Talk:Cotswolds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Counties

What does the term 'counties' signify here? If recent administative then there should be at least two more, South Glos., and BANES. If recent ceremonial it should include Avon.

The list given only makes sense as the counties list in a very limited time-frame. Linuxlad 22:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (resident of South Glos.)

The convention has grown up on Wikipedia that when describing geographical locations in England (such as the Cotswolds) we use the current ceremonial counties. The main justification is that these are (a) formally defined and (b) commonly understood. The alternative of traditional counties fail tests (a). The alternative of administrative counties fails test (b), especially since HMG made such an inconsistent pigs-ear of the way it went about creating unitary authorities (eg. some unitaries were given administrative county status, others were not even though the administrative county they were previously in was abolished).

On that basis, I think the previous list of counties was correct, in that South Gloucestershire is part of the ceremonial county of Gloucestershire and BANES is part of the ceremonial county of Somerset. I will clarify this in the article. -- Chris j wood 12:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see you already had. I've put a brief clarification in the 'where' para of the header section, and moved the substance of your clarification to separate section, as I didn't think exact county details merited the prominence of its own paragraph in the header section. -- Chris j wood 12:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If that's WP policy, well so be it - If so it's the first time I've seen it thus stated. In an area like this (10 miles North of Bristol) the policy does NOT appear the most sensible one and has a rather antidiluvian feel! I'd have thought most people would have expected the use of admin counties. I doubt most people in South Glos have the slightest idea which man with the feathered hat is theirs! (later - just checked with wife and 17yr old son. Both gave their county as South Glos and had not the slighest idea which ceremonial county they were in - and I only know because I was a councillor during the pre-1995 review, and noted the recommendation on L/Ls as being potentially confusing.)

Usage of ceremonial counties is thus a policy you are doomed to explain afresh each usage! Linuxlad 08:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

A blurred picture of some trees and sky - surely this cannot be notable! CustardJack 13:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the article that has to be notable, not any images. The photo is supposed to convey what it is like to travel through the Cotswolds. I'm happy to delete it if the consensus is that the photograph isn't appropriate. --Etimbo | Talk 14:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article, and should not be there, IMO. Grinner 15:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Are we are talking about "Horse in a field of buttercups"? If so then I like the pic very much and it illustrates Cotswolds just fine (I live close by, in Yate, near Bristol). Yes, the pic could show almost anywhere in the UK but the uploader chose to put it under Cotswolds. It should stay - Adrian Pingstone 12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fans of the Cotswolds

who was the famous american president who used to cycle through the cotswolds and like england alot becuase of it. was it fdr?

Spam?

I've been pointed to discuss the recent edit on this and other national parks pages. In each case a link has been put in to "bedsearcher". At best I don't see it as useful (the link comes up with nothing found!), at worst it is at least a form of spam. Opinions sought thanks. --Nigel 08:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What's 'in the Cotswolds'?

Well few people round here (Thornbury) would think Berkeley is 'Cotswolds'. Neither does Pevsner who carefully splits Gloucestershire between Cotswolds, and Vale & Forest of Dean editions, placing Berkeley (and Thornbury) firmly in the latter. We used to fight long turf wars on this on Stroud DC, where the geographic division essentially coincided with the political division also! Linuxlad 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link to Berkeley Castle, it most definitely is not in the Cotswolds, as you said - Adrian Pingstone 08:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But what about Chipping Sodbury? The town itself is clearly down on the plateau, though its main street has a Cotswold feel, like Cirencester. And some of the Sodbury outliers like Old Sodbury are clearly Cotswolds. Little Sodbury is passed by the Cotswold Way so I'd certainly count that. All in all the town is similar to Cheltenham, which advertises itself (IIRC) as 'the gateway to the Cotswolds'. I'd let the link stay in the links list, with a qualifier. Bob aka Linuxlad 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

File:Cotswold.aonb.near.yate.arp.jpg

AONB near Chipping Sodbury

To help the discussion here's a map of the precise location of the AONB boundary (yellow) outside Chipping Sodbury. I didn't draw the line, I grabbed it off one of the official AONB sites but I unfortunately didn't note its web address - Adrian Pingstone 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to confirm what I wrote, so the new point is...?

Linuxlad 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a "new point" I just thought the map was interesting! - Adrian Pingstone 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple of government websites with Cotswold AONB maps (including the one excerpted above)

• http://www.cotswoldsaonb.com/map.asp
• Cotswold AONB Magic interactive map (slow on first load)

I am not sure how accurately the AONB boundary matches with what has been traditionally known as the Cotswolds. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Link request

Hello I would be grateful if you would consider adding my website to the external links for the Cotswolds. URL is [removed as blacklisted] and is the sister site to [removed as blacklisted] which is linked on your Chilterns page. Many thanks

Sim Bowman Owner - [removed as blacklisted]80.42.67.106 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't put your site on the article because Wikipedia does not allow sites that are entirely an advert, as yours is. Sorry but that's the rule. I know that some of the sites, already on the article, include accommodation but they have much else about the Cotswolds so we accept that. Unfortunately, now you've mentioned it, the Chilterns link will have to go (if still there) - Adrian Pingstone 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Counties

Sort of continuation from the "What's 'in the Cotswolds'?" bit, and I agree to Hroðulfs point. What defines the edges? I wouldn't go on goverment maps for one. I think they are more to control tourism than to state where the traditional cotswold area is.

