Category talk:Mountains and hills of the Peak District

message: Currently Shining Tor appears in the main listing and Axe Edge Moor in the minor tops. They're very similar really, and on my edition of the Peak District Tourist Map both are picked out on the 'Area covered by the Map' on the back cover, together with The Roaches (already listed) and Black Edge, (of the tops near Buxton). Views?
Bob aka Linuxlad 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I'm not the happy distinguishing "minor tops" at all. It seem to me that such a thing is purely subjective, i.e. dependant on one's point of view. Shining Tor is a Marilyn, so obviously not a minor top, but for example, Mam Tor has no listng but is a well known hill, deserving of a wiki entry. Axe Edge Moor seems to fit into the latter categroy. I'm going to give a mountian box and listing in the main category anyway. Grinner 09:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Grinner; there is no objective criterion for a "minor top" (except possibly for relative height, but that's only one definition of "minor"). The best solution would be to list other tops that seem to be somehow interesting, and remove them as and when they get their own articles. I don't like the idea of drawing a dividing line between "major" and "minor" peaks at all, no matter where it's drawn. I suspect that the minor tops listing could be subsumed into the Peak District article, which would render this whole discussion void. --Stemonitis 10:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: My solution would be to make a page, say List of peaks of the Peak District, a list the Marilyns and Hewitts, and then have a selection of other peaks (which would basically be your list, plus any other peaks in this category that haven't already been mentioned, e.g. Mam Tor). Grinner 11:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: (Put the major/minor issue to one side a ticky). The division between peaks and tops is a fairly standard one in other GB mountain areas I suggest, and so seems preferable. The former should satisfy some sort of absolute or relative height criterion, though the Marilyns one is too stringent for the area, for the reasons I've mentionned. Tops should be 'named points of significant elevation'. Linuxlad 11:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, but unless there is an established criteria then we are running the risk of falling foul of the "No original research" rule. We can't unilaterilly decide what is peak or not, other than by using recognised listings. Grinner 11:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well OK how about calling the page List of peaks and tops of the Peak District? Seems overly long for mine though. Grinner 11:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A "List of peaks of the Peak District" would be fine, even if it includes tops as well, but couldn't it all be included in Peak District? And I still don't like the division into "peaks" and "tops" (= "minor peaks"). Why not just list the notable ones (notable for whatever reason) and mark those which are Marilyns, Hewitts, etc.? Or perhaps list all the peaks in the National Park with a rel. ht. of more than 50m, and only any others which have articles of their own. Trying to invent our own scheme of peaks and tops of the Peak District is going to lead to all sorts of problems. (Furthermore, having "peak" and "Peak District" in the same title suggests a link between the two, which there isn't.) --Stemonitis 12:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a 'minor top'?