Talk:Hill

message: Just an observation I made:
I like the fact that in the small sentence article, states: "Most hills are taller than 600 m".  Now, if you read the article on mountain, you will find a section which states: "the Encyclopaedia Britanica requires a prominence of 2,000 feet (610 m)".
Speaking in general, 10 m isn't a big difference.  So, the statment of most hills taller than 600 m can be considered mountains.  Not like this matters a whole lot, nor is it a serious issue.  Personally, I found this amusing.
:How is the article "Hill" in the category "Mountains"?
:Should there be a section "See also" which contains other related landforms (including, mountains?) - maybe the needs a template to be created which could be used on the articles for all landforms.
:Garrie 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United Kingdom geographers historically regarded mountains as hills greater than 1,000 feet (300 m) above sea level, which formed the basis of the plot of the 1995 film The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain. In contrast, hillwalkers have tended to regard mountains as peaks 2,000 feet (610 m) above sea level. The Oxford English Dictionary also suggests a limit of 2,000 feet (610 m). This has led to Cavanal Hill in Poteau, Oklahoma, receive billing as the "World's Tallest Hill" due to its height of 1,999 feet (609 m).
I think the text should be clarified that the real measurement is something like bast-to-summit height or topographic prominence that is independent of sea level.  The summit of Cavanal Hill is 2,385 feet (727 meters) above sea level, for example, but apparently it's been measured at only 1,999 feet (609 meters) above the surrounding valley floor.  And, if any mound of rock and dirt above 2,000 feet (610 meters) above sea level were a mountain, then there would be absolutely no hills at all in places like New Mexico or Tibet; even an ant hill could be classified as a mountain.Mike5816 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Indeed, this seems to me to be largely UK oriented, with what hillwalkers or the EB consider to be a hill. Wschart (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Brits (I'm one of them) do like talking about their hills and mountains and we do seem to enjoy the almost completely pointless debate over what the difference is between a hill and a mountain. Entertaining enough 'down the pub' - but otherwise of virtually no consequence - including I'd suggest in this article. I was concerned to see the inclusion of text under 'terminology' suggesting that there is an official UK government view on this matter - a view which puts mountains as summits over 600m - the given reference doesn't really support this, referring onward as it does to a (now defunct) page concerned with 'open country' definitions under the CROW Act 2000 in which 'mountain' (in terms of terrain) was defined as land over 600m above sea level - it wasn't intended to provide any sort of distinction between a 'hill' and a 'mountain'! The spectrum of landforms is much too varied to permit easy (or useful/sensible) distinction and the use of language in this regard is also far too varied - as others have noted - the Scotsman summiting 1344m high Ben Nevis will talk of 'going on the hill', a far less elevated eminence in Wales will be named on maps as 'X Mountain'. Much better to describe this situation ie one of rich variability. cheers Geopersona (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain 

message: it can be located in some desserts
What we need is somebody with a good geology book and an official definition of a hill, and it's not me :). J. Finkelstein 00:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What we need is 

message: Should there be a section on man-made hills? I give the example of Silbury Hill. Perhaps there are also more notable man made hills around? --Francisco Valverde 05:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's Fresh Kills Landfill, the largest man-made hill on the U.S. East Coast. Sayeth 14:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial hills? 

