Talk:Lomond 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

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Just "two...peaks"?

It's a surprise to me to find reference to only "two prominent peaks" in the Lomond Hills. I'm not clear whether the reference to Bishop Hill is intended to include it as one of the Lomonds, but less prominent than the others (it's certainly less peaked but not much smaller than East Lomond), or as a reference to a nearby hill which is not part of the group. To me the Lomonds has always consisted of the three and I'm surprised if the intention is to list just two. This would appear to lend support to my view, although in the past I have found occasional questionable (or at least outdated) assertions on this site, despite its worthy listed supporting organisations. What's more, the village of Glenlomond in Kinross-shire is at the foot of the Bishop Hill and the houses at Lomondville, although in lower-lying land are also closer to the Bishop.

Also I was a little surprised to see no mention of the name Falkland Hill as this has a comparable level of currency to East Lomond, although the latter is the name given on OS maps. I've added a bracketed reference here and redirect of Falkland Hill to this article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...This pub in Kinnesswood seems sufficiently sure that it is "at the foot of the Lomond Hills" that it is named accordingly and the Kinross Community Council agrees about Kinnesswood and the other villages by the Bishop Hill. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2009

Perhaps "contain two prominent peaks" would be more appropriate. The reference to Bishop hill was intended to include it as part of the lomond hills but it is not strictly a peak, rather a continuation of the escarpment. The reference you gave would imply this, since it states that the two highest "peaks" are falkland hill and west lomond yet clearly states that bishop hill is actually higher than falkland hill by 13 metres. Good on you for including 'Falkland Hill' as I'd never actually call it anything else, I just wasn't sure about how 'official' that name was. User:StuzzyW 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification of the intention. I'd never clocked that the Bishop was actually higher than Falkland Hill. Fair enough about the Bishop not being peaked, although I'd say its height, size and the considerable gully of Glen Vale make it very much a distinct hill. Change to "contain two prominent peaks" certainly helps - good suggestion.

Since writing above in July, a friend from Dundee tells me he was unfamiliar with the term Lomond Hills, always having referred to them as the Paps of Fife. It's a new one on me although I can see why they might be so-called viewing from Dundee. Googling the term gives a fair few hits but I'd want a more reliable citation than I've so far been able to find before adding it. Ever heard the term? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lomond Hills. 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/20110529153618/http://www.goddessalive.co.uk/issue16/scotland.html to http://www.goddessalive.co.uk/issue16/scotland.html

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) 10:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]