Talk:Exmoor

Project Devon

Hello! I'm trying to start up a wikiproject:Devon, to create and improve articles about Devon (Cornwall already has one...) follow this link and add your name if you wish: [1]. Cheers! Totnesmartin 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

The following two sites have been repeatedly added to Exmoor and other articles related to Exmoor e.g. Minehead

• www.visit-exmoor.eu
• www.visit-exmoor.info

Repeated posting of these commercial links have already resulted in one user's account being blocked for spamming - 85.70.123.202 (talk · contribs). visit-exmoor.eu is a list links to a number of commercial enterprises on Exmoor such as hotels, restaurants and holiday accommodation - and is very clearly linkspam. visit-exmoor.info contains very similar information buried among some more useful tourist information. As there is already a link to the DMOZ category on Exmoor which contains a number of commercial links, there is no need to have any more such external links within the article itself. Please do not add them to the article, they will be removed. Repeated insertion will be reported an may result in blocking. --Cheesy Mike 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that I completely agree with Mike - this is not a USA v UK issue, these are links that are not appropriate to this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a web directory - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment

This is my assessment of the (revision) in which the article was reviewed. Preceeding edits had succeeded in providing sources for claims marked with the fact tag. Below is my findings:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   (No edit wars etc.)

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Further analysis:

• Image used is appropriately captioned and has no copyright violation etc. outstanding on or in it's history. Y
• References are various, well placed (i.e used appropriately and compliant with MOS) and are reliable. Y
• I can find no original research and all soures use the {{cite web}} template. Y
• Hardly any grammar, spelling mistakes.Y
• Only one issue I can bring up:
  • Just a few references are missing Y

But I'm sure you'll be able to find them. Good luck! — Rudget _speak.work 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I've added a few refs for the link between the River Exe and Exmoor names and for the ongoing hunting - if more are needed please let me know.— Rod ^talk 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They have since been  Done. I am now willing to pass this article. Congratulations! Best, — Rudget _speak.work 21:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect (GA review)

With all due respect, I think that this article has been listed as a GA prematurely. I think it's close, but it's not quite there yet with regard to the good writing criteria. I had considered de-listing it, or taking it to WP:GAR, but it's probably easier just to fix the problems. :)

• Two sections are lists Places of interest Yand Cultural referencesY. They should be converted to prose.
•  DoneThere's inconsistent use of BCE/BC; one system or the other ought to be used consistently throughout the article
•  DoneSome parts of the text don't seem to make sense: "The resident population of 10,600 people, 208 scheduled ancient monuments, 16 conservation areas and receives 1.4 million visitor days per year."
•  Done"The Chains and surrounding high ground is the source for rivers ..." sounds strangely vague.
•  Done"It is possibly a Cougar or Black Leopard which was released sometime in the 1960s or 1970s ..." That's getting on for 50 years ago. How long do cougars/leopards live for?
•  DoneThere were lots of places where the metric/imperial measurements weren't being used consistently; I think I've found and fixed most of them now, but there may still be others I haven't seen.
•  Done"Exmoor has 34 miles (55 km) of coastline including the highest sea cliffs in England reaching a height of 1,350 feet (411 m) at Culbone Hill. However, this is more than a mile from the sea ..." How does that work? Sea cliffs that are a mile away from the sea?
• There were and are other issues as well, but I've tried to sort as many of them as I could when I came across them.

Please understand that I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade; I just want this article to be worthy of its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to tackle some of these as indicated above. I will turn the lists to prose asap (give me a few hours), but I don't know what to do about the cougar/leopard - I don't think it exists, but it is strong enough in local folk-law to deserve a mention.— Rod ^talk 08:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done remaining other requirements. — Rudget _speak.work 11:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of other bits and pieces I think:

