Talk:The Outlying Fells of Lakeland

nameless tops
Only to note that Birkett lists names for some of these. Not that these are definitive, but a published name is better than none. The Naddle Horseshoe and Bannisdale spring to mind, certainly. Nice job on the page. Bobble Hat (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Developing the coverage
See my note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_and_Irish_hills where I've discussed what I've recently done and am doing. Pam D  09:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Map
I have added a map to the article since Wainwright's book seems deficient in that respect. There seems to be a problem with the Location map~ template so that sometimes the marks and annotation for a mountain are not clickable. This seems to be associated with nearby text rather than with the data for the mountain itself. By positioning the annotation carefully (top, right, bottom and left} I think I have got all the annotation, but not all the marks, to link properly. I'll see about raising this issue with the experts.

The latitudes, longitudes and elevations have been derived entirely from the table in the article after converting the grid references. I have not systematically checked these myself but in the course of sorting out problems I did not find any mistakes with the data in the table. Congratulations! Thincat (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have now found a very slight discrepancy. Wainwright reports Great Yarlside as being 1986 feet and this is reported properly in the text at "highest and lowest" and correctly converted to 605 m. The table gives 591 m which to me looks rather likely since the online OS map does not indicate a 600 m contour and, moreover, the database of British hills gives 591 m also. For what it's worth my 1960 Bartholomew's 1" map gives a height of 1937 feet. It looks like Wainwright got the height wrong. Thincat (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just seen this, 6 years later! The original height was 1936ft and was printed thus on 6 inch maps. It was misprinted 1986 on the 1:25000 map, causing Wainwright's error. The cartographer was misled too, as the map added two imaginary 25ft contours. See also https://www.hills-database.co.uk/database_notes.html#great_yarlside Hardy1769 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge with main Wainwright article
This is a very nice article which I think we should merge with List of Wainwrights in the Lake District. They could leverage each other's graphics and it would avoid confusion on what it a niche-topic? We could have one main article on all version of Wainwright climbs in the Lake District? Obviously, the merging would need to be carefully done which I am willing to try? Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, these are not Wainwrights. Full title "The Outlying Fells of Lakeland being a Pictorial Guide to the lesser fells ..." could be merged into Pictorial Guide to the Lakeland Fells 194.207.86.26 (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they are better kept as this separate listing - not least because of the different structure of the book, divided into multi-summit walks rather than a chapter per summit. They are certainly not "Wainwrights" in the sense of the group of 214 fells which keen walkers achieve. They are a different set, recognised in DoBIH, and this article fits its purpose. I did a lot of work on these fells in 2012, creating new articles for summits or walks to ensure that all the hills got a good sourced description (or mention, at least), and I don't see any confusion. I don't think I noticed Bf's post of 12 October 2018 above, or I'd have commented sooner.
 * Ah, I now see that Bf added a table of these fells to the main Wainwrights article, but I think this separate article and table preserve the ability to sort into chapter order, which is lost in the table downloaded from DoBIH. Pam  D  11:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)