Talk:Dartmoor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV Issues[edit]

I know nothing about this, and therefore don't want to make any changes, but I can't imagine that "continually under threat from the industrial conglomerates..." is quite written from the neutral point of view. --LMS

Er, it's nothing short of factual. These outfits are continually trying to dig up Dartmoor (they've just made their fifth application in as many years to encroach (they're after about an eighth of the moor at the moment, and area of approx 45 square miles)) and damage a) the environment b) the archaeological and cultural heritage for ever for everyone else, for generations to come, in the interests of short term material gain. I think this represents a threat to me and pretty much everyone else who lives in the southwest.

Dartmoor is one of the great unsung wonders of the world. Their spoil tips look diabolical. They create waste and destroy wildlife. But then, I suppose if I were being entirely neutral, I would just accept their depradations; I was just being light on them. Maybe in the interests of neutrality I ought to be a little more hostile? Or should I be taking a line like 'Chernobyl represents an interesting contribution to Russian industrial history', or 'Waco was a change in direction for American policing strategies'? :-) sjc

I would not dream of suggesting anything so absurd, and the fact that you think I might indicates to me that you fail to understand what I said. I simply want you to read neutral point of view and pay careful attention. If any sizable minority of the population--even, or especially, a minority that you disagree with strongly!--would disagree with how you have worded something, or what facts are selectively presented, then the best form would have you to "go meta" and describe what the different views of the situation are, in a way that everyone would be able to agree was fair and accurate. This is the most prudent way to write a collaborative, international encyclopedia that people of all sorts of different views will want to contribute to. See also talk:Creationism for a good discussion of these principles. Wikipedia is not the place for activism of any kind, if that's what you are engaged in (and I won't take a position on it--it just seems possible to me, that's all). --LMS
No, I got you the first time, Larry, I was maybe being a bit too sardonic for my own good. I think that the only people who would disagree in this instance would be the directors and majority shareholders of the china-clay mining companies, and in my book they deserve pretty much everything they get. Even they're beginning to realise that they can't get away with it any longer themselves (see my note below). I fully intend to go meta on this one, in any case, but as I'm working in London and won't be at home in the south-west till next weekend, I can't really cite case notes till then.... sjc

I would side with sjc; I've seen such situations elsewhere and know that what sjc reports is nothing unusual. On the other hand, I think it would make the article stronger if it included some examples and elaboration on this. For example, listing 2-3 instances where the conglomerates have taken or attempted to take actions which would harm Dartmoor.

If I remember correctly, in England there is no government-backed national park system analogous to the US Park service, but instead, a group of private citizens banded together to create a trust to protect the natural areas of England, and these groups continue to fight, even to this day, to protect the natural areas. It would be worthwhile to make mention of how Dartmoor is being preserved, and by whom, and for what reason.

-- BryceHarrington

OK, I'll attach reference to the Dartmoor Preservation Society, and the laughable attempt (it's funny now, it wasn't at the time) to redirect the river Teign so they could dig up more china clay.... I'll also annotate their previous depradations in a separate article. sjc

And the good news today, Tuesday, 21st June 2001, is that both Imreys and Watts Blake Bearne have bowed to public pressure and agreed to renounce their licences. That just leaves English China Clay. sjc

Perhaps there could be a link to a NON-WikiPedia web page where activists (and those interested in the 'non-[[:|neutral point of view]]' side of things) could go to find out more about this? Does this violate the WikiPedia policy or community?

Er, we're not really activists, just trying to maintain the environmental status quo. But FYI you might like to look at the Dartmoor Preservation Association pages... These are at: http://www.dartmoor-preservation-assoc.org.uk/pages/objects.htm sjc

Thanks! I guess what I meant by 'activist' was 'person who wants to help'... and I think that it's quite within neutrality to say, as you have, "Here's a situation that could be better with your help". Now just get the presveration society to accept subscriptions from overseas (PayPal?), and we'll really help :-).