•  Done"A restored Victorian water-powered sawmill in the village, which was damaged in the floods of 1992 ..." What village? was it the village or the sawmill that was damaged in the floods?
•  Done"Exmoor's coastal woodlands include 10 miles (16 km) of cliff between Porlock and Countisbury, where the trees spread right down to the beach in places." I'm not sure if that's saying that the trees reach down to the beach throughout the 10-mile stretch, or just at places in Countisbury.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never been to Exmoor, but I'll try my best ro reword it. And most probably reference it. — Rudget _speak.work 12:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we've now met concerns - thanks to editing from lots of people. Rudget if you get the chance to visit it really is worth it.— Rod ^talk 12:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been to Combe Martin, is that in Exmoor? The hills there are scary! — Rudget _speak.work 13:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Combe Martin is approx 10 miles (16 km) west of Lynton/Lynmouth and just on the westernmost boundary of the park.— Rod ^talk 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm happy this article is a worthy GA now. Thanks to everyone involved for all the work that's been put in. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I do think the extra "challenges" have improved the article.— Rod ^talk 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to everyone involved in getting this article from GA to FA so quickly. And to think that that only a few weeks ago I was dubious that it even deserved its GA listing. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical train wreck

The following sentence:

The three largest settlements are Porlock and Dulverton, and the combined villages of Lynton and Lynmouth, connected by the Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway, which together contain almost 40% of the National Park population.

is a grammatical train wreck. First of all, while reading it I was taken by surprise as the first comma and went back to check that it said three settlements and not two. This would be acceptable were it the only problem. The real problem is that without doing further research I have no idea whether that Railway connects Lynton and Lynmouth or Lynton/Lynmouth, Porlock, and Dulverton. And furthermore I don't know whether Lynton and Lynmouth comprise 40% of the population alone or if all three-and-a-half do. I don't know how I'd go about salvaging it, but I'd start by replacing the first "and" with a comma. If you can make the Lynton/Lymnouth amalgam singular (e.g. "the Lynton and Lynmouth metropolitan area") then you avoid confusion about the subject of "contain." But it really should change, here and on the main page. ^L_Wizard @ 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As it's my grammar which caused the train wreck I would appreciate help from others - although I can help with the factual basis. Lynton & Lynmouth are combined into one parish, Lynton being at the top & Lynmouth at the bottom of the cliff. The cliff railway joins the two but goes no further. The 40% of the population of Exmoor live in the three settlements of Lynton/Lynmouth, Porlock and Dulverton - the rest of the population being widely distributed in small villages & farmssteads. Any help with wording this more appropriately appreciated.— Rod ^talk 07:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How about: The largest settlements are Porlock, Dulverton, Lynton and Lymouth, which together comprise 40% of the park population. Lynton and Lynmouth are combined into one parish and are connected by the Cliff Railway. Simon Q (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me.— Rod ^talk 08:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

BC vs BCE

BC was introduced to the article in December 2007 as part of its GA review to ensure consistent usage of dates, as previously both BC and BCE were used in the article. It user here is also consistent with other Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset articles such as History of Somerset. Use of BCE is controversial, especially in mainly Christian countries. --TimTay (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dimensions and areas

When I checked the references for measurements given in the article I found that a number of facts were unreferenced, others referred to sources which quoted metric measures and a few which gave Imperial measurements first. I have provided references and made others consistent with the sources quoted. However, this has resulted in some inconsistency. I think it would be better to make the article consistently metric first. Any comments? Michael Glass (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements. As we discussed in relation to the Somerset article I would agree that consistency is important and would appreciate it if you "worked your magic" of ensuring they are metric first. Just one small point .. I note from the article history that AnomieBOT has "rescued" a couple of "orphaned refs" which you had deleted - we need to ensure that measurements etc (& other claims) remain cited to reliable sources.— Rod ^talk 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got it consistent now. Please check it over because I usually miss something. Michael Glass (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this. The only possible issues I can see are:

• In Coastline "more than a mile (1.6 km) from the sea"
• In climate we don't have any conversions for "800 mm in the east of the park to over 2000 mm" & "more than 225 mm of rain fell"
• In history do we need to convert "5 tonnes"? & we have no conversion for "35.4 km"
• In Places of interest - is "about 31 km or just over 19 miles away" OK?

Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 14:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now provided conversions for the amount of rainfall and 35.4km. However,

• The tonne is 98% of the long (British) ton. I think they are so close that a conversion really isn't necessary. If there was a conversion, what do we convert it to, kg, pounds or short (US) tons or two, or three or all four?
• The distance in Places of Interest was just over 19 miles. 19 miles = 30.577536 kilometres so "just over" would be even closer to 31km. I had the problem of making the units of measurement consistent (metric first) and also to insist on accuracy. This was my solution but I have now added brackets.
• The source said that the crest of this coastal range was more than a mile from the sea [2]. One would need a topographical map to work out where the watershed would be, and I am afraid that this is not available to me in Australia. Perhaps someone in England could advise us on how far the watershed is from the coast. The answer would be something like "from 1.7 km at X to about 2.4km at Y." In the mean time, I have left it as is. Michael Glass (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I have changed this last measurement to be metric first. Michael Glass (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again - all looks good to me.— Rod ^talk 08:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Conversion of units

