Talk:Cross Fell

Cross Fell has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

British and Irish hills GA‑class

	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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

GA passed

Nice little article. I wikified a few technical geology and geography terms to make it more accessible. Nice work. Oh and it's so nice to see an article with an empty talk page! Pascal.Tesson 06:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

images

JPS. The images contribute significantly to the GA status and were present when it was a GA candidate. If you can replace them with something better, then that is fine. Otherwise, please leave them be. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps. Just out of interest. You removed images containing either myself or my son. Yet you left the image containing my daughter. Why was that?. best wishes Bob BScar23625 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the images would contribute to the article. Unfortunately the subject of the pictures are people. Perhaps you'd like to show me a similar instance of this occurring on Wikipedia? I left the reservoir picture because the figure was less prominent (looking away from the camera, for instance). I felt that this image was the more about the landscape rather than emphasising the subjects standing within it. Knowing your appreciation of photography, perhaps have images without family subjects? The JPS^{talk to me} 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please assume good faith. Branding genuine edits as vandalism, as you did here, is to be avoided. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JPS. The images contribute significantly to the article. Take them in turn :

Cross Fell summit - a significant image.
Summer snow on Cross Fell North face - a significant image.
Scree slope - a significant image also used in the Scree article.
Cow Green Reservoir - a significant image setting Cross Fell in context.
Carboniferous limestone bed - a significant image that comments on geological structure of North Pennines.

The people that appear in them are incidental. If you want to go up there and take replacement images without people in them, then that is fine by me. But please replace the images, do not just remove them. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps As an aside, there was a similar discussion on the Helvellyn article, when two of my images were replaced. I have no problem with people improving on images I have inserted - but arbitrary deletion is another matter. Bob BScar23625 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pps As a further aside, the next time there is fair weather on a weekend, I plan to go up to Cross Fell summit. If you wish, I will meet you at Kirkland and we can go up together. You can bring your camera and take pictures without people in them. Let me know. Bob BScar23625 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, images that show features of the landscape should not focus on people in the foreground. This is distracting. However, until we get better images, we can use these. I’ve removed the people from Image:Cf1.JPG and Image:Crossf4.JPG (using GIMP and [1]) and I think Image:Crossf3.jpg may be OK, simply to give the viewer a sense of scale. I realise my modifications mean some loss in quality (and, in the first case, also an extra bit of artistic freedom in adding some rocks to the pile), but I think this is viable until somebody makes replacements. By the way, if somebody is going to make new photographs, a higher resolution would be nice. Even if the images in the article itself are small, some people might want to see more details. —xyzzy_n 01:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xyzzy. People in images are often essential in order to give scale. For example take the following image which appears in bothe the Cross Fell and Scree articles.

Ascending the scree slope on the west flank of Cross Fell

The image is of a geological feature known as "tallus", which is a form of scree composed of large boulders. Take out the person (which happens to be me) and you couldn't tell whether the rocks are 3 metre boulders (which they are) or only 2cm pepples. That is the extreme case - but much the same could be siad of the other images (with one exception).

In any event, I don't like fake images. So, perhaps the images can stay as they are until someone can substitute better ones?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 07:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph has several good photos of Cross Fell, including one of Simon Ledingham's excellent aerial shots (another example of which can be seen on Helvellyn). It should be possible to replace most of the people shots with Geograph images; I'll upload some today if I have time.

Editing pictures to remove people or other objects is not acceptable IMO; it may be relatively harmless in this instance, but it sets an unwelcome precedent. Readers should be able to have confidence that what they are seeing is what the camera saw. Modifications to levels and colour balance are of course fine, especially to improve deficiencies in the photographic process, but leave the content alone. --Blisco 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, no paintings? Anyway, I’ve cropped Image:Crossf4.JPG so that the features that are actually relevant to the article are at the centre. Is that an acceptable modification? —xyzzy_n 10:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xyzzy. Your adjustments are just distortions. Sorry to put it like that, but .... . I make the same offer to you that I did to JPS. I will guide you up to the summit and you can take your camera. E-mail me if you want to take me up on this. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what exactly is the problem with

not having people in an image that is supposed to show distant hills and
having those hills in the middle of the image, rather than in the background and at the top

after Blisco’s concern about not having anything in the image that was not ‘seen’ by the camera is satisfied? —xyzzy_n 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blisco. As per our earlier discussion on the Helvellyn article, I have no problem with my amateur efforts being replaced by good, professional standard images. I am not too keen on aerial photographs, but that may be just a personal preference. I agree with you that "doctored" images should never be used. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doctored images and aerial photographs

Chaps, some general comments.

My view is that doctored images should never be used in any form of publication. You can move mountains around, add trees, add smoke and adjust the position of the sun in an image - but the result emerging from this process is a fake. It is worthless.

The position on aerial photographs is also unsatisfactory. An aerial photograph of a mountain amounts to little more than a map and rarely does justice to its subject. The aerial photograph in the Helvellyn article could be that of any mountain. It looks bland, low and lacks any context. A proper mountain picture should be taken from ground level - which is where 99.9% of people see it from and from where its proper context and atmosphere are apparent. regards. Bob BScar23625 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xyzzy. The problem with your adjustments is that what you produce is not real. You may remember the recent case of a news journalist who produced an image from the Gulf War showing the aftermath of an American air strike in northern Iraq. He produced an image being a composite of 3 pictures and then embellished it with some extra smoke and flames. He sold the product of this exercise for a substantial sum to various newspapers. But when the facts became known he was sacked and blacklisted.