Given the general membership of DPA it is kind of miraculous that DPA have web pages at all! I will try and get it raised though, and thank you for your concern. As far as I am concerned, Dartmoor is one of the most beautiful places in Britain, perhaps the world. sjc

This article is definitely not NPOV. If a mining company has a legal right to extract resources from a given area, then thats all there is to it, regardless of your emotional attachment to their future strip mine. Vroman


I always felt that the amount of space devoted to this issue in the Dartmoor site was a little excessive. Most of my family live on Dartmoor, and I can confirm that it IS an issue, but one of many. However, the page has grown to the point where it is better balanced. On the other hand, it might be an idea to give this a page of its own, and link it to 'Dartmoor'. After all, the 'Dartmoor wildlife' and 'Dartmoor tin-mining' sections are separate, and both highly significant to the moor and its history. JonC


ACCESS LAND[edit]

NEW TOPIC 'Access Land' is similar to 'Open Country' in the Peak Park - this designation, which applies to major areas of Kinder Scout and Bleaklow amongst others, well predates my first outings there in the early 60s, and existed I think from the Park's inception. I have not edited (but may do sometime - now done). My Dark Peak map of circa 1972 for example shows a vast swathe of this part of the Peak designated as National Park Access Land Linuxlad 17:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Highest, Deepest, Longest...[edit]

(All good Guinness Book of Records stuff :-))

Warren House is very unlikely to be second highest pub in England. Tan Hill comes in first at 528m or so. One of the stronger claimants to 2nd place is the Cat & Fiddle at approx 510m, on the A537 road above Buxton, Derbyshire. (NB note that appropriately it's a Cheshire Cat, though only by about 50m over the county boundary). I have amended the claim to highest in SW England. Linuxlad 17:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Factual geography?[edit]

My knowledge of the area is little, but I would have thought a geography section appropriate:

  • communications railways and roads(perhaps including a note about toll roads?)
  • population figures
  • land use
  • industries past and present

Peter Shearan 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons[edit]

I've started a commons page but I dont know what template to put on the page. --βjweþþ (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag[edit]

I'm tagging this for cleanup, as the tone doesn't appear quite right for Wikipedia. Sections that need particular attention include the lead and the sections on myths and rivers. The problems should be jump out - if not, I'm happy to provide more detail. SP-KP 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do my bit as soon as I have time. There is obviously some POV which can be dealt with and some areas for improvement. Are there any 'best practice' geographical/topographical pages which could illustrate the way to take this forward? I looked at all the other UK National Park pages, and these all seemed inferior to Dartmoor (yet non of these have been tagged for clean-up). JonC

I've had a go at cleaning up the introduction and rivers section. Waggers 13:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a best practice reference, Chew Valley Lake has Featured Article status, if that's any help. I don't tend to check quality of related articles when tagging things for cleanup on the basis that a cleanup need is a cleanup need. I'll check the other National Park articles and tag any which I think are also in need of work. SP-KP 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of looking at the geography thing and the previous comment the article makes no mention of the fact that much of Devon's water comes from the five reservoirs within the National Park. I do know a little about them and would happily help (with this and other aspects of Dartmoor) but my Wiki expertise at present is close to zero Nigel 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Dartmoor reservoirs. If you know a bit about this, why not update this section, as well as ensuring there are references within Dartmoor and Devon? JonC
Thanks Jon - ok I should have look but I guess I feel there should be a link on the Dartmoor page (which at a quick glance I can't see). I'll look at the page some more over the weekend and see if I feel I can contribute anything, I'll certainly look at putting links in, possibly in pages for the towns originally supplied? regards Nigel 09:18, 7 July

Spam?[edit]

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 08:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK in the end I went ahead and revoved the link after others had expressed the same opinion --Nigel 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and fauna?[edit]

Looking at little closer at the Dartmoor page and comparing it to some other National Parks pages it does strike me that this aspect is missing. Other than a list of things I've seen it is really out of my expertise. However I do know that it is a very rich habitat and important in many ways. Anyone interested?

Cheers --Nigel 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok found the wild life one (should have looked) but nothing on the flora that I can see?? -- Nigel 11:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for page[edit]

Hi All (??)