User:91.110.53.158 seems to be converting all units from metric (imperial) using the convert template to imperial(metric), and has also linked centuries. This article achieved its FA status with metric (imperial) after lots of discussion amongst the editors. I have put a note on User talk:91.110.53.158 without any response. Should these edits be reverted?— Rod ^talk 12:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put back as many of these changes (& linking of centuries) as I can find.— Rod ^talk 14:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Edits

I agree with the fact that the sentence: "The three largest settlements are Porlock and Dulverton, and the combined villages of Lynton and Lynmouth, connected by the Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway, which together contain almost 40% of the National Park population." is confusing and very vague and should, if not already, be edited. Perhaps to: The three largest settlements are Porlock, Dulverton, and the combined villages of Lynton and Lynmouth, the latter of which are connected by the Lynton ans Lynmouth Cliff Railway. Together, these metropolitan areas make up around 40% of the total population of the National Park.

---CrucialCoconut--- 11:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrucialCoconut (talk • contribs)

Seems fine to me - except the typo "ans" which I think should be "and".— Rod ^talk 12:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Location map

Exmoor

I've uploaded a location map of Exmoor to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated {{location map}} template, but this can easily be done if desired.

If this is created this would enable creation a map of Exmoor similar to the one under construction at Talk:Dartmoor#Location map, and could be used in related articles (see this example). Hope people find it useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the map but don't understand the comment about the template.— Rod ^talk 08:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I was a bit vague on detail. What I meant is if desired I (or someone else) could create Template:Location map United Kingdom Exmoor, which could then be used in eg Dunkery Beacon in a similar manner to the Dartmoor map in High Willhays. It could also be used to create a map of Exmoor with various important locations highlighted; another example can be seen at Lancashire#Demography.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You are obviously much more expert on maps/images than I am - so I'll go with whatever you think best. Could it also show the rivers?— Rod ^talk 08:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've created that template and put it into Dunkery's infobox. If you want to add it to an article without an infobox use {{Location map|United Kingdom Exmoor|lat=|long=}} (with lat and long equal to the latitude and longitude obviously), see Template:Location map if you need more documentation.

As for the rivers, this map includes the Barle and the Exe, but does miss more minor ones such as the Haddeo. If you look at the full image you can see them there. If you want more rivers added and/or the thickness of them tweaked so that they show up in thumbnails better let me know. If you want to highlight rivers, as would be appropriate for River Barle that would need a separate map with the Barle made a lot more prominent, as location maps only readily work with point landmarks. I will create any maps like that to request - let me know which river articles you'd want to illustrate.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the rivers Aller, Avill, Barle, East Lyn, Exe, Hoar Oak Water, Haddeo, Horner, Heddon & West Lyn have article which would benefit form this. What about key settlements eg Porlock, Dulverton, Lynton, and Lynmouth?— Rod ^talk 09:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rod - for the settlements I would prefer to keep the Somerset/Devon maps, but nothing to stop us using the Exmoor map in addition. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think settlements are probably handled better by the county maps, this one is probably better as a base for natural features. The exception is for things right on the county line - if County Gate had an article Exmoor would be better than either Somerset or Devon. I'll look into the rivers later.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the point regarding rivers: The map I first uploaded was a quick one showing only the major ones. The full data is excessive, for example it includes the unnamed (on the 1:25,000 map) stream that joins the Barle at SS7438 (source nr Seta Barrow). Getting balance right will take a bit of time I think.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

List of wardens of Exmoor

A List of wardens of Exmoor has been added to this article. Although it is generally supported by suitable references and the individuals probably meet notability requirements bulleted lists of this sort are not generally included in Featured articles. I wonder if it should be split off into a separate list or reworded into prose?— Rod ^talk 20:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Highest cliffs/coastline

I'm highly dubious about this claim (which has been repeated in various guises in other articles, such as at Culbone and South West Coast Path):

"Exmoor has 55 kilometres (34 mi) of coastline, including the highest sea cliffs in England, which reach a height of 314 metres (1,030 ft) at Culbone Hill."