message: Is our definition too narrow? Do molehills, anthills etc. count? St jimmy 10:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of some of those terms before...if they're eventually put into the article, make sure you say that they're British :). Also, I agree that those terms should be included in here and some information from their own respective article pages. J. Finkelstein 04:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't forget kame, drumlin, dune... many of these distinctions could be encompassed in a "Processes of formation" section.Visviva 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree entirely: if there is enough to say about a kind of hill, then it should have its own article. If you think a bare list of references is insufficient here, then you could propose some kind of summary list which briefly described each kind of hill as well as linking to its article; but important terms like butte, tor, and pingo need proper articles to do them justice. I'd prefer to consider the debate concluded, as I don't think merging is a sensible option at all, and I haven't seen anyone cogently arguing in its favour. Myopic Bookworm 08:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to say that that is the commonly understood meaning in the English West Country as well - generally only the exposed rock would be regarded as the tor proper by most people. The Oxford English Dictionary gives both meanings - the whole hill and the rock on top of it.Necrothesp 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The similarities/differences between these terms should be discussed in the article. Feel free to add more. Sayeth 18:44, 4 April 2006  bvbjvb gu3(UTC)
*butte: a steep-sided hill
*pingo: hill formed by ice-heaving
*crag and tail: eroded volcanic plug
*knoll: small hill
*Marilyn (hill): hills in the British Isles with a relative height at least 150m
*tor: term used in England
also
*pen
*how
*ben
*knock
all terms from British isles St jimmy 11:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of some of those terms before...if they're eventually put into the article, make sure you say that they're British :). Also, I agree that those terms should be included in here and some information from their own respective article pages. J. Finkelstein 04:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't forget kame, drumlin, dune... many of these distinctions could be encompassed in a "Processes of formation" section.Visviva 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree entirely: if there is enough to say about a kind of hill, then it should have its own article. If you think a bare list of references is insufficient here, then you could propose some kind of summary list which briefly described each kind of hill as well as linking to its article; but important terms like butte, tor, and pingo need proper articles to do them justice. I'd prefer to consider the debate concluded, as I don't think merging is a sensible option at all, and I haven't seen anyone cogently arguing in its favour. Myopic Bookworm 08:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to say that that is the commonly understood meaning in the English West Country as well - generally only the exposed rock would be regarded as the tor proper by most people. The Oxford English Dictionary gives both meanings - the whole hill and the rock on top of it.Necrothesp 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar/related terms 

message: Against: An ant is a type of insect; this would be akin to merging Wiki:Ant into Wiki:Insects. -Ayeroxor 20:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into hill is ridiculous 

message: Well the consensus seems against merging Tor (geography), but for having a section detailing different types of hills. So that's what I've done. It's a bit short at the moment, concentrating on formations mentioned on this talk page and ones with articles that link to Hill. I think this section should be restricted to formations; any section on local names for hills in general should go somewhere else.Blisco 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action taken 

message: What is good practise for interwikis if "hill" (can) have multiple meanings in other languages? For instance in Slovene "grič" and "hrib" mean, translated to English, (roughly) the same. At this time "grič" leads here, but "hrib" does not have any interwikis, althought it might have in a right sense. Similar is (as far as I know) for instance in Russian, where we have холм. A definition of 'grič' in Slovene Wp is that it is a rising ground with relative elevation of 50 to 200 m. What is higher is generally considered as 'hrib'. Similar with the definition in Encyclopaedia Britanica for hill/mountain and in Slovene both terms in colloquial usage often interweave. Russian article also gives elevation limit for 'холм' 200 m. Another example of different usage of hill is: Roman hills (similar in Serbian: Римски брежуљци, but Ватиканско брдо for Vatican Hill (Russian uses one term: Холмы Рима and Ватиканский холм)). In fact I do not know the correct Slovene term for Vatican Hill (I might ask one geographer). Similar the Kalvarija Hill in Maribor and other Calvaries around the place are designated as 'grič'. On the other hand Slovene would use 'hrib' for hill if toponym is very known, although now I can't think of one ... And of course Slovene for foreign toponyms uses original names: Battle of Bunker Hill would be 'bitka pri Bunker Hillu' and so forth. English uses also hill in Sparrow Hills, Poklonnaya Hill, toponyms for Воробьёвы горы, Поклонная гора. German here uses 'Berg' ('Sperlingsberge'), French 'Mont Poklonnaya'. --xJaM (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar/related terms in other languages 

message: I came here looking for a definition of rolling hills, and was redirected to Hill, with no explanation. It's just an odd expressions, and I think there should be a sentence on here about them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.147.17 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Disappointed. --217.226.94.72 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Hills 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hill. 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/20130330062754/https://metricviews.org.uk/2008/09/what-is-a-mountain-mynydd-graig-goch-and-all-that/ to http://metricviews.org.uk/2008/09/what-is-a-mountain-mynydd-graig-goch-and-all-that/
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) 11:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This line troubles me: "while the official UK government's definition of a mountain is a summit of 600 meters (1,969 ft) or higher" partly because the ultimate source ('UK govt', in fact an act of parliament) uses 'metres' rather than 'meters' - I have just been reverted on that but, despite the usual insistence on consistency which I agree with, I thought this use ought to reflect the source. But secondly and perhaps more significantly the source is not attempting to define 'a mountain' (and certainly makes no mention of summits as the immediate source (which is a blog, though now just its archived copy) does) but within the narrow confines of the CROW Act 2000 to simply define land which is 'mountain', a category of land type which is to be available for public access. Might it be better if the text was simply removed as being misleading? Geopersona (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of a mountain in UK