I been looking at this for a while & wonder if the page could be tidier if we created some sub categories - Dartmoor Rivers, Dartmoor Villages and then linked that to the Dartmoor page rather than the current list approach? Could leave the main tors, rivers etc on the Dartmoor page with a "see also" for the rest. It should make the page a little sharper

Obviously comments welcome & thanks --Nigel (Talk) 12:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone tag removed[edit]

I've had nothing to do with the creation of this page. After reading through the entire thing, I feel that the page is not longer in need of clean-up from a tone perspective. Good work to everyone who improved it! InvictaHOG 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover piccy[edit]

I've removed this. It really does not seem really relevant to Dartmoor. I have not seen anything like that kind of wreckage on the moors (I wonder if it is a "created" photo, I can't find evidence for it). --Herby talk to me 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Dart[edit]

From the point of view of their journeys across Dartmoor I am inclined to create pages for both East & West Dart. They are certainly bigger rivers than some of the others mentioned here and their passage across the moors is not really dealt with. Any other views? Cheers --Herby talk to me 12:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmoor and the military[edit]

If you are watching this page this BBC link may be of interest to you [1] cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject[edit]

I think it's time there was a Wikiproject:Devon up and running. Anyone interested, come to my talkpage and we'll sort something out. I'm not much good at HTML but if we all put our heads together I'm sure we can get Devon articles the treatment they deserve. Totnesmartin 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Much of this article is currently unsourced. Fortunately, the Dartmoor National Park Authority have produced several factsheets which should help in finding sources for specific statements:

http://www.dartmoor-npa.gov.uk/index/learningabout/lab-factsheetshome/lab-alphabetical-listing.htm

--Safalra 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic fire and references section[edit]

I added a bit of info on the role of anthropogenic fire in the creation of Dartmoor and moors in general, along with a references and notes section. Even though there is only one reference so far, I did it in the "Notes" and "References" method so you can give a full citation in References and then shorter footnotes and even little comments in the Notes section, like I did. I wanted to add the bit about fire because, having read it recently in Pyne's book, I was surprised and intrigued to learn how dramatically human use of fire has changed the landscape of... basically everywhere; back to Neolithic and probably Mesolithic times. But I'm not expert on Dartmoor, or moors at all really, so I hope my edits are not inappropriate or anything! Pfly 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) peter peter peter peter peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.4.65 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership percentages[edit]

just a moan but the percentages relating to ownership do not add up!

Well, we can't have every landowner credited! there are loads of private homes and farms there, obviously. It looks like jus the owners with more than 1% of the land are mentioned, but it's not that clear. I'll just clarify it. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved - there was no mention of Common land. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that an area being common land does not mean it is ownerless; common land is generally owned by one party or another and that may be a private owner, eg an estate or a public body etc, the 'common' status refers simply to certain parties having rights in common over that land eg to graze animals or take firewood. Of course there are also some pieces of common for which there is no known owner, in which case management of them will often default to a local authority. cheers Geopersona (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Measurements in Dartmoor article[edit]

Most of the measurements in the article are now metric first. I think the only exceptions are references to the Ten Tors Challenge and one to the width of the bogs. I think the width of the bogs could be changed to metric first, but the Ten Tors hike is more of a challenge. Would 56, 72 and 88 (or 89) be acceptable? What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine, thanks for the work. Ten Tors quotes the distances as you've done. The measurement of the "quakers" is only rough: I should think 4m (12 ft) would be OK.  —SMALLJIM  22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moorland or mire?[edit]

I think it is a mire area (i.e. peat land) rather than a moorland (a hilly heath).--Carnby (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it from my window, and looks pretty hilly to me. There's some peat and several bogs, but not enough to call the whole place a mire. The tors aren't indicative of a mire, certainly. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely moorland, though there are some areas of mire. Pterre (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yennadon Manor?[edit]