Taken literally this suggests that there are 1000-ft cliffs at Culbone (which, needless to say, isn't the case; they'd be higher than the Cliffs of Moher and twice as high as Beachy Head). The sentence seems to be a garbled paraphrase of Exmoor did you know, which says:

Exmoor has the highest coastline on the British mainland. It reaches a height of 314 metres (1350ft) at Culbone Hill. However, here the crest of the coastal ridge of hills is more than a mile from the sea. If a cliff is defined as having a slope greater than 60 degrees, the highest cliff on mainland Britain is on Great Hangman near Combe Martin. The coastal hill is 318 metres (1043 ft) high with a cliff face of 250 metres (800ft).

The cliffs at Great Hangman may well be the highest in England, within the given definition. But Culbone Hill is some miles away, isn't really part of the same range of hills, and isn't a cliff - it doesn't have a slope of greater than 60° and it's a mile from the coast. (As an aside, the National Park has misquoted the height anyway: it's 413m, not 314m—see OS map.) I'm also not convinced by the National Park's "highest coastline on the British mainland" claim: how far inland does the "coastline" extend? There are lots of hills and mountains in Wales and Scotland that are higher and can legitimately be described as coastal (for example, several mountains around Fort William rise straight from the sea to 700m and more, and the hills above Penmaenmawr and Barmouth in Wales are higher). I'm no expert on Exmoor, so I've not dived in and changed it. I propose a rewrite along the following lines, but I'd welcome other opinions: "Exmoor has 55 kilometres (34 mi) of coastline, including the highest sea cliffs in England at Great Hangman (800 feet/240 m). The coastal hills reach a maximum height of 413 metres (1,355 ft) at Culbone Hill."

Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about this. I've edited the section in line with the above proposal. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this 60 degree definition used anywhere else or has it been created specifically to cater to the desire to celebrate Exmoor's coast? Nothing takes away from the grandeur of this spot on Exmoor's coast but there is some semantic dancing going on here in order to secure a record. And looking at the 25K map detail the steep part of the overall drop occupies only the lower 200m or so of it. Geopersona (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Flag

I note an image of the "Flag of Exmoor" has been added to this article (File:Exmoor Flag.svg). Does anyone know how "official" this is eg has it been adopted by the National Park Authority or similar, as the reference given seems to be largely designed to promote associated merchandise?— Rod ^talk 14:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me (as the bugger who added the flag to the article) that the flag has been created by the Exmoor locals as part of a flag-competition (the other entries one can see on the reference); Exmoor doesn't appear to have any other flag, thus it seemed logical to me to add it to the article. Given that it is a good looking flag, I can see the authorities using it too sooner or later regardless.—NorthWillRise (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article status?

I've recently come upon this article, and while it is clear that some good work has gone in to producing it, I cannot escape the feeling that it does not belong within the elite category of FAs, and therefore I would suggest that it go to FAR. This article was promoted to FA status way back in January 2008, and in the intervening years the standards expected at Wikipedia have risen dramatically. There were articles that passed FAC back then which today would struggle to even pass GAN, and if I'm being honest, I believe that the Exmoor article is one such example. Looking it through, it is clear that there are vast areas of the article which are simply un-referenced, a number of sources are improperly cited, and several might not be classified as Reliable Sources at all. All in all, I think that we can do a lot better, and wanted to see if there was support for such a course of action? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This article was promoted to FA a long time ago, however during this year as part of a project to review old FAs promoted from 2004-2010 (you might want to join in with this work) I have fixed a lot of link rot and updated some of the statistics. It also had a copyedit by User:Corinne from the Guild of Copy Editors. Obviously you or anyone can nominate it at FAR but if you could identify specific facts which need further references or those you consider non-RS or incorrectly cited, I would be happy to try to improve them.— Rod ^talk 18:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rod, thanks for your response. There are a lot of areas where the text is simply not referenced (for instance in the "Exmoor National Park" section; that is something that definitely needs fixing, because an article with such un-referenced chunks definitely wouldn't even get through GAN, let alone FAC, at present. Some of the citations lack page numbers and are not formatted consistently (for instance, "Ballance, David K. and Gibbs, Brian D. (2003) The birds of Exmoor and the Quantocks"). Moreover, the quality of the references often leave something to be desired. For instance, when discussing the prehistory of the area, we cite websites like "Holiday Exmoor" rather than reliable, academic references, which are all-but-absent (I have a copy of The Field Archaeology of Exmoor and would be happy to help on this one.) These are just a few of the things that I can pick out from skimming through the article. I don't like being the bearer of bad news, but I really do think that FAR may well be necessary on this one, due to the quantity of issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed your specific examples and some further issues which I identified. Could you take a look and let me know of other issues you feel still need addressing.— Rod ^talk 19:07, 10 October 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 16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Exmoor. 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/20160304041733/http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1002137.pdf to http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1002137.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209110311/http://www.naturalareas.naturalengland.org.uk/Science/natural/profiles/naProfile87.pdf to http://www.naturalareas.naturalengland.org.uk/Science/natural/profiles/naProfile87.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150911053029/http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/environmentplanning/natural_environment/geology/northerndevon.htm to http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/environmentplanning/natural_environment/geology/northerndevon.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101015448/http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/transport/public_rights_of_way/where_to_walk_and_ride/two_moors_way.htm to http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/transport/public_rights_of_way/where_to_walk_and_ride/two_moors_way.htm