The 2nd paragraph reads "The Cotswolds lie within the current ceremonial counties of Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire. The county of Gloucestershire forms the largest area of the Cotswolds.". I don't think this is stated quite right. Although it does say that "Gloucestershire forms the largest area of the cotswolds" I think it would be better to say that the cotwolds lie mostly within Gloucestershire, but continue into the edges of etc. etc. Of the other counties I was surpised to see some there, although I think it is correct as long as its stated that they only lie along the edges of some counties such as oxfordshire or wiltshire.

I say this becuase I spent a large period at school in the very North of oxfrodshire, and people did consider it to be in the cotswolds but only a short drive south and you were not. I live in South-Northants, where after banbury the hills reappear in a lesser form to make the south-northants uplands. I wouldn't consider it part of the cotswolds, but if worcestershire is, then I would. Some of my family have lived for many generations in wiltshire now in a village next to Corsham (wich is one of the photographs on the page) and they would not consider themselves to be in the cotswolds, but again in the hills that continue on in a lesser form to the south.

Where exactly it falls could varie depending on what defines it; the hills, the stone, or the district, but in short I think the opening bit should say something more along the lines of...(but put better!) "The Cotwolds mostly lie within Glousetershire but continue up onto the edges of Warwickshire and Oxfordshire, and run off into other hill formations in Wiltshire, Somerset, Northmaptonshire*, and Worcestershire**.

• = Put there as if some of the other counties are there, then should it be?

• • = Worcestershire doesnt really contain part of the cotswolds, nore does it contain smaller hills that are a continuation from the cotswolds. I havn't checked this, but If I recall correcly Evesham is the nearest town to the cotswolds, but sits a few miles north of the very definate Northern edge of the wolds.

Thanks, (OSM/User:Ben.) 03:34 29th January 2007 (UTC)

And Bredon Hill is where, exactly :-) ?? Linuxlad 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

There are too many external links. Some are commercial, some just aren't relevant. I am going to remove some but would appreciate others taking a look as well. --Cheesy Mike 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree , I have purged a many of them that seemed advert studded. Think some of the others are verging on relevancy but someone else can veto those. GameKeeper 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

I removed this from the article as it is unsourced and makes no sense:

Kate Winslet's character Iris in The Holiday lived in a small cottage in The Cotswolds / Surrey.

Though I am not a fan of pop culture lists, I know others are, so I generally leave well alone. However in this case there seems to be some dispute as to whether the scene was set in Surrey or in the Cotswolds. And no sources are offered for me to check. So I merely moved the sentence to talk in case someone wishes to research it further. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I type this with The Holiday showing on my television, with IMDB open in another browser window and with 30 years of experience of living in and around the Cotswolds. The plot of the movie has Cameron Diaz's character, Amanda, seeking a holiday location to get away from it all. She uses a fictitious home-exchange holiday website to search for a venue, starting in the UK. She then selects Cotswolds as a potential location but rejects it when the property details reveal a rather run-down exterior view. She then selects Surrey which leads her to the quaint country cottage that she eventually ends up staying in, belonging to Kate Winslet's character, Iris. Therefore, the plot of the film locates the cottage in Surrey, and IMDB suggests the filming location is there too. It also suggests, however, that at least one exterior location is shot in Chipping Norton. Given that the plot of the movie specifically rejects the Cotswolds as a venue and centres on Surrey, I think there's no support for mentioning this in the article on the basis of a brief location shooting. If we were to include every movie that isn't set in the Cotswolds as being notable, it could make the article quite lengthy... Weasley one (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No References

I was surprised to see that this article has zero references. Get to it folks! ~MDD4696 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Name?

Where did the name Cotswolds come from? That should be in the article (or maybe I missed it) --AW (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The answer is yes, it should be on the article. Here is the answer, and again here (last but one definition). WP:BOLD - so go find some more references add it to the article! --TimTay (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

County confusion

I'm in a quandry. Within the Wikiproject Worcestershire I've been reviewing a lot of articles related to Worcestershire but I'm not sure about including this article within the scope of the Worcs project.
One poster wrote above:
**= Worcestershire doesnt really contain part of the cotswolds, nore does it contain smaller hills that are a continuation from the cotswolds. I havn't checked this, but If I recall correcly Evesham is the nearest town to the cotswolds, but sits a few miles north of the very definate Northern edge of the wolds.
So how does this figure from the Broadway article:
Broadway is a small Cotswold village in Worcestershire, England. Often referred to as the 'Jewel of the Cotswolds', Broadway village lies beneath Fish Hill on the western Cotswold escarpment. --Kudpung (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the interactive map on the Cotswolds AONB website and see how much the AONB's designated area extends into Worcestershire. It leaves me in no doubt that this belongs in the Worcestershire wikiproject. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The WikiProject Worcestershire will continue to include this article within its scope.--Kudpung (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