If you want to take some good pictures, then I will be happy to guide you up to the summit of Cross Fell. There have been a few casualties up there in recent years, but I am a reliable guide and you can trust me to get you up and down safely. You will then have the personal satisfaction of knowing that you have taken real images as a product of your own efforts. regards. Bob BScar23625 16:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last ‘adjustment’ to Image:Crossf4.JPG did not add anything. I only removed one third of the image. I am unconcerned about the possibility of being sacked or blacklisted over this image and its effect on Iraq. I am definitely not going to England just so I can take pictures of this place, especially if I can simply edit yours and get a reasonably good result. —xyzzy_n 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xyzzy. Well, if you don't want to come to England, then perhaps you should avoid such a peculiarly English issue?. The trouble is that your edits of my pictures are just distortions. If you can substitute better images, then that is fine - but as it is .... . best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still don’t see how that last edit was a distortion. And I don’t care for your opinion on what I shouldn’t edit. —xyzzy_n 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xyzzy. The problem with your latest effort is that not only is it fake, but .... it is almost unviewable. If you want to create pictures of Cross Fell, then you should take the trouble to climb it yourself. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see any problem with cropping images in general or xyzzy's cropped version of Cow Green in particular. The original would be fine for an article on the reservoir, but as the subject is Cross Fell it makes perfect sense to crop the image to focus attention on the subject. Cropping is not dishonest per se, and does not fall in the same category as digitally removing people. However, I would suggest you upload your cropped version as a new image, not over the top of the original. Notwithstanding WP:OWN, it's not considered polite (in fact I'm sure there's a guideline to this effect somewhere) to upload an image over someone else's except in the case of obvious and uncontroversial quality improvements. Bob's picture has every right to remain on Wikipedia, even if only to illustrate swimming or some such article.

Incidentally, xyzzy, you ask above if I object to paintings. Of course not, in the right context - in fact I put one in the Helvellyn article. The big difference is that a photograph carries an implicit claim that it is an accurate representation of what the eye can see, whereas a painting makes no such claims. I would not, however, use a painting to illustrate a geographical subject unless it contributed in a way that a photo could not - e.g. it was of historical interest, or represented the subject's influence on art and culture (c.f. Helvellyn again). --Blisco 12:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article about image manipulation in Buses Yearbook 2007 (I bought it for my brother -- honestly). They subtly manipulate images. I think it, along with cropping, is fine so long as it's not for ideological purposes. Thus, removing a person from a location where they are not normally present does not pose an ethical problem. It might not be an accurate representation of the definitive moment, but there are no ideological consequences. Conversely, removing figures from a political demonstration/meeting, or such, is clearly motivated to shape knowledge, and would be unacceptable in an encyclopedia. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps. This could run and run, but let us leave it there for now. As far as I am concerned, the lead image on the article is a fake. I will put a health warning on it to that effect. Bob BScar23625 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps. Actually, I am not so sure that the image now shown in the article is an altered version of mine. It looks different and purports (in its licensing) to have been taken by one Charles Rispin on 26 September 2006. I guess that Charles Rispin must have stood on exactly the same spot that I did (the top of the summit shelter) to take the image. Can anyone enlighten me?. If it is a real image (and not just a brilliant fake), then please remove my health warning. Bob BScar23625 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pps. I am now sure that the summit image now shown is a genuine one - and not a fake. I have removed the health warning. I don't know how this image got there, but I am not arguing. It is better than my original. I have banned myself from editing this article for 28 days. Bob BScar23625 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for information, Blisco posted a link to a website with free images of this place, so I uploaded two of them to Commons (see commons:Category:Cross Fell). This is one of them. I replaced your image with it. The only thing I did to this image was to increase brightness and contrast to correct a poorly adjusted camera. I said so on the description page. Please do try to assume good faith in the future. —xyzzy_n 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch Map

Is the sketch map alligned correctly? Little Dun Fell is broadly southeast of Cross Fell, but Great Dun Fell is south-southeast of Little Dun Fell. The sketch map makes them look closer to east-southeast, and gives the impression (to me at any rate) of being a predominately east–west ridge rather than a predominately north–south ridge. Also Cow Green is in the wrong place — it's shown as north of the ridge, in fact it's a little south of east. I don't mind loosing some accuracy by using stylised sketch maps, but this one seems misleading. — ras52 09:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ras52. You are probably right. It was me that drew and inserted the sketch map and I will correct it some time. Thanks for mentioning the matter. Bob BScar23625 07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helvellyn as "Parent peak"

Sorry Mark, but I do not see how Helvellyn can be described as the parent peak of Cross Fell. The two are visible from each other in conditions of good visibility, but they are about 30km apart and separated by the Eden Valley. Cross Fell does not fall within the "territory" of Helvellyn for drainage purposes. Have you ever climbed Cross Fell?. best wishes Bob BScar23625 17:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I haven't, but I'd love to (and I have climbed Helvellyn!) The thing is, part of the definition of 'parent' is that the 'parent' must be higher (and have more relative height) than the 'child.' Helvellyn is the nearest peak to Cross Fell that has more relative height. Got me? Mark J 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BScar23625, you might like to know that some general issues with the use of the 'Parent peak' infobox field are currently being discussed here. (Incidentally, although there are several different definitions of 'parent mountain' used to varying degrees, in this case all definitions agree that Helvellyn is Cross Fell's parent.) — ras52 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps. The relevant section from Topographical prominence (recently revised by Mark) reads "It is common to define a peak's parent as a particular peak in the higher terrain connected to the peak by the key col". One might only decribe H as CF's parent peak if the two were in the same block of higher terrain, which they are not. Bob BScar23625 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]