not to scale, gives a better approximation to how close together these pairs actually are. In the end, I left P600s as a single prominence definition rather than adding the consequential elevation definition for the purely pragmatic reason that if I added the 600 m elevation cutoff, the label would have to go between the 600m and 2000ft lines, which would force those even further apart. The reason for excluding Donalds is principally that they apply at a level below a country. If I included them, I'd have to include e.g. Birketts as well, and it would make the diagram just too complex I think. I am very happy to receive further suggestions for improving the diagram before reposting it in the main article. Thanks for the help so far.Johnstoo (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Metric Munros. I see you've added them into this page as prominence of 100 OR 200 m. The Munros page had them as 200 m only, but with a reference to Peakbaggers (which you also gives) who list them as >100 m.  That suggests to me that, in as much as the term has a settled usage, it is probably 100 m. Put another way, is there any reference that could be given for 200 m?
 * In the UK, presumably P600s also have an elevation of >600 m (presumably in theory that needn't apply in Jordan or other countries with significant areas below sea level...). The diagram would be more true to reality if the P600 line were an "L" at 600/600. But that would be extending what the text actually says at present?
 * If we are settling on a definition where Graham Tops are P150, do we need to change the wording in the text where it refers to numbers, as that gives a number for Graham Tops that includes Grahams? (similarly for Corbetts of course).
 * Yes, if there is a "dominant" metric is it 100 m, which I would use in the diagram (not 200 m, which is less common).
 * Yes, I have amended the text to clarify that in the British Isles, P660 means elevation over 600 m.
 * Yes, I have amended the text to confirm that the P150 are prominence measures (I think that was the point you were raising?).
 * Looks really good, I think your changes above make sense. You could possibly eliminate the 200 m Metric Munro box to simplify (and it is not that notable)? Otherwise, well done! Britishfinance (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Final crazy thought, it is worth putting in Ben Nevis (height 1,345 m and prom 1,345 m) on the X and Y scale to mark the end of the area? It might make it too complex? Britishfinance (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the Ben Nevis idea! New version uploaded to main article.Johnstoo (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Now, there's also an article just on Irish lists. Would that benefit either from this same diagram, or a version with just the Irish definitions (and Ben Nevis replaced by Carrauntoohil)?Johnstoo (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great job. I think we can use this diagram in the Irish article (shows the wider context in which the Irish classifications sit); I'll paste a version in now to test. Britishfinance (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've done and Irish-specific version and posted it over there. If people don't like it they can revert, but as an Englishman currently doing some work in Ireland I am sensitive to the cultural arrogance of implying that Ireland is merely a derivative part of Britain...Johnstoo (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Geographically Ireland is part of the British Isles, a term that derives from the Britons who populated the island of Ireland as well as the island of Great Britain. Politically, of course, Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately this geographical and political distinction is often confused. I notice that no-one complains about the name 'Irish Sea' though... I wonder why. Bermicourt (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy
If you disagreed with an edit I made - that is, you disagreed with the idea that articles should be grammatically correct and follow common sense style guidelines - you'd have the fucking courtesy to explain yourself. It is clear though that you are just trashing my hard work for a laugh. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you had brought your concerns here first instead of edit warring with multiple editors, you wouldn't be facing a block. Please read WP:BRD. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , has re-reverted their changes.  I am going to revert them back (it would be my 2RR), and will then go through them on this talk page noting the changes that I could support keeping (spelling etc.), and the ones that I could not support (format etc.). I have been very busy in RL so apologies for only coming back to this now. Britishfinance (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not restore incorrect grammar and formatting to the article. That is ridiculous. If there are specific changes that you disagree with, undo those, quoting the specific policy or guideline that you believe applies. I edited the article diligently, explaining my changes as I went. You are being extraordinarily discourteous and disruptive by simply trashing my work repeatedly without any proper explanation. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You tone is off here. I have explained the changes below and am happy to discuss them further.  You are trying to force changes as being violations of grammar or policy, which many were not.  Such changes need consensus and several of which I do not specifically support. Britishfinance (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Review of changes


 * Lede.
 * "although controversial"; agree that this term should be taken out.
 * edits on Munros; they are the best-known.
 * restored your International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation edit.
 * kept the slinks to the relevant terms (Nuttals etc.), and avoided the WPlinks to other articles in lede (e.g. Munros).
 * restored your grammar on Marilyns.


 * Elevation.
 * restored your grammar on elevation.


 * Prominence.
 * alighed with UIAA from lede.


