Talk:List of headlands of the United Kingdom

I copied this list from the Geography of the United Kingdom article where the list is now deleted but with a link to this page, so as to make that article more readable. I've tweaked the list - it could be arranged alphabetically by coastal county - as now - or else geographically, say clockwise around the coast of Great Britain and then Northern Ireland - there are merits in either approach. One question arises as to the distinction between headlands and peninsulas - it seesm to me that the list at present is an unsatisfactory mix of both. Of course it may be more appropriate (if having a list at all) to have one list referring to Great Britain (and offshore islands) and a separate one to the island of Ireland, not least because this is essentially an aspect of the physical geography of the two big islands rather than their political geography. Geopersona (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now rearranged the listing clockwise coastally by traditional county - though other approaches could be discussed, and have begun to add more content. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What to include?

The article currently claims to list 'notable' headlands, which is of course a subjective assessment, although also a criterion with which I broadly concur - but how to define it? I notice that the Isle of Wight currently has zillions listed, and Cornwall has the potential for even more than that, if every single named promontory is included. And do low-lying spits such as Spurn Point actually count as headlands? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A pertinent question. I will have to admit to adding many minor ones, since knowing where to draw the line is difficult - my criterion has been the presence of a name on the OS 25K or 50K map. If these are retained it may be appropriate to highlight the more notable ones by some means. Particularly significant ones will have their own article and be blue-linked though the majority could never sensibly achieve that position. Geopersona (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at a few definitions:

cape: a head or point of land running into the sea or a lake (Chambers), a headland or promontory (Collins)
headland: a point of land running out into the sea: a cape (Chambers), a narrow area of land jutting out into a sea, lake etc (Collins)
peninsula: a piece of land that is almost an island (Chambers), a narrow strip of land projecting into a sea or lake from the mainland (Collins)
promontory: a headland or high cape (Chambers), a high point of land, esp of rocky coast, that juts out into the sea (Collins)

Running and jutting have different meanings - Chambers definition of a headland seems to require something more in the way of protruding into the sea whilst (it seems to me) Collins' headland merely asserts itself in 'jutting out'.Geopersona (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think those definitions don't assert anything very precise, and there's a certain amount of overlap between the different terms. Although I think they do seem to concur that a certain amount of 'jutting out' is required, and that the piece of land that is doing the jutting is noticeably narrow or at least comes to a point. This latter prescription might assert against including a number of 'points' shown on the map - namely those which merely continue the general line of the coast in their vicinity. I also added a few names to the list earlier, achieved by looking at my OS maps, and I was struck by how many named 'points' didn't really jut out from the coast very much. Of course things can appear different on the ground, as I'm sure you're aware - particularly where changes in altitude are involved. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nature does not provide us with clear-cut boundaries of course. In my own use of the word I'd require a blunt point to be a high point before I called it a headland whereas a sharper point could suffice without so much height - there's a sense of the land coming to a head in three dimensions that is perhaps required. Tricky! Geopersona (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I think your use of the word tallies with my own. The problem arises mostly when trying to gauge what something is from a map, although in that instance names can indeed be helpful to a certain extent (contradicting myself a bit here...). Of course, the OS doesn't always get the names right. My old school geography teacher once told me that there's a hill (or even a headland - I can't remember) near Scarborough which the OS name as "Yons Nab", and the story (probably apocryphal) is that the surveyor asked a local what "that hill over there" was called, and got the reply "yon's Nab", but the Yorkshire dialect was lost on the surveyor, so what should have been "Nab" or "The Nab" became "Yons Nab".... Incidentally, do you think places such as Spurn Point fit any of the definitions for this list?PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I came across Yons Nab again just a few minutes ago when listing points along the Yorkshire coast - I also came across 'Sales Point' in Essex which amused me. Here in Wales, there are (or rather were) numerous mis-spellings or at least awkward anglicisations as English-speaking OS surveyors got to grips with the local language in the early C19th. As to Spurn Point, I wouldn't normally call it a headland but by the definitions above it most certainly is. I'd probably go for the inclusive approach but with suitable wording to account for the overlaps and uncertainties in an intro section. Of coures all would be solved by re-titling the article as List of bits of the UK that jut out into the sea to some extent - what do you think? :-) cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, there is a temptation to do something like that, although on reflection I personally would recommend a less inclusive approach, for 2 reasons. Firstly, the definition given in the Wikipedia article on headlands is more restrictive (it significantly refers to height as being a usual criterion), and it would be preferable I think if the 2 articles concurred with each other. Secondly, an inclusive approach will inevitably lead to a huge list once the west coast of Scotland is expanded; I just had a look at my map of Loch Shiel and the surrounding area, and in places there's a 'rubha' marked every few centimetres. When including points as a result of perusing a map, I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be but where does that definition at Headlands come from? There are no citations given so I guess it may have simply been devised by the author of the article. One reason I've gone for the inclusionist approach is that by and by the article will likely grow over time as one author after another adds more points - it happens with articles all the time - this way you get the fuller article at an earlier date. I do agree with your comment re the Scottish situation though - one reason that I started on England's relatively plain east coast! Though I've still omitted a few. What may be significant in the one geographical context may not be in another. It would be useful to have some third parties throw in their twopen'th. Geopersona (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your questioning of the definition in the headland article - that's something that had come to my mind. It might be a good idea to search around a bit for some other definition sources - perhaps geographical ones, rather than dictionaries - as the definition is something of a grey area, and will affect the shape of the resultant article. At the moment the article is shaping up roughly according to the broad definitions above, yet I think both you and I would have naturally asserted a narrower definition, as indeed has the relevant contributor to the headland article. It may be that everyone has their own particular view, but it may be that a consensus emerges. Some other further thoughts I have had are:

1) Maybe split the list into constituent countries (List of headlands of England, List of headlands of Wales etc), so that the Scottish section doesn't make the whole thing really unwieldy?
2) An alternative way of arranging the article (or articles, if they're split) is by defined section of coast, rather than by counties. This would enable the creation of sections containing either short or long lengths of coast according to how dense the occurrence of headlands is. Example sections could be: "England, east coast", "England, south coast, North Foreland to Portland Bill" etc - a bit like the shipping forecasts in a way...?
3) If a fully inclusionist approach (w.r.t. the definition) is pursued, maybe a key can be devised so that, for example, eroding cliff-type headlands can be marked in one way, low depositional forms can be marked in another, peninsulas in another etc?
4) It might be neat to give coordinates for each entry, preferably in a way which takes the reader straight to a relevant map if they click on them? (I thought this might be helpful particularly if lots