According to "Yennadon". BC Geographical Names., which is a neighbourhood/locality in the District of Maple Ridge, it was named for an early settler-cum-postmaster after his grandfather's former residence - "Yennadon Manor . . . a beautiful place on Dartmoor". Anyone familiar with the area know where this is, or which village it's near/in? The family name may not be the same as that of the postmaster, which was Prosse. Is this a notable Great House...or just a house or cottage? I'll be writing a Yennadon article, undisambiguated unless there's an actual placename, or a house/estate worthy of an article (?). "Manor" may be overblown, given experience with other similar names in British Columbia; Miyazaki House in Lillooet was originally named Eyrecourt, after a supposed Eyrecourt Castle in Ireland, which is anything but....it's aruin, so couldn't be teh "ancestral home" of the familiy in question whose house it was (if so a big claim); sorry for the digression, meant by way of illustration: that despite the sources available to me in Canada I always like to check with UK sources/pages to check on what aren't necessarily accurate BC sources....all prone to second-hand accounts and bragging/mythologizing. Be neat if Yennadon turned out to have a notable history/family attached, though....Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, maybe asked too soon; I hadn't noticed [a new Yennadon ref on the Lillooet River page which has a further source for Yennadon than BCGNIS does...still, if anyone knows of anything more, pls let me know; Yennadon, BC is just a semi-rural residential area on the NW side of the municipality in question; no big deal, nowadays it's the name of a school and the local bus route.Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source is also in relation to the place in BC, though with a different name for the postmaster, "Prowse"; of the two sources I'd trust this one, which is a local history site and well-cited, vs BCGNIS which is second-hand and as noted above sloppy...but still no further clue as to where in "the Devonshire moors" (BCGNIS says Dartmoor, which is how I got here) the house was, or how notable the Prowses (or Prosses?) were. Lots of remittance men among settlers of a certain era in British Columbia, he could have come from standing; or simply be overstating the grandeur of his grand'dad's home...Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seems it was probably Admiral Prowse, in which case it must have been a pretty nice place; is it still standing, then?Skookum1 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of "tor"[edit]

Is this from Latin, or from some older Anglo-Saxon or even Celtic word? Just curious.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location map[edit]

I've created a location map for Dartmoor, for potential use in related articles. Its far from perfect, and I'm not sure how to integrate into infobox templates (such as infobox mountain) but its a start :) --Nilfanion (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmoor (Dartmoor)

I've added map to right to using {{location map+}}, as well as a couple points to demonstrate. This should address the comment in the todo list if its populated adquately (Thoughts?)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who knows how please place this map into the article? I searched for it since it seemed odd to speak of a park without a map. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - added to the infobox in place of the rather woolly one that was already there. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that the maps appears automatically if you plug the right data into {{Infobox mountain}}. Look at the source on {{High Willhays}} for an example. The map parameter needs to be set to "map = United Kingdom Dartmoor", the map_caption parameter needs to be set to something like "map_caption = Location of High Willhays in Dartmoor", then you set lat_d and long_d to the latitude and longitude of the summit. Note that you should remove any existing {{coord}} template from within the article as using the map in the infobox automatically displays the coords at the top of the article. There are lots of hills on Dartmoor (see Category:Dartmoor) that don't have infoboxes or maps so if anyone is keen there is a nice job for you.... --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The restorers and the Dartmoor Exploration Committee[edit]

The Hut Circles and Kistvaens section currently states "Many ancient structures, including the hut circles at Grimspound, were reconstructed during the 19th century; most notably by civil engineer and historian Richard Hansford Worth. Some of this work was based more on speculation than archaeological expertise, and has since been criticised for its inaccuracy". This is very misleading as it gives the impression that Worth is to blame for such sloppiness. The section Pre-History already covers this anyway so I think it best to delete it.

Worth specifically insisted on the inclusion of his voice of dissension about the wall at Grimspound and a statement to this effect can be found at the end of the Second Report of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee (T.D.A. Vol. 27 pp.81-92 p.92 1895). In Worth's Dartmoor (p.142-3 1971 edition) he states "I have always held that it was a mistake to rebuild the structure to accord with the Committee's views of what it ought to be especially as no single section through the ruins at any point where the rebuilding was contemplated was made and published. And so I ventured to dissent from the conclusions of my colleagues (emphasis added). Worth was one of the main critics of some of the restorations, notably, Stalldown Stone Row (wrongly passes through a cairn in one section), Ringmoor stone row and cairn circle (imported stones not part of the original monument), Lakehead Hill stone row and massive cist (cist too high above ground and row wrongly curved), Challacombe triple stone row ("an attempt was made to re-erect these in the places in which 'they should of been'. Nothing coherent came of that attempt". Worth p.226). The problem Worth had with these restorations was that they were inaccurate.