Bob, I am not pushing "my" images I am pushing quality images of any kind that I can find. If I can't find them I go take them myself. Check the dates. The image of the horse in the buttercups is utter crap to me as a photographer. It should be replaced with something like a view off the Cleeve Common as that is what the Cotswolds looks like...not a horse. Nevertheless, at first I left it there but after looking at the layout I thought one image in that section was better. I chose the better photograph. I gave thought to moving it down to the next section but went and found something more appropriate from the Commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffron Blaze (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes say it like I see it (see WP:DUCK) and when I see someone putting three of their own images into the article then pushing out another person's I start to get suspicious. If you want to put better images in there that's great, but please consider using other people's images as well. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting suspicious and making an accusation have more than a semantic difference between them. Calling as you see it is not really an excuse for the latter. As to other people images, I consider how they would feel every time, but I am not going to let uninteresting or poor quality images stand when I or someone has placed something in the commons that is clearly better. Nevertheless, this is why I look more to fill voids than replace as it is likely to draw less ire from a fellow photographer. Regardless, the replacements I have made seem warranted. As warranted as your change wrt to Gloucester. A simple check of http://maps.cotswoldsaonb.com/, the official site, makes it clear neither Gloucester nor Cheltenham are in the Cotswold AONB and as such should be removed from the article altogether. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll be nicer next time. Apologies. I'll also remove Cheltenham. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate having someone around to keep the standards up and thereby learn from it. My skin will no doubt thicken over time :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Repitition

There's an awful lot of repitition in this article at present. It needs a severe copyedit to sort this out. --Ef80 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like every main point in the sections was repeated in the lede. Probably a slight trim of the lede's excesses would be sufficient. However, the lede is actually well written whereas the rest of the article could use a bit of professional grade c/e. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have attended to the above observations with regard content and duplication.Billy from Bath (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A disagreement about a footnote.

At the moment user:Speccy4Eyes and I seem to have reached an impasse about a footnote. I added a footnote about the height of Cleeve Hill, quoting the Hill Bagging website (it came up near the top of a Google search and referred to British maps). This gave the height as 330m /1083ft. However, the article gave the height of the hill as 1,083-foot (330 m). To preserve the present arrangement I flipped the display so that the feet still came first in the article: 1,083-foot (330 m). Speccy4Eyes, not satisfied with this, reversed my edit, claiming that he "restored the height as was prior to this edit sequence..."

I believe that it is preferable to cite the figures correctly and flip the display. I believe that this is in accordance with MOSNUM which says as follows:

• Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary.

Speccy has further claimed that any number of sites give the height in feet. However, a Google search of Cleeve Hill + height gave the feet first in:

The Walking Englishman [1]

However, the web pages that put height first in metres included:

Hill Bagging [2]

Mountain Views [3]

Cheltenham for You {http://www.cheltenham4u.co.uk/prestbury_cleevehill.asp?area=Prestbury]

Saturday Walking Club [4]

Three of the four links provided by Google on its first page are metric first, so that claim looks a bit shaky, too.

It seems pretty clear to me that the most correct course to follow would be to flip the display as MOSNUM recommends. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with the footnote. The footnote is fine by me. Michael Glass is misrepresenting my concern about a different matter. Let me explain.

The last sentence of article introduction reads: "The highest point of the region is Cleeve Hill at 1,083 ft (330 m),[2] just to the north of Cheltenham." - that is perfectly clear, and undisputed. And as the standing consensus seems to be that the primary unit for this statement is the imperial unit of feet, and there is no dispute over that.

Clearly though this, as a statement of fact, needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. Prior to the recent edit sequence, the underlying wiki code looked like this: "The highest point of the region is [[Cleeve Hill]] at 1,083 ft (330 m),<ref>{{ [a dead link] }}</ref> just to the north of Cheltenham." In this edit, Michael Glass replaced the dead link with a live link, at the same time introducing an instance of the {{convert}} template to do the conversion maths. A good idea.

However, rather than following the article's convention and putting the imperial measure as primary in the template like this: "{{convert|1083|ft|m|abbr=on}}" which renders like this: "1,083 ft (330 m)", he put the metric measure as primary, and used the "flip" command like this: "{{convert|330|m|ft|abbr=on|order=flip}}" which also renders like this: "1,080 ft (330 m)".

That, I believe, was unnecessary, making the wiki code convoluted and unclear, and it actually resulted in the wrong height value in feet anyway. So when I saw it I changed it (with a full and clear explanation in my edit summary) to the simpler form, which more closely mirrored the desired presentation anyway. Michael Glass disagreed, reverting me (and tweaked the template commands to give the correct feet value). I again restored the simpler version, which more closely resembled the original text and kept to the spirit of imperial as primary in this instance.

Summary

The only dispute here, that I am aware of, is whether the text "1,083 ft (330 m)" (which is either way going to be presented to the reader with imperial as primary for whatever historical reason) should be wiki-coded as:

• {{convert|1083|ft|m|abbr=on}} (and more closely resemble the status quo wiki-code and preserve the imperial primary spirit)

or

• {{convert|330|m|ft|abbr=on|order=flip}} (to remove all trace of imperial units from the wiki-code with no good reason or justification for so doing being apparent)

Note too that the current source makes either variation directly verifiable stating as it does: "Height: 330m / 1083ft". I am sure too that, even if it was (inconceivably) judged that the current source does not make the imperial measure directly verifiable, that it could easily be directly verified from any one of numerous other sources without resorting to wiki-coding in metric and using convert+flip. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how Speccy4Eyes can claim that he does not have a problem with the footnote, and then write several paragraphs about his problem with the footnote. It makes about as much sense as arguing that 330m/1089ft does not give first place to 330m.

