Talk:Scout Scar

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Scout Scar is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British and Irish hills

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British and Irish hillsWikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hillsTemplate:WikiProject British and Irish hillsBritish and Irish hills articles

Height of Scout Scar

According to the Hill Bagging website the height of Scout Scar is 233 metres[1], not the 235 metres given by Peakery [2]. Hill Bagging heights are based on the Ordnance Survey maps so I think we should go with that measure. (Peakery, by the way is an American website. Why use it at all?] Michael Glass (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, the Wainwright summit that your reference gives the height for is 7 feet lower than the main peek, so the figure of 771 feet (235 m) currently given in the article is correct, as far as I can tell. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you claim that the Peakery data is more correct than the UK's Ordnance Survey data? In a case like this, the OS data is the gold standard. Michael Glass (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, please show me where you think I made the claim that "the Peakery data is more correct than the UK's Ordnance Survey data". Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, you missed this question. Please show me where you think I made the claim that "the Peakery data is more correct than the UK's Ordnance Survey data". Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, I deny having claimed "that the Peakery data is more correct than the UK's Ordnance Survey data". Please justify that question. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your comment. Perhaps the typo (peek) in your original comment contributed. I didn't realise that there were two peaks. However, I do believe that the data in the UK's Ordnance Survey is the gold standard, and we should use their data in preference to data derived from a site that anyone can edit. See below.Michael Glass (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think we all need to be very careful with how we interpret or paraphrase the comments of others. Apart from anything else, false representation can cause offence, raise hackles more, and create unnecessary diversions and bitterness! Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have made a very good point. It's too easy to misinterpret what others say. I hope you have understood that my main contention was about using Peakery as a source of information. I'll deal with that in more detail later. Michael Glass (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peakery is not a reliable source

Speccy4Eyes Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users."

Peakery is such a website. Just about anyone can edit it. That is why it is in error in this instance, and that is why Peakery is not acceptable as a source of information. Michael Glass (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, I'll look at your link later, but in the meantime, as you assert that "it is in error in this instance", can you offer evidence that it is in error please. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speccy, the evidence is already before you. The best source of information on the height of hills and mountains in the UK is the Ordnance Survey. If the OS says one thing and Peakery says another, then you can take it for granted that Peakery is wrong. And while you're at it, remember that anyone can edit Peakery, so quoting it is like quoting the wind. It's only as good as the last editor. Michael Glass (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, I see no evidence. Where are you seeing the OS saying one thing and Peakery another?

Secondly, it would appear that Peakery is used in 100s of other Wikipedia articles, so seems to be trusted by other editors, and the link you give allows self-published sites if by experts. Also, as far as I can tell, Hill-bagging is a similar private and personally published website, so probably technically unreliable too. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speccy4Eyes, Hill Bagging web pages link to the OS maps, so the data that they give on the height of hills and mountains can be verified; Peakery is an American wiki that virtually anyone can edit. Take the time to look at the evidence. Michael Glass (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Speccy4Eyes: @Michael Glass: If you follow Michael's link above to Hillbagging, it explains that its summit is the "Wainwright summit" (the viewpoint marked on OS maps), and that there is a higher summimmit 270m to the north. This higher summit is the one marked on OS maps as 235m. Click on the map link from Hillbagging, or the coordinates link from the WP article, to see OS maps at both 1:25000 and 1:50000 - both summits are clear on both. There is a second Hillbagger record for the higher summit. I might try and explain this lot in the article. PamD 22:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, thank you for explaining that there are actually two peaks, one at 233 metres and the other at 235 metres. Yes, both should be explained in the article. Michael Glass (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, yes, thanks for clarifying that. It is exactly what I meant in my first contribution above, when, in reply to the statement questioning my early correction to that figure, I said: "the Wainwright summit that your reference gives the height for is 7 feet lower than the main peek". Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Speccy4Eyes: Yes, you did say so, I see. It all got a bit WP:TLDR by the time I noticed the pair of you slugging it out here! Anyway, I hope the article is now a bit clearer. PamD 22:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, yes, much better, thanks for that. Sorry if our behaviour was unbecoming, I am sure we are both old enough to know better! Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I started the whole thing off by creating the article based on Wainwright and not spotting the higher summit on the OS map - apologies! I also didn't add the "Outlying fells" template at that stage - it might have been the first article I created in my little project to list them all, as it's the first one in the book, so I hadn't got into the swing of things yet. The article is now in much better shape than when it first cropped up on my watchlist the other day. I must get up there again - it's a fabulous viewpoint for a modest walk, though I haven't done AW's recommended circuit yet. PamD 09:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peakery

Here is why we really can't rely on Peakery:

If you go to Peakery and enter Scout Scar you get this:

It contains the following hotlink: "Can't find a peak? Add it!" Anyone with a Facebook account or an email account could add information.

This sounds like what is described here:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

What do others think?.Michael Glass (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, as the Peakery website is linked to more than 250 Wikipedia articles, I think you need to consult with the editors of all those too to see what they think. We haven't uncovered any inaccuracies with it here, so I don't see a problem. Also, the other website that you have mentioned, hill-bagging.co.uk also falls foul of WP:RS, being a personal self-published website. If you still have doubts about reliability, perhaps you should take them both to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a broader and more informed and objective discussion. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures. I'll take up your suggestion. Are you sure you are a relatively new editor? Michael Glass (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, please cut the sarcasm, I may not have been here as long as you, but I can read. If you had read the guideline link you gave just above, where you said "This sounds like what is described here:", you might not have needed to rely on me to relay it for you. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]