Also whilst Worth did take part in restoring the Drizzlecombe menhirs (accurately in the original sockets) he wasn't involved in many of the subsequent restorations. These were mostly done by Sabine Baring-Gould and Robert Burnard of the Dartmoor Exploration Committtee. One of their main motives was to protect the sites which could be legally plundered by road builders. --DartmoorDave (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hut circles[edit]

I study historic carpentry but I am not too familiar with pre-historic dwelling types. I see the term hut circles used in a number of articles but no definition of the term. Are they remnants of a particular type of dwelling? Should they have an article or a redirect to a good description? Thanks. Jim Derby (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. A hut circle is the visible remains of a Roundhouse (dwelling). See Google Images for pictures. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And there is in fact a (somewhat brief) page hut circle with a link to the roundhouse page referred to above. Geopersona (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Dartmoor National Park[edit]

An issue that comes up repeatedly with articles on national parks is whether the core landscape - in this case, the upland massif which is the traditional moor - should be one article, and a separate page 'X National Park' - should be another. In Dartmoor's case there is a redirect from 'Dartmoor National Park' to this page. (Unusually there is also a 'Dartmoor National Park Authority' page in respect of the area - many GB NPs do not have such a page.) The current geology section dwells almost entirely on the upland massif whereas the national park extends beyond that core. I propose therefore, in the absence currently of a separate article on 'Dartmoor National Park' to develop the geology section of this article to encompass all of the territory within the national park boundary. If at some future date a 'Dartmoor National Park' article is developed or perhaps even a 'Geology of Dartmoor' then the material could be transferred. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saddle tor to Hey tor pano.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Saddle tor to Hey tor pano.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 19, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmoor
A panoramic view of some tors in Dartmoor, Devon, taken in late December 2009 during some early winter snow; the nearest on the right is Saddle tor, with Hay tor behind and to the left. The tors found in this moorland, which covers 954 square kilometres (368 sq mi) and is protected as the Dartmoor National Park, are granite hilltops dating from the Carboniferous period. They provide habitats for Dartmoor wildlife. The image is a stitched panorama using five individual images.Photograph: Herbythyme
Archive – More featured pictures...

"Dartmoor partnership".[edit]

Greetings, it was nice to see an image of Dartmoor looking so spectacular featured on the front page of wikipedia the other day. Anyway, I have never heard of any such organisation as the "Dartmoor partnership" - the official tourism website for the national park is here [2] - but I also found this whilst poking around google search [3] - which seems to indicate Visit Dartmoor and the Dartmoor Partnership are the same organisation - one is a commercial/public service name, the other name belonging to the more administrative side of things. Should Visit Dartmoor be added instead? --Julius R.S (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The West Country Challenge[edit]

