Talk:List of Marilyns in England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Need for clean up re Lists of Marilyns

I'm very confused about how Marilyns are being listed on here. The "Category:Marilyns of England" lists them alphabetically if the tag is added to the page, eg Dundry Down which I've done some bits as part of work on the Chew Valley, they appear in alphabetical order while it appears on List of Marilyns in England under South Central England with the parent as Beacon Batch (Somerset), when Black Down and Walbery Hill (Berkshire) both are listed in South East England with the same parent. I'm not sure of the definition of "parent" as Beacon Batch & Dundry Down are oposite sides of the Chew Valley & doesn't comply with the rules at Topographic prominence. If these are going to be listed by area perhaps a section for the South West is needed & locations & parents need checking. Rod 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To take your points in turn:

• The fact that the regions used here (defined by a combination of geography and convenience) don't match the regions defined by topography (e.g. parents of peaks) should come as no surprise. It is easier to divide the peaks into England, Wales, Scotland, etc. (and regions therein) than to divide them into children (and descendants) of Scafell Pike, children of Beacon Batch, and so on.
• The parent of Dundry Down is indeed Beacon Batch. They are connected by a col 63 m above sea level at ST541586, at the head of the Chew Valley (and the valley of the River Yeo), south-east of the wonderfully-named village of Nempnett Thrubwell. To get to any other higher ground, you would have to cross the River Avon, which would involve going lower than 63 m.

--Stemonitis 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There are >1500 marilyns in Great Britain. How were these selected for the list? RJFJR 13:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

By loooking at a full set of OS maps, and determining how many hills had 150m or more of relative height. Grinner 09:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relative height threshold

Why has a 1000 ft drop been chosen as the threshhold for marking entries in bold? As the definitions of Marilyns is metric (150m drop) and it is difficult to obtain height and/or prominence data accurate to the nearest foot, wouldn't it be better to adopt a metric threshhold of 300m? In practice this won't affect the England list — there are no hills with a drop of 300–304m (inclusive), but Pegwn Mawr (region 31B) on the Welsh list would be affected, as will 14 Scotish Marilyns if that list gets converted to the tabular format. ras52 12:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the boldface from those relative heights that had it, partly to make it more consistent with the Welsh equivalent, but mostly out of distaste for the arbitrary nature of the threshold. 300 m is as bad as 1000 ft, and neither is particularly informative. Peaks with relative heights above the threshold have greater relative heights than those below the threshold, but beyond that, it conveys no information. If there were a meaningful natural break in the relative heights, then a threshold might mean something, but there isn't, and it doesn't. --Stemonitis 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)