By writing ""Height: 330m / 1083ft" the source made it clear that 330 metres was primary. This is also demonstrated by the fact that every other measurement on that web page was metric, with no conversion to feet. It is also demonstrated by the fact that the information was drawn from official maps, which have been primarily metric for decades. It is further demonstrated by the fact that most alternate web pages also put the height in metres.

MOSNUM makes it clear what is recommended when a source uses a different primary measurement from the one in the article:

"* Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary."

In using the order=flip coding I was following MOSNUM. If Speccy4Eyes has a problem with this recommendation, then he should take it up with MOSNUM. Michael Glass (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, you are definitely misrepresenting me now. None, zero, zilch of my previous contribution discusses or raises concerns about the footnote. In fact the footnote is just fine in my opinion, especially since I improved it by adding the url to the cite.

And as I describe on my talk page, the issue is nothing to do with which units you perceive or argue to be primary in the cited source, it is about whether the cited source uses the unit "feet" when describing the height of the hill, or not. MOSNUM is clear about that in its WP:UNITS section, saying:

"Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary."

The pertinent phrase being "Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source". The article's primary units DO NOT differ from the units given in the source. The article's primary unit for the fact in question here is "feet" and one of the units given in the source for that fact is "feet". There is no requirement to use the other unit from the source and then invoke the clause about "flip". That would be ridiculous. What do you disagree with there, it could hardly be more straightforward? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Speccy, Please look at the source. The height in metres comes first, followed by the height in feet. This means that the height in metres is primary. The information in the website is based on Ordnance Survey maps, which give the height of hills in metres. It would be better to base the information on the relevant Ordnance Survey map. However, another way of coping with your objection would be to put the height of the hill without the convert template and then in the footnote have the following quotation: "Height:330m / 1083ft" In that way you would get rid of the order=flip notation that you object to and I would get the flipping of the display duly noted. Michael Glass (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with the article as it is. We do not need to speculate where the writers of the source got their information from, or whether the feet were calculated from the metres, or vice-versa. All we are doing with the source is using it to make the "1083 feet" value verifiable, which it undoubtedly does in the line that reads: "Height: 330m / 1083ft" (my emphasis). I see no problem with this, it is that simple. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Speccy, you might be satisfied with the article as it is but I am not. The reason is, as I have stated before, that it hides the fact that the source puts the metric height first. You can understand my objection because you were not happy with my previous edit which did not reveal that the source also said 1083ft. My proposal therefore gives us both what we want: it gives you what you want (the imperial height in the note) and what I want (the fact that the metric height was placed first).

You said ' "Height: 330m / 1083ft" (my emphasis). I see no problem with this,"' I take it therefore that you would have no problem with putting this quotation in the footnote. Michael Glass (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see the significance of emphasising how that particular source chose to present the units. The point of a source here is to make the height verifiable, that the "1083 feet" is verified is all we need from the source. It might be different if the height was disputed, or if the values given by the source for feet and metres were not equivalent, or if the source was not online and difficult for readers to consult. But none of those exceptions apply here. To place any emphasis on this single source would not be valuable as we could have chosen one of a number of sources that confirm the 1083 figure, and one which didn't give the metre equivalent, or one that gave it in a different format. There is no compelling reason to use the Hill Bagging source over any of the others, so no need to put any relevance on the style it chooses to relay the information. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

My only comment on this dispute would be to point out that, to the best of my knowledge, surveying in the UK is normally done in metres, so one would expect the primary units of measurement in such a context to be metric. OS maps typically display elevations in metres. The existing MOSNUM guidelines about UK articles do not recommend imperial units for measuring elevations of terrain, so there is no Wikipedia-related reason why such a measurement should not be metric-first. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Archon 2488, we are not writing about the art, or science, of surveying in the UK, and so are not too interested (with respect to this article) in what units are, or have been used in the past, for that. Similarly for OS maps, that's not too interesting here either - I know that one time they were imperial, and now they are metric.

What we are discussing though (believe it or not!) is whether we should use feet values straight or metre values with a flip, for the parameters in the convert template being used. I say feet because it keeps the convert clean and transparent, preserves the imperial spirit of the article and is easily verifiable from reliable sources. Michael Glass says use metres, but I haven't yet managed to understand his reasoning as to exactly why, but I think it adds an unnecessary level of complexity and obfuscation to the convert template and undermines the imperial spirit being preserved in the article. Do you have an opinion either way on this? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is almost the definition of arguing over nothing. I'd expect that you could easily verify either one directly from reliable sources, and you could use a trivial calculation to check that the imperial and metric values are consistent with one another, regardless of which value your source gave. Wikipedia markup doesn't have particular style guidelines to follow, that I know of. All that matters is the end product. This is why "order=flip" exists, right? So the primary displayed unit is not dependent on the choice of input unit.

