Talk:Whernside

	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 Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Whernside is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Border

though the summit lies on the border between North Yorkshire and Cumbria

Would that be the real Yorkshire border or the part of Yorkshire that became part of the Shire county of Cumbria. If it is the latter then the statement doesn't fit in well with the earlier "highest point in Yorkshire" part. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire's High Point

10/07/2007

It has been the highest point within Yorkshire since the 1974 administrive boundry changes. It's easy to mistake the 1974 governmental administrative boundaries changes of Yorkshire (and of course other counties) that lost/gained a number of areas within their traditional areas, for example Middlesborough is Yorkshire despite what the administrators claim and the whole north of the Humber has (wow!!) now come back home. For a real map of Yorkshire you need to see a detailed map that shows the Yorkshire Ridings (North, East & West - there was never a South). For more information regarding the Yorkshire Ridings try this link http://www.yorkshire-ridings.org.uk/.Mac.trig 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC). The real 'top' of Yorkshire is Mickle Fell - Approx 10 miles NNE of Kirkby Stephen - at 788 metres. It is currently on MOD land, specifically the Warcop Estate, access is extremley limited and applications to the MOD must be made to visit the area. Somewhat unfortunatley the top doesn't have a trig point, this is sited over a mile to the east of the summit![reply]

The inclusion of terms such as a "modern Yorkshire" does seem confusing and inappropriate. I have revised to clear things up using more correct terminology and also retained a reference to the valid point of interest concerning Mickle Fell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.222.49 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs updating

The map shows the old boundaries of the YDNP from a few years back now and could do with updating if someone has the means to do that. thanks Geopersona (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A hill and a mountain

I see that there is more to-ing and fro-ing as to whether to describe Whernside as a hill or a mountain. Without wishing to criticise any party, this seems to me to be a waste of editors' time and energy. There will always be different perspectives on the subject as mountain and hill are not clearly defined. Yes, those who prefer ‘hill’ will find support for their position, so too will those who prefer ‘mountain’. It is perfectly possible for this eminence (is that a neutral term?) to be fairly described by either term and both – after all, these are cultural tags at least as much as physiographical ones.

A Scot may well talk of ‘going on the hill’ when referring to a much higher and rockier eminence, one which they may also describe as a mountain when talking more scientifically. I note that the list of ‘Marilyns of England’ at Peakbagger, which is one of the references, explains that Marilyns are ‘hills with 150m of prominence’. Some in that list like Scafell Pike and the Old Man of Coniston, we may well prefer to describe as mountains having the set of characteristics that typically accompany a mountain. A paragraph in an old copy of the official HMSO guide (1971) to the YDNP manages to describe the nearby, and similarly elevated, Howgill Fells as both hills and mountains within two adjoining sentences. These fells - Whernside, Ingleborough and others - are both; can we not accommodate that dual identity? Geopersona (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also my recent correspondence with The joy of all things re a similar issue at Ingleborough (though I wasn't involved in the edit war there or here, and personally, and entirely subjectively, I consider the Three Peaks to be mountains and have no problem with calling them that). I did, however, want to dispute the claim made in the edit summary, and in numerous sources, that the Ordnance Survey has some sort of formal definition of what does or does not constitute a "mountain" (usually either a summit over 600m, or 2000 feet, or something adjacent). This is widely believed, and reported as fact by numerous reputable sources such as the BBC and the Guardian, but I've never found anything published by the OS themselves that actually supports it, and I can't see any reason why the OS would appoint itself as referee in the matter. My gut feeling is that this is an appealing myth that has taken on the status of fact through mere repetition. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (this is a hill I'm prepared to die on

). Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly what you say is quite true - another example would be the 'fact' of the Severn estuary having the second highest tides in the world. It's demonstrably untrue but the myth will keep getting trotted out as truth! Geopersona (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]