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:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dartmoor. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dartmoor. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmoor wildlife[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. NHSavage (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found the article Dartmoor wildlife which has some good lists of wildlife but is completely unreferenced. Should I merge it here? Simonfreeman (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the same idea. I would like to formally propose that the above article is merged to a section of this one.--NHSavage (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some resources that might help make this a useful section are: http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/wildlife-and-heritage/wildlife https://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/nature-reserves-important-plant-areas/important-plant-areas/dartmoor http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0012929 http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/rspb-news/news/354171-uks-only-nesting-quotbutcher-birdsquot-successful-on-dartmoor--NHSavage (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/learning and the book The wildlife of Dartmoor, Norman Baldock and John Walters which is available via Devon Libraries
Anyone have any thoughts on how useful it would to use Worth's Dartmoor as a starting point for a section on vegetation ? It's a bit old but I don't think that the vegetation is changing that fast (unlike the bird life for example).--NHSavage (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Actually its not that useful.--NHSavage (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)--NHSavage (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Worth's Dartmoor was based on research getting on for a hundred years old now. I'd suggest that the best printed source would be Ian Mercer's Dartmoor (as referenced in Dartmoor wildlife). Chapter 4: "Dartmoor Vegetation in the last Millennium".  —SMALLJIM  22:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sadly Devon Libraries don't have a copy of that, it's out of print and the cheapest copy on ABE books is £30...--NHSavage (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the link will work for you, but this astonishingly long url shows that 6 copies of Dartmoor by Ian Mercer are available for loan from Devon Libraries: https://www.devonlibraries.org.uk/web/arena/results?p_p_id=crDetailWicket_WAR_arenaportlets&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=2&p_p_col_count=4&p_r_p_687834046_facet_queries=&_crDetailWicket_WAR_arenaportlets_back_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.devonlibraries.org.uk%2Fweb%2Farena%2Fsearch%3Fp_p_id%3DsearchResult_WAR_arenaportlets%26p_p_lifecycle%3D1%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_p_687834046_facet_queries%3D%26p_r_p_687834046_search_item_no%3D0%26p_r_p_687834046_sort_advice%3Dfield%253DRelevance%2526direction%253DDescending%26_searchResult_WAR_arenaportlets_arena_member_id%3D73726821%26_searchResult_WAR_arenaportlets_agency_name%3DAUK267001%26p_r_p_687834046_search_type%3Dsolr%26p_r_p_687834046_search_query%3DorganisationId_index%253AAUK267001%257C1%2BAND%2B%2528author_index%253Amercer%2BOR%2Bcontributor_index%253Amercer%2529%2BAND%2B%2528title_index%253Adartmoor%2BOR%2BtitleMain_index%253Adartmoor%2529&p_r_p_687834046_search_item_no=0&p_r_p_687834046_sort_advice=field%3DRelevance%26direction%3DDescending&p_r_p_687834046_arena_member_id=73726821&p_r_p_687834046_search_item_id=0007184999&p_r_p_687834046_agency_name=AUK267001&p_r_p_687834046_search_type=solr&p_r_p_687834046_search_query=organisationId_index%3AAUK267001%7C1+AND+%28author_index%3Amercer+OR+contributor_index%3Amercer%29+AND+%28title_index%3Adartmoor+OR+titleMain_index%3Adartmoor%29
I would have offered to scan the chapter for you (for research purposes), but it's 60 pages!  —SMALLJIM  19:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Odd - I searched for it on the catalogue - I must have fouled up somehow. Thanks.--NHSavage (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to say, I have now made a start on a section in this article on Dartmoor wildlife. It is brief but fully referenced. I have two questions now. Do people think that this would be best organised by habitats, or by groups of flora and fauna (e.g. birds, mammals etc). Secondly, the stand alone page had a lot on the livestock e.g. sheep and ponies. Do these belong here on in their own section?--NHSavage (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highest upland in southern Britain ??[edit]

The statement that Dartmoor is the highest upland in southern Britain is dubious. I suppose it depends what you mean by "southern", which is not defined. Dartmoor may be the highest in southern England, but the highest part in the southern half of Britain is in Wales. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the first couple of sentences of Dartmoor#Wildlife to avoid the statement.  —SMALLJIM  19:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Age of granite[edit]

The article states 309 million years ago and quotes a reference from 1982 for that which I don't have access to. The article on the Cornubian batholith, of which the Dartmoor granite pluton is a major part, gives an age of around 280 million years though goes on to discuss a wider range of dates, all younger than the 308mya. In their authoritative tome, 'The Geology of England and Wales', Brenchley & Rawson (GeolSoc, 2006) after some discussion, also go with 280. Geopersona (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, are we sure this is the largest area of granite in Britain? And yes, I know we go with references in Wikipedia and some do say that, but I wonder if they're correct, insofar as the Rannoch Moor granite pluton in the central Scottish Highlands is contiguous with other named granites to its west which on the face of it appear collectively to extend over a greater area than does the Dartmoor pluton. It may come down to semantics of course. Geopersona (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dartmoor&oldid=1210496291"