Talk:North York Moors

Expand

Expansion tag added, as this is quite short compared with other National park articles - we can find more to say, I'd have thought SP-KP 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Geography

I'd like to see this section include something about the underlying geology but don't have specific knowledge in this area - can anyone do this? The higher moors are on sandstone, towards the coast is shale and boulder clay, then we have the limestone escarpments to the South. What else is important? Peat and bog areas might deserve a mention.4wd 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What else is important.

I just thought of Ironstone mining in Rosedale, low grade coal from small pits on the moors (e.g. near Blakey) and even gas discoveries such as the recent one at Westerdale. Perhaps Geology should be a separate section in the article! 4wd 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working on this article and have altered the structure prior to adding more text and images. I'll add back some of the text later.--Harkey Lodger 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife and Nature in the NYM

Hello, I've started a section referring to Wildlife which could do with more work. Here could be listed a lot of species that a visitor to the area might expect to see and they should mostly be linkable to existing Wiki pages.

Similarly I've begun to expand a little on the natural features (OK, strictly speaking moorland is man-made!) There's scope here to touch on natural features and how they were formed, such as Newtondale, Bridestones, Sutton Bank and Gormire. 4wd 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

History

This could go back a good deal further with references in particular to the Great Abbeys, whose influence extends to this day in types of farming practised for example. 4wd 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just written a further chunk for this. Feel free to insert wiki links as I have run out of time just now.... I am more than happy for anyone to add or make minor edits. It's easier to think what might be useful once "something" is up on the page! 4wd 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started to research this. It should be "up" in the next few days. --Harkey Lodger 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

North York Moors Link

hello, i added a link to http://www.northyorkmoors-stay.co.uk. However i have recieved a message saying i need to discuss it in here first. I think there should be a link to this website as it is the only dedicated north york moors website except the official one. It is primairly for accommodation but also has tourist infor like golf course, fishing, bird watching too. I feel it would be a useful link for people interested in the north york moors, and as i say north york moors websites are very thin on the ground and it seems like a quality website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shimlad (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Hi - you really should have a look at WP:EL and WP:NOT before placing any links. In practice Wiki is an encyclopedia not a directory and certainly not a tourist information guide. Links are rarely needed on Wiki as content is what is required by the readers. It seems very likely that you have information that may be of use to the page but it should be placed as content rather than a link. Hope this clarifies things - all the best --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC) (and please sign postings on talk pages - thanks)

Name

I have mostly seen 'North York Moors' in writing, but a lot of people seem to say 'North Yorkshire Moors'. Which is the more correct, or is neither so ? Thanks--jrleighton 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The geographical area and the National Park are both correctly referred to as "North York Moors". The railway, however, seems to be officially the "North Yorkshire Moors Railway". Confusing,but there it is! --King Hildebrand 10:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The short form is what's on all the maps, and it's wrong. They're the moors of North Yorkshire, not the moors to the north of York. The North Yorkshire Moors Railway preserves the correct, unabbreviated form. The short form isn't named for the city, because there are no moors to the east, south, or west. If this is the basis of the name, then it's redundant, and they should be named the York Moors, or if we were to get pedantic, the Only York Moors. Plainly silly either way. So it's an abbreviation: Yorkshire -> York. However, the more correct abbreviation of county names ending in -shire is the ending -s.; so that's why the confusion arose: the abbreviated form should be North Yorks. Moors, and the only correct full form is North Yorkshire Moors. Pretty straightforward when you think about it. My feeling is that one person was drawing the letters on the map and forgot the "S", and so the name became changed forever.--Rfsmit (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Though see https://northyorkmoorsnationalpark.wordpress.com/whats-in-a-name/ on the NP Authority's official blog. Geopersona (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal of status.

Can anyone find a source for the "Withdrawal of Status" section? I can't find one online.--Harkey Lodger 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, nor anything relating to a change in the status of the Yorkshire Wolds. It was added here by Arthur7171 (talk · contribs) on 19 February. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I emailed the NYM National Park. Their reply was "Having checked with some colleagues at the National Park offices here it would seem that this is not accurate." I shall therefore delete the section.--Harkey Lodger 09:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation questions

Sparrow hawk

In the section North_York_Moors#Natural_history, the "limestone belt" sub-section, the term sparrow hawk is included. This link leads to a disambiguation page (sparrowhawk). Could some knowledgeable person edit this link so it leads to a proper article? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! Sorry, I'd no idea there were so many. Just shows what Wikipedia can teach me!!!--Harkey Lodger 08:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I moved this section into a less prominent place to discourage advertising in the tourism section--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