 * Isolation.
 * kept some of your edits, and further reworked the grammar here.


 * P600.
 * I don't think these changes were helpful, not everybody is familiar/or finds with these concepts easy to understand. This format of noting the metrics in brackets at the top has been used in this article by several editors (myself included, who added the references to further support it during GAN).


 * Marilyns.
 * ditto (per P600)


 * Humps/Simms/Tumps/Hewitts
 * ditto
 * description of terms as per the style used by the creators of the terms in their books (and by Alan Dawson in his book), so would prefer to keep them.


 * (Rest)
 * ditto per P600, the format of having a summary of the metrics in brackets seems to be preferred; I have tidied them up and added/repeated references to support.

Happy to discuss further with you as required. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You talk as if you changed the article keeping some of my edits; you didn't, you just trashed them all entirely . You've also falsely claimed elsewhere that I changed terminology, which I did not. For the changes I made that you disagree with, please simply indicate the policy or guideline that applies. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is just false. Anybody who compares the diffs will clearly see that I have kept several of your edits (which were helpful), but not others (which did not improve the article, and some of which gave alternative spellings for accepted definitions).  If you are just out to deny what can be observed and then continually edit war, then there is little point in having further discussion with you. Britishfinance (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your attitude here is bizarre. You reverted without keeping anything, as the diff I already posted shows. Exactly what diff would show otherwise? And I did not change any spellings. If you think I did, again, post the diff. I seriously don't know what game you're playing here but lying about your own and my edits is really silly. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that you had reverted so quickly that my review (per above) was not saved (your 6th reversion). Again, that is the problem with active edit warring and enforcing your own view above the attempts of others to collaborate with you.  Britishfinance (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is impossible. My edits could not have prevented your edit from being saved. Repeated blanket reversion of clearly-described changes is not "attempts of others to collaborate with you". Lying about the edits I have made is not that either. Once again, for the edits you object to, please simply identify the policies or guidelines that you think are relevant. And keep it truthful, eh? 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the consensus version of this article (per the edit warring notice board), and then went through the article to add back edits of yours that I could support. However, while I had the editing screen open to do this, you re-reverted for the 6th time, and thus I could not publish the results of my review.  You know this and are clearly an experienced editor on Wikipedia, however, your strong aversion to collaborating and discussing your changes, makes it impossible to work with you. Britishfinance (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said on your talk page: My edit could not possibly have prevented your edit from saving without you realising. The software simply doesn't work like that. No, you made it impossible to collaborate by a) repeatedly trashing my edits in their entirety, b) not even attempting to explain yourself until days later, c) refusing to communicate with me directly until just this morning, d) lying about your own and my edits. If you had, at the time, said something like "agree with grammar fixes, but reason for text X is guideline Y and policy Z", I'd have said something like "hey thanks, I did not know about guideline Y or policy Z and will endeavour to follow them in the future". But that was not the kind of interaction you wanted, was it? 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is exactly what I have done above (per the Review of Edits).  However, you re-reverted (for the 6th time) so fast, that I could not save my Review of Edits, having taken the time to go through them, one-by-one.  Even now, despite the fact that well over half of your edits have no support (from myself or the past editors who reverted you, per Review of Edits above), you continue to re-revert them?  Britishfinance (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, my edit did not stop your edit from saving; it could not possibly have done so as that's not how the software works. Really about time you grew up and stopped lying repeatedly. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to draw a line under this. Today, I reverted your 5th reversion to the consensus version (per Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring), pinged you from this article's talk page of my intention to go through each your edits to see which I could support (although you pointed out that the ping template I used does not work for IPs, however, it is clear you saw the ping as you acted immediately).  Instead of waiting as I completed my Review of Edits (per above), you re-reverted (for the 6th time) immediately.  That stopped me from being able to save my individual edits per the Review of Edits because of the edit conflict (as you know).  You still ignore consensus, and state your own edits are unilaterally correct. Britishfinance (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, my edit did not stop your edit from saving; it could not possibly have done so as that's not how the software works. And yet you keep on lying. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've rolled back the last few edits so that they can be properly discussed and consensus reached in the way that Wikipedia normally operates. Further editing without achieving consensus may constitute edit-warring and result in a ban. Bermicourt (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I have restored the edits by the IP that I would support now, and am happy to discuss any further changes they want to make. Britishfinance (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine - that counts as consensus. I'm happy to offer a third opinion in the event of a stalemate if that's felt to be helpful, as I haven't been involved in the dispute.Bermicourt (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be very helpful, and much appreciated. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that does not count as consensus. That is a ludicrous statement. Correct grammar is not even a matter of consensus. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Grammar and style
Nobody has made any serious attempt to justify the attacks on my work, which significantly improved the quality of the article. User:Britishfinance, who has made numerous false claims about their own and my edits, posted something which literally does not make sense and does not quote a single policy or guideline, despite me asking repeatedly for such to be given. The efforts of numerous editors to trash my work is truly bizarre. My edits were such basic common sense that it absolutely defies belief that anyone could have come up with any reason to oppose them. These policies and guidelines support what I did:
 * MOS:ACRO - "Do not apply special style, such as small caps, to acronyms. Do not apply italics, boldfacing, underlining, or other highlighting to the letters in the expansion of an acronym that correspond to the letters in the acronym, as in BX (Base Exchange). It is not necessary to state that an acronym is an acronym. Our readers should not be browbeaten with the obvious"
 * MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE - "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses"
 * MOS:NUMERAL - "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words"
 * MOS:BOLD - "Boldface is common in Wikipedia articles, but is considered appropriate only for certain usages... The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article in the lead section... Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases... for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section... Avoid using boldface for introducing new terms. Instead, italics are preferred (see § Words as words). Avoid using boldface (or other font gimmicks) in the expansions of acronyms"
 * WP:SUMMARY - "In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a link such as "Main page: Splitting", generated by the template "
 * WP:SELFRED - "Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found"