Relating to your other point: I'd personally expect that articles such as this would report elevations primarily in metres, since that is the more modern convention used by the likes of the Ordnance Survey. Using feet is definitely old-fashioned, except perhaps to compare to nominal values such as the definition of a Munro. There is no good MOS-related reason, in this case, why an elevation should not be given primarily in metres. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and there is nothing wrong with the way the present source is currently used. It supports the statement adequately and "flip" is not desirable (or necessary) as it would add nothing, but it would make the the wiki code more confusing.

On your other, unrelated, point. Perhaps if the article was written from scratch today, it would use metres. On the other hand, as much of the literature in this area, particularly the British printed material, still uses feet, then who could say. It would be down to personal preference or just chance as to what the main reference material used. Either way, the present article historically uses feet, and I can't imagine any reason why it needs changing - it would be nothing more than change for the sake of change. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Speccy,

• You have stated on more than one occasion that "we could have chosen one of a number of sources that confirm the 1083 figure", However, you have not produced one source to back up your claim. Why did you make this claim and then fail to back it up?
• If you go to the Hill Bagging web page there is a link to the Ordnance Survey map of the area. If you look at it you will see that the height of the hill is given as 330 metres. This is clear and definitive evidence that 330 metres is the official height of the hill and is the primary measurement of both the hill and the Hill Bagging website.
• See this link [5] If you click on the show map hotlink it will take you directly to the OS map in question. This makes the Hill Bagging web page of particular value, because it can take the reader directly to the relevant Ordnance Survey map.
• In view of the fact that the Ordnance Survey map can be accessed from the Hill Bagging website it is obvious that the original measure was in metres. The hotlink to the actual map is a pretty compelling reason for using this particular web page.
• The Ordnance Survey map accounts for the fact that Hill Bagging puts the metric measure in first place.
• My offer of a quotation from the web page was designed to make allowance for your concern that both measures should be included.
• Despite this good faith offer which took into account your stated objection to using the convert template on 330 metres, you are still insisting on an arrangement that implies that the original measure was in feet. Why? Michael Glass (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want me to go through all that again? Yes? Okay, here goes, I shall address each of your points in the order in which you wrote them:

1. It is self evident. I'm sure that you can use Google search as well as I can to find 1000s of webpages to sift through, including the one you supplied and which is currently cited in the article, that give the height as 1083 feet. I could waste hours listing them all here, but won't. Additionally there are offline resources such as guide books, gazeteers, etc. I have a book in my bookcase here (Beautiful Britain: Heart of England. AA Publishing. 1988. p. 24. ISBN 0861457234.) that states "Cleeve Cloud (1083ft) the highest point in the Cotswolds", and Google can offer a few too. Then there are OS maps, this online one from the 7th one-inch series (surveyed 1958, published 1959) gives the hill heigh as 1083 feet, this one from the 1956 10-mile series gives the hill height as 1083 feet.
2. There is no requirement placed on us to use the same source for our article as the Hill Bagging website use for theirs. They have done the research (presumably) and give the height as 1083 feet, we can then use their figure directly - using them as the reference to verify it. The older OS maps give the height as 1083 feet - are they now wrong?
3. Same as 2 above.
4. Same as 2 above.
5. Same as 2 above.
6. No quote is required for such an unambiguous and easily verifiable fact. There are probably 100s of alternative reliable sources that we could use, and many of them don't even mention metres, if you really think that yours (the Hill Bagging one currently used) is inadequate.
7. I am not implying any such thing, although you'll probably find that the hill was measured in feet before it was measured in metres. It could even be that the feet measurements were converted to metres for the first metric maps, depending on when, or even if, the hill was re-surveyed in metres. But our job is not to speculate, all we need do is use reliable sources to make what we write, the "1083 feet" bit, verifiable.

I really hope that helps. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that Archon has proposed changing the display to metres first, I support it. It's in accordance with MOSNUM, the source that is quoted and with modern British maps. End of of story. Michael Glass (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

I'm gratified then that we have resolved the current point of disagreement, and so agree to keep the convert template as it is.

Now about your new point; where is that proposal to which you allude? I'm sure that if Archon 2488 had made any such new proposal, he would have started a new topic section for it, and given a supporting rationale. All I see is a comment from him in this topic section stating a general personal opinion.

I think this current discussion is closed now. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Speccy, I think you know you have misquoted me. I said I supported what Archon had said. Whether or not it was a formal proposal I still support it as ideal. Googling "Cleeve Hill + 1083 ft" is a very efficient way to bring up information from the 1950s. It also reveals your mindset of preferring imperial measures. I Googled "Cleeve Hill + height" and the result was quite different. The difference between 330 metres and 1083 feet is 9.84 centimetres or less than 4 inches so it's well within the margin of error for both feet and metres. As the Hill Bagging website gives both metres and feet and modern maps give metres, noting that fact should not be a problem. Here is what it would look like:

The highest point of the region is Cleeve Hill at 1,083 ft (330 m), just to the north of Cheltenham.

I cannot see how any reasonable person could object to that. Michael Glass (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, misquoted you? Where? I made no quotes in my previous contribution. Then you wrote "I said I supported what Archon had said", well what you actually said was "Now that Archon has proposed changing the display to metres first, I support it" (my emphasis). And although I didn't actually quote it (despite your accusation) that's what I was talking about.

Did you deliberately set out to trick me into making that search so that you could misrepresent my motives by giving it, out of context, as an "example" of my "mindset". Shame on you. if you did.