However Wikipedia is not a tourist directory and the link is against policy as far as I can see. I think discussion should take place before placement is considered again, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.This person is adding external links all around the area.Can it be blocked?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes they can be blocked - but considering the number of reversions they have only had 2 warnings at the moment, so a block would normally be declined. Keith D (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking would be far to heavy handed for now but it would seem they have a "single purpose" so may well need watching/guidance --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to place links in these sections in good faith, the site I listed in the official tourism site for the newly formed Yorkshire Moors and Coast area including the NYMNP as is supposed to serve as a source of further information on the area. Apologies if the guidelines were not adhered to, I would however appreciate some guidance on how to go about making reference to the site and ultimately creating a page as it's own entity. Best regards YMCTP YMCTP (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

However Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a tourist directory and external links are rarely necessary (see WP:EL). Equally as you obviously have a connection with the board you cannot place the links due to conflict of interest policy. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were to ask a colleague at the National Park Authority to update this wiki would this suffice? YMCTP (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Location map

North York Moors

I've uploaded a location map of the North York Moors 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, it allow enable creation a map of the North York Moors 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) 22:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Stating the obvious?

"Air temperature varies on a daily and seasonal basis. The temperature is usually lower at night and January is the coldest time of the year" - this seems like something I could have figured out simply from the fact that the area is north of the tropics. I wonder, should I simply remove it? Huw Powell (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it appears in a number of articles e.g. Lealholm and Vale of Pickering. Probably the same user has gone round standardising the text. Keith D (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It came from the Met Office discussion of the UK climate which it appears has now been taken down, but is largely repeated here. It may not be so obvious to people who are less informed and living in different climatic areas. Wikipedia is used universally.--Harkey (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That climate section is nonsense. Average temperatures in summer of 20-32C? I doubt 32C has ever been reached on the moors even in the hotter summers before 2006; the winter averages on the other hand look too low. Using an average lapse rate of 6C/1000m, the highest parts will be about 2.5C cooler than Stockton-on-Tees http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gcxn3ykru Which translates to an average maximum of about 4C in winter and 18C in summer. Monthly means from about 1.5C to 12C; the highest parts, especially those near the coast, might just border on a Cfc (subpolar oceanic) rather than Cfb (temperate oceanic) climate, especially in recent years. The rainfall figures are also inaccurate; nowhere on the east coast averages 1000 let alone 1500mm, even high up- only western areas manage that. Winter precipitation will be slightly higher than lower down but annual averages are probably in the 800mm range. Walshie79 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:North York Moors/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires additional inline references Existing reference need converting to use one of the {{Cite}} templates Introduce more wikilinks into main body of article Copy-edit for WP:MOS Keith D 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

lead section

I've changed the wording in the lead to reflect the fact that the North York Moors is primarily an upland area and only secondarily a National Park, albeit that is an important status - indeed I've also bolded the name of the national park as it is a search term in itself which currently redirects to this page. The figures already given in the lead re area and population do not relate to the NYM per se but to the designated area which, as per discussions that have taken place on other WP pages on national parks may or may not accurately reflect the historic/modern notion of the extent of the area so named. (see Talk:Peak_District for example). B.t.w. 'upland area' may seem a clinical description of what is a very particular hill and valley landscape or rather a dissected plateau, albeit sloping away to the south (an extended cuesta form). cheers Geopersona (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Geopersona: sorry about this being a year later. I believe the old name for the west of the historic north riding was Cleveland if the North York Moors covered upland only, maybe Vale of Pickering, Vale of Mowbray and parts of Teesdale might suit lowlands. Cleveland, England could include all to cover the whole area. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor point - I think the language on the History section could likely be improved

Just going over the History section - I wanted to leave a note that the section, while comprehensive, has language that seems a little. I don't know, basic? It's perfectly serviceable, all the right facts are there, but some aspects seem like they could be formalised, perhaps expanded upon, the flow and tone improved.

For instance - one sentence I just rewrote was on the Dissolution of the monasteries - here's what it started as:

"Being envious of the wealth of the monasteries, Henry VIII of England closed them down, and confiscated and sold off their property."

I found this to be a little basic. No date is given for when this happened; no link is given to Henry VIII; "closed them down" is the right concept, but somewhat informal. No reason beyond 'jealousy' is given for their dissolution, either - and that's a problem.

On the article covering the dissolution, it's quoted that it was "one of the most revolutionary events in English history", and that "one adult man in fifty was in religious orders". More importantly, no mention is given that this was during Henry's separation from papal authority, a major event in English history. Wealth *was* a key aspect; but also vital was separation from papal power.

That's a bit more than jealousy, no?

The rest of the History section - I think moreso the earlier subsections than the later - cover similar events, peoples and cultures in a basic, but undescriptive way that doesn't quite feel encyclopedic. I'd appreciate if someone could have a look in and a copyedit; it doesn't feel like there are major, glaring inaccuracies, but it could do with a little sheen and polish. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Map (again)

The map which purports to show the boundary of the national park has two errors in the southwest - perhaps the original uploader of the map (user:Lencer) can correct it, or else another can be provided? Geopersona (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)