These specifically mandate the majority of my edits. Oddly enough, I cannot find a policy that explicitly says articles should be grammatically correct. I guess that's because it's assumed that Wikipedia editors are not stupid and do not need that to be explained to them.

So now, if you are here to build an encyclopaedia, if you have a good understanding of how to write well, if you are familiar with Wikipedia's general style guidelines, and if you still, somehow, object to my edits, you'll explain here exactly which policies or guidelines you think apply, and I will be pleased to learn of them. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your confrontational approach of "I'm right and you're all wrong" is not the way to win people over and make progress. You have not been appointed editor-in-chief of Wikipedia and cannot just ride rough-shod over anyone you disagree with. We are a community that aims to work together, building consensus in order to improve the sum of human knowledge. Yes, it's frustrating at times, but learning to overcome frustration, remaining civil, listening to others who have different perspectives, finding common ground and remaining chilled when common ground cannot be found straight away are not just part of developing Wikipedia, but good life skills too. You have much to contribute to Wikipedia and we want that, but you need to make those contributions in a collaborative and respectful way. Bermicourt (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not have a confrontational approach. I have described, carefully and at length, the policies and guidelines I am following. If you think I am wrong, and you think that the article should in fact be grammatically incorrect, then you need to quote the policies and guidelines that you think apply. And like I said, I will be pleased to learn of them. If instead you simply trash my edits in their entirety, yet again, then you're not here to improve the article, you're just here to play stupid games. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Regretfully, I have felt it necessary to place a second block on this IP editor, who is clearly well-meaning in their attempts to improve this article. However, their confrontational approach and constant reverting has been disruptive. as the two latest editors who've engaged with this experienced IP editor, I'm minded to keep in place their latest edits and asking you to return to those individual elements you don't agree with. Alternatively, I can revert back completely to this version by Bermicourt, and then ask you guys to take on board some of the suggestions made by the IP editor. I realise you might feel reluctant to revert yourselves - though please feel free to do so, but do then please try to address those concerns raised by the IP editor, as some seem quite valid to me at first sight. (As an aside, I'd quite like to see colons, not commas, in the long Infobox caption about Scafell, as this seems better grammar, and makes the sentence easier to read.) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm happy either way, but was trying to stay neutral in terms of the actual edits, so I'm happy for to lead and to support as required. Bermicourt (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. It's now a moot point as an independent editor has just reverted back to your (Bermicourt's) version, so lets start from there. You might all be interested to know that the IP was a LTA with a history of this type of positive but belligerent editing (see here) Rather sad and pathetic, really, especially when they have the potential to make worthwhile contributions. Oh well... Nick Moyes (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"British Isles"
Wikipedia uses "British Isles" to refer to the archipelago which comprises Ireland, Britain, Isle of Man, Channel Islands. It is a geographical term. There is discussion at British Isles naming dispute, and at Talk:British Isles/name debate. Those establish that the consensus is to use "British Isles" to refer to the archipelago, as it has been used in this article. Please do not change this. Pam D  18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)