You said of me:

• 'You have stated on more than one occasion that "we could have chosen one of a number of sources that confirm the 1083 figure", However, you have not produced one source to back up your claim. Why did you make this claim and then fail to back it up?"

Do you remember now? How better to find some for you than to search explicitly for them? How dare you then claim that it reveals my "mindset of preferring imperial measures"!

You also, bizarrely and even though it is demonstrably untrue, claim the search "is a very efficient way to bring up information from the 1950s" - why? Amongst the results are several current webpages, recent books, and all sorts. Of the top-ten results, ignoring the first two which are from Wikipedia (running the search just now):

1. [6], copyright 2005-2013.
2. [7], on a current corporate website.
3. [8], copyright 2012.
4. [9], not dated but a current pdf document from the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beuty organisation, apparently.
5. [10], copyright 2000-2015.
6. [[11], copyright ], copyright 2000-2015.
7. [12], copyright 2015.
8. [13], copyright 2003-2015.
9. [14], no date apparent, but an active website.
10. [15], no date apparent, but an active website.

There is nothing there more than about 15 years old, and certainly no bias towards 1950s material that I can see. Even if there were, why would that make it any less reliable? The hill was 1083 feet at the start of the 20th century, and it is 1083 feet now, or are you suggesting it was higher or lower in the 1950s?

And the books search top-five are:

1. [16], a 2011 book.
2. [17], a 2014 book.
3. [18], 1973 guides.
4. [19], 2013 guide.
5. [20], 2004 book.

All 4 of them less than 11 years old.

The maps are older, naturally, but none the less valid.

And what do you think is so special about the reference to the Hill-Bagging website that you need to put that quote in the cite? Why not use this one instead? It verifies the 1083 feet statement equally well, and without the baggage:

• The highest point of the region is Cleeve Hill at 1,083 feet (330 m), just to the north of Cheltenham.

At least you have changed your position from insisting on a metric input into the convert template then a flip. But now we need a good reason to warrant adding a quote where a quote is clearly and undoubtedly not required. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Speccy, when I asked you to substantiate your assertion about usage, it wasn't a trick question. You have answered that question in spades. There are, as you have shown, a heap of references that say, 1083 feet. (A few of them put the 330 metres figure first, but that's neither here nor there.) Trouble is, like the decimal dust in pi to 100 places, the links you provided don't prove that Cleeve Hill is one figure or the 89;4mm different other figure. When we're after an authoritative measurement, we can't go past the latest Ordnance Survey map, which says it's 330 metres.

Now as was revealed, you asked Google "Cleeve Hill + 1083 feet" got a slew of answers that said 1083 feet. Quite simply, you got what you were looking for.This is not a matter of praise or blame, it is simply a fact. When I asked Google the question "Cleeve Hill + height" I got a different range of answers, as I documented above.

You have speculated that maybe the surveyors didn't check the measurements before they produced metric maps. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but that is idle speculation on our part. We have an authoritative measurement, and that's the one we should rely on.

Now that's where putting in a quotation from Hill Bagging in the citation comes in. The display, as we both know, must remain feet first until we have consensus to change it. However, it is entirely appropriate that a quotation is included in the citation to point out that the height of 330 metres is the primary measurement.

When I looked through your comments above, I noted that you rejected my previous amendment to the note to something "which more closely resembled the original text and kept to the spirit of imperial as primary in this instance." With every respect to your beliefs, that is quite wrong-headed. The original text in the article is unchanged. The spirit of imperial as primary is not our major concern in the wording of the footnote. What we need in the footnote is a clear reflection of the source of information. Now in this case, that is the OS map of the area as reflected in the source.

I am sorry that you have taken offence at one of my statements. I wasn't trying to offend. In doing your Google search you were trying to substantiate one of your assertions. I accept that your Google search reflected that endeavour. You have every right to have a preference for the older measures, and though I see things differently, I accept your right to hold to your opinions. I do not bear ill-will towards you and have publicly supported you against those who were attacking you. See the note I have left you. Michael Glass (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, you asked me to supply references containing the 1083 measurement, so I did. I even gave you the search phrase I used so that you could check it for yourself, to keep all open and honest. You then isolated my search phrase from the context, and said that using 1083 showed my "mindset" as preferring imperial units!

Now you've gone back there again, first saying "as was revealed, you asked Google "Cleeve Hill + 1083 feet" - as if I hadn't expected you to notice that! Even though you specifically asked for that and I gave the search phrase I used, and then you say I got what I was looking for! No, what you were looking for - remember now?

All the above either needs a full and convincing explanation for what you are implying or trying to get at, or withdrawal and a full apology.

Now you are saying the 1083 links don't prove the height of the hill to within 89.4mm. Why should they? All they need to do is support the 1083 figure, which they explicitly do. The convert template can do the rest.

You also say we have an authoritative measurement that we should rely on. Well, the 1083 feet as used in the referenced source seems pretty authoritative to me, it is supported by 1000s of other sources: books, webpages and OS maps.

You are correct though when you say I rejected your previous amendment. I did, because It added unnecessary complexity and obfuscation to the wiki-code, when what was there was crystal clear and fully supported.