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) 04:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Exmoor. 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/20150525024757/http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/environment/rivers-and-the-coast to http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/environment/rivers-and-the-coast
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826210326/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1356403558255/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1356403558255/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905122727/http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/351270/a_landscape_legacy.pdf to http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/351270/a_landscape_legacy.pdf
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150302220504/http%3A//www.exmoor%2Dnationalpark.gov.uk/environment/new%2Dtrees%2Dand%2Dwoodlands%2Dlanding%2Dpage/working%2Dwoodlands to http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/environment/new-trees-and-woodlands-landing-page/working-woodlands
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114135937/http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/about-us/who-runs-the-authority to http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/about-us/who-runs-the-authority
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121225105009/http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/environment/moorland/moorland-the-heart-of-exmoor to http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/environment/moorland/moorland-the-heart-of-exmoor

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) 22:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Exmoor. 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/20160307212207/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-advice-for-special-protection-area-exe-estuary-uk9010081/exe-estuary-spa-site-information to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-advice-for-special-protection-area-exe-estuary-uk9010081/exe-estuary-spa-site-information
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119000135/http://www.gov-news.org/gov/uk/news/new_pony_centre_to_support_preservation_of/59317.html to http://www.gov-news.org/gov/uk/news/new_pony_centre_to_support_preservation_of/59317.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606173607/http://www.somerset.gov.uk/irj/public/services/directory/service?rid=%2Fwpccontent%2FSites%2FSCC%2FWeb%20Pages%2FServices%2FServices%2FEnvironment%2FSomerset%20and%20Exmoor%20National%20Park%20joint%20structure%20plan to http://www.somerset.gov.uk/irj/public/services/directory/service?rid=%2Fwpccontent%2FSites%2FSCC%2FWeb%20Pages%2FServices%2FServices%2FEnvironment%2FSomerset%20and%20Exmoor%20National%20Park%20joint%20structure%20plan
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/discover-the-wonder-of-snowdrop-valley-as-thousands-of-tiny-white-flowers-create-a-carpet-of-white/story-30089080-detail/story.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) 16:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Exmoor moorland

For us who live across the pond, your might add moorland to the first sentence, like: "...located on the Exmoor moorland, near the village of Withypool...". This will make it clear to us non-Englanders that Exmoor is not a hill, a county, a castle or whatever but an area of wetlands and/or uplands without trees.

I'd make the change myself but I don't like modifying current featured articles, especially the first sentence. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you might be at the wrong place. This article starts "Exmoor is loosely defined as an area of hilly open moorland in west Somerset and north Devon in South West England. It is named after the River Exe, the source of which is situated in the centre of the area, two miles north-west of Simonsbath. Exmoor is more precisely defined as the area of the former ancient royal hunting forest, also called Exmoor, which was officially surveyed 1815–1818 as 18,810 acres (7,610 ha) in extent." DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant to enter my comments on the talk page of Withypool Stone Circle. Now that Withypool Stone Circle is not the current featured article, I'll make the change myself. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

oldish map

is this map

any use in the article (once you zoom in) it names most (if not all ?)of the places that are mentioned EdwardLane (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the OS map published in 1967 would be out of copyright yet? The articles already has quite a few images and I'm not sure where it would fit or if one of the existing images would need to be removed.— Rod ^talk 13:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)