Talk:List of mountains and hills of the British Isles by height

message: Can we clarify what this covers?  Snaefell is on the Isle of Man, which is strictly speaking not part of the United Kingdom.  Would it make more sense to re-name this article to cover the whole British Isles? RachelBrown 10:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The easier solution is to remove Snaefell and the other four Manx hills from the list. I would prefer, however, to see it expanded to cover the whole of the British Isles, since that makes at least geographical sense. That would require a re-naming, perhaps to List of British mountains and hills by height. --Stemonitis 11:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No way are the Irish going to stand for that! Perhaps List of mountains and hills of the British Isles by height would be best. Grinner 12:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So is that a general agreement that the British Isles should be treated together? --Stemonitis 13:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye from me. Grinner 15:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Fine. RachelBrown 11:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Good work Stem! I like the formatting too. Grinner 13:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks really good.  NevilleDNZ 05:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom? 

message: What are the intended criteria for including a mountain or hill in this list?  At the moment, it would appear to contain 249 Scottish 3000'+ hills (I presume all Munros, though I haven't checked).  Is it supposed to include all 284?  What about 2500–3000' hills?  Are the Scottish ones supposed to be Corbetts?  If so there appear to be three too many?  What about in England and Wales?  Are these supposed to be Hewitts?
At the moment, I think this list is too long — the page takes ages to render in my web browser.  One possibility would be to remove everything below 3000', though this would obviously bias it much more in favour of Scotland.  But if this were done, the page may as well be renamed a list of Munros + furths (assuming those are the criteria for inclusion).
An alternative would be to use some generally-recognised relative height cut-off (30 m, 100 m, 150 m, 300 m and 600 m, or their rough equivalents in feet, are the ones I've seen in use elsewhere, and in the spirit of WP:NOR, it should be one or more of these) and give either a top n list or a list down to some cut-off in absolute height.  This at least would make the list usefully different from those elsewhere in Wikipedia. — ras52 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For that information, you have to go back into history and study the creation of this article. Previously, there had been experiments with using categories to sort mountain and hill articles by height. Some people argued that that was an inappropriate use of a category and that instead a list should be created. The list should therefore contain any hill or mountain in the British Isles for which an article exists, and will (as some of us suggested at the time) inevitable be much too long for an article. If we were to limit it to Munros, Corbetts and Hewitts, it would be more or less redundant with regard to the List of Munros, List of Corbetts, List of Hewitts in England, and others. The trouble is that there are lots of hills that are considered important as local landmarks and that have helpful, informative articles, but are not included in any of the mountain lists. It would be a shame if they were not listed somewhere. At the moment, the only solution I can see is to turn this one into a list of mountains by elevation (along the lines you suggest), and to create a separate list of "hills not covered by any other listing", but I don't think that's a good solution. It would seem too much like a list of non-notable hills, I suspect. --Stemonitis 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The list should therefore contain any hill or mountain in the British Isles for which an article exists."  But about half of the list links to articles that do not exist.  If these were to be removed, the list would be a more appropriate size.  I can't help but feel that the article title is inappropriate if the intention is to include all mountains and hills with articles — perhaps something like List of articles on mountains and hills in the British Isles?  To me, the current title suggests that the list is intended to be an exhaustive or top-n list of hills matching some criteria.  — ras52 10:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I had a thought. Since we've already got lists for Marilyns, Munros, Hewitts, etc., should this list be restricted to notable hills that do not fulfil the criteria for any other listing? I do find this current list useful, for seeing what changes have been made to all the hill/mountain articles, whether new articles have been created and so on, but it's probably not very informative to a reader. It could always be moved into user-space to be used as a tool. I have made a list of hills below 2000' (no Hewitts, no Corbetts, no Munros) and below 150 m relative height (no Marilyns) which can be perused here; it also doesn't include Wainwrights, but it does include county tops. I decided to divide it by regions, because listing by height when they're all small hills didn't seem to make much sense. I would suggest that this new list, in combination with the existing lists of Hewitts, Marilyns, Wainwrights, Munros, etc., should cover everything worth mentioning, and might be a replacement for the current colossus. --Stemonitis 10:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what went wrong with your edit, but you do have to get the table format correct, otherwise you break the table.  There doesn't seem to be any record of your edit from your 86.19.154.18 IP address.  There is discussion about what hills to include, and Helsby Hill doesn't have an article, but I agree that it is locally well-known.  Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and never tells editors to "drop dead".  Edits that are against policy agreed by consensus of ordinary editors might get reverted, but this should always be explained.  I've added Helsby Hill for you. Dbfirs 11:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for inclusion?

message: This article was recently moved to List of mountains and hills of the British Isles and Ireland by 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) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest "List of mountains and hills in Britain and Ireland by height" per my comments here.  (Do we need "and hills"?)  —ras52 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am adding my vote to a renaming to the accurate and unprovocative "List of mountains and hills in Britain and Ireland by height" (Wikipedia article British Isles naming dispute). --O'Dea (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Support Ras52's idea.  Christopedia is presumably being ironic and his proposal is not to be taken seriously.  79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it as "...of the British Isles." Irealnd is part of the British Isles, so that covers it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name: "... in the British Isles" is enough 

message: In the table the Scottish peaks have the Scottish flag next to them, Welsh peaks the Welsh flag. Why do the N.I. peaks have a random outline of the country rather than the flag? Cls14 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not flag of Northern Ireland 

message: There are loads of tables on Wikipedia based on Corbetts, Hewitts and Munros etc but they are all for separate regions of the BI.  Therefore a table of all British Isle mountains by height, as this article gives, is useful.  However, the sourcing of this table is unclear (e.g. what is the definition of prominence etc), and it was built over a decade ago.  I propose replacing this table with the DofBIH data (best source in Britain) of say the top 1000 mountains by height in Britain and do a separate one on prominence.  In all cases, I will set the minimum prominence to 30 m. Britishfinance (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a new article List of British Isles mountains by height which gives a list of 2,700 British Isles mountains properly sourced and referenced which I think should now replace this article.  Because of this article's uncertain sourcing and prominence criteria, it is not useable.  Also, these databases of British Isles mountains get updated every year or so (prominence is a very difficult metric to measure accurately, and is constantly being revised), so having a highly formatted table with "flags" and links for each mountain is not a good idea for a stable long-term article. I suggest we delete or redirect this article to the new one. Britishfinance (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-do this table