And finally you seem to be speculating as to what units of measure I prefer. Please don't, because that is irrelevant here. I am trying to act neutrally and within the spirit of a neutral and verifiable article. The primary units in this case are imperial and the source supports the imperial value. Why then would we want to eradicate imperial from the wiki-code and introduce metric to replace it as if it had some sort of superior status? Unless we had an overriding agenda to eradicate imperial units from UK related articles of course. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This keeps on turning up on my watchlist, so I have a few comments.

• Nothing in MOSNUM, or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline (including WP:COMMONSENSE), suggests that 1,083 feet (330 m) is in any way preferable to 1,083 feet (330 m) - or vice versa. It is impossible to argue that either is an improvement on the other because they are indistinguishable.
• There is clear and strong global consensus that the precise source for a particular measure is not relevant. It is the information that is important, not the unit used to present it.
• In any case, saying 1,083 feet (330 m) does not imply that the unit in the source was in metres and 1,083 feet (330 m) does not imply that the unit in the source was in feet.
• The fact that the OS quotes a height in metres does not necessarily mean that the surveyed measure was in metres. It might have been, but it might have been converted and not resurveyed. The task of resurveying the entire country from scratch every time a map is produced would require an extraordinary investment for which we have no evidence. We cannot assume the unit of the original surveyed measurement - either way - without clear evidence.
• As Michael Glass points out the difference between 1083 feet and 330 metres is 9.84 centimetres or 3.87 inches. But this is significantly smaller than the margin of error on both measurements. We cannot assume that 330 metres is precise to more than about 50 centimetres or that 1083 feet is precise to more than about 6 inches. There is, ultimately, no reason to assume that either is closer or more authoritative as a measure of the actual height of Cleeve Hill. To within margin of error, 1083 feet and 330 metres can be considered to be exactly the same thing.

But I also find that this discussion raises user conduct concerns:

• WP:MOSNUM makes it clear in no uncertain terms that editors should not be changing between permissible styles without a good reason. This is precisely what has happened here.
• As you both know, units in this article is under general sanctions. If the problems that led to the general sanctions are now applying to editors arguing over which unit should be displayed in the code (even where there is no change to the visible presentation), it would not be wholly shocking if admins concluded that conduct around switching the unit in the code was sanction-worthy. Particularly for you two (Michael Glass and Speccy4Eyes), who were at WP:AN for another sanctions violation only this month.

I think both of you should be very careful as to how far you push this sort of discussion and more generally about the practice of converting the code of units in articles. Kahastok talk 15:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Kahastok, we are not discussing the appearance of the html rendered from the wiki-code, but the content of the wiki-code itself.

The article's primary units for the height of the hill are imperial and the current source webpage directly supports the value given in imperial. The dispute is about whether the input to the convert template used in the wiki-code should also be in imperial units, or whether that should be given in metric (which can also be verified independently in the same source) and the flip option used to keep the final rendering in imperial.

I am arguing that imperial in the wiki-code is fine and perfectly legitimate as it can be directly verified from the cited source. Michael Glass is arguing to remove imperial from the wiki-code and use metric+flip in the convert template for some reason that I have not been able to fully understand yet, but apparently to do with speculation over what units current OS maps were surveyed with. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Speccy4Eyes, Kahastok is arguing that because we have disagreed with what should go in the coding - and created a wall of text in the process - that this could be sanctionable under the general sanctions. He has not misunderstood what the dispute is about and is quite right about the near identity of both measures.

I argued that the coding should conform to the source, whether or not the outcome conforms to the article; your argument was that in this case, the coding on the metric measure suppresses the fact that the source mentions the imperial measure. As a compromise I suggested that we not use the coding at all, do the thing manually but quote the source in the citation. I thought that this was a reasonable compromise that gave us both what we argued for, but you rejected it on the grounds that this was unnecessary. (Not that it was wrong, or unfair, or a distortion of the facts, but simply that it was unnecessary.

I think that this was a lost opportunity to find common ground. Once again, I think that my latest suggestion is a reasonable compromise that both of us could live with. If it is not, please suggest something that would be more acceptable, not just to you, but to both of us. Michael Glass (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The word "if" was very important in my comment. If the problems that led to the general sanctions are now applying to editors arguing over which unit should be displayed in the code, admins may well decide that they are worthy of sanctions, and if they do, chances are they aren't going to warn you first because you are expected to know. I don't know what they would make of this discussion and the accompanying edit war, but I very much doubt they would view it as the Wikipedia consensus model working well.

You refer to "the near identity of both measures". They are not nearly identical - that leaves some room to argue the toss. There is no relevant difference between 330 metres and 1083 feet at all. If the grass grows, or if somebody moves a rock on to or off the top, then the difference that will make is bigger than the formal difference between 330 metres and 1083 feet. And even if we recognised a formal difference between the two measurements, the two options available are in any case strictly identical.

