This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
See my note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_and_Irish_hills#Wainwright.27s_Outlying_Fells where I've discussed what I've recently done and am doing. Pam D 09:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
See my note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_and_Irish_hills#Wainwright.27s_Outlying_Fells where I've discussed what I've recently done and am doing. Pam D 09:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)