In such a case the normal rule is simple. Leave it as is because there is no benefit in changing it. There is no value in adding any comment on the source - all that achieves is an airing of our dirty linen in public. Just leave it alone. Nobody will notice the difference, because there isn't one. If both of you stop making it an issue, it will magically stop being an issue. Kahastok talk 19:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, you are wearing me down with this, no compromise is needed, and you do not have a valid argument. The wiki-code is just fine as it is, there is nothing to gain by changing it any of the ways you have shown. There is nothing special about that cited source other than the fact that it makes the 1083ft figure verifiable. The fact that the source also supports the 330m figure is neither here nor there because as we've seen there are plenty of others you could have chosen, and not all give the 330m figure at all. Or to put it another way: any source with the 1083ft figure would work just as well here, even if it did NOT contain the 330m figure. That is to say, the 330m figure is redundant in that source, or in any source, because it spills out of the convert template for free. There is no need to quote it at all because the 1083ft is not controversial and the source is readily available online. The best solution here would probably be to dump that source altogether and use another which does not mention metres at all, then, perhaps, you would stop being distracted by metres. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:34, 27

July 2015 (UTC)

• Kahastok. You say that there is an edit war. Wrong. The text of the article has not been changed since I adjusted the convert template. The dispute has been confined to the talk page. You are also wrong in objecting to "near identity" compared with "no relevant difference." That is just a game of semantics. However, your most surprising argument is that putting a quotation about the source is equivalent to "airing of our dirty linen in public." Is showing that a source used metres instead of feet an embarrassment? What's embarrassing about "Height: 330m / 1083ft"?

• Speccy, your complaint about being worn down is like the pot calling the kettle black. You started the discussion because the convert template came out wrong. Then when I adjusted the template you objected because the convert template made no mention of feet. Finally, I proposed doing the conversion without the template and putting a quotation in the footnote. You yourself wrote, 'Note too that the current source makes either variation directly verifiable stating as it does: "Height: 330m / 1083ft"' All I want to quote is what you yourself have quoted. Quoting it in the footnote is not too much to ask. Michael Glass (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael - and I do not for a moment believe that you do not realise this - this, [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] is an edit war. There's nothing in any Wikipedia policy, in spirit or in letter, that restricts the definition of edit warring to changes that are visible to the viewer. The only difference is that this edit war was far more WP:LAME than most.

If the only reason to put a quote in the footnote is because you two can't decide whether to write "1,083 feet (330 m)" or "1,083 feet (330 m)" - and it is - then we shouldn't put a quote in the footnote.

There is no reason whatsoever to replace "1,083 feet (330 m)" with "1,083 feet (330 m)". There is no reason whatsoever to replace "1,083 feet (330 m)" with "1,083 feet (330 m)". There's no benefit to anyone in changing it. So I say again, leave it alone. Don't do anything to it. Don't change it. This will never be an point that anyone else will ever care about. Leave it alone. Kahastok talk 22:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What Khastok said about edit warring is demonstrably false.

• [27] This was an edit made in good faith to replace a dead link. It added a citation that remains in the article and took the measurement given first in that link as the primary measure.
• [28] Speccy made this edit because the template made the height in feet come out wrong. He used the height in feet as primary to correct the conversion.
• [29]In this edit I thanked Speccy for picking up the anomaly in the template and adjusted the convert template to make it come out right in my edit.

No fair minded person could class these edits as being part of an edit war on my part or, for that matter on Speccy's part. We both made edits that improved the article, by replacing a dead link and ensuring that the convert template came out right. That leaves three edits

• [30] Speccy undid my edit. He didn't see the need for a change.
• [31] I undid Speccy's edit because the text comes out the same from both edits but I argued that my edit was truer to the source.
• [32] Speccy undid my edit for a second time. Arguably this last is edit warring, but if so, it's Speccy's edit warring and not mine.

On the strength of three edits, only one of which is mine, Khastok has accused me of edit warring, even though I was the first to stop when it became obvious that Speccy was not going to budge. The rest was argued out on talk pages.

Kahastok has accused me of edit warring on the strength of one revert! This would be laughable if it wasn't so obviously malicious.

Finally, though I have argued that my edit is truer to the source it is obvious that there are now two editors who are determined that no mention of metres will touch the Cotswolds. Therefore, I thank you for your time and bid you all good day. Michael Glass (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you perhaps would benefit from a Wikibreak? Might help get things in a bit of perspective.

Was there an edit war? If it had gone to WP:ANEW I'm certain they would disagree with you - but they would also not care because it was two weeks ago, was low-level (five reverts between "1083|ft|m" and "330|m|ft" in five days) and stopped when it went to talk. I remain mystified as to how it is important which out of two substantively identical and independently-sourceable measures we use, given that the output text is identical. Suggest we might be better off putting our energies into improvements that the reader can actually see. Kahastok talk 18:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Khastok, why don't you get off my back. This is just another display of your animosity. Your malicious charge of edit warring fell on its face when examined in detail. If you had really believed that there was an edit war going on you would have made a complaint. This is harassment pure and simple. Michael Glass (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

The West Country Challenge

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

• Core articles
• Missing article hotlist
• Missing photograph hotlist

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

• Bristol (Day 1-3)
• Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
• Devon (Day 7-9)
• Dorset (Day 10-12)
• Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
• Somerset (Day 16-18)
• Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cotswolds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140804044746/http://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/?page=aonb to http://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/?page=AONB
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091202114440/http://www.olimpickgames.co.uk/contentok.php?id=862 to http://www.olimpickgames.co.uk/contentok.php?id=862
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140804044746/http://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/?page=aonb to http://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/?page=AONB
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140804044746/http://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/?page=aonb to http://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/?page=aonb
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.the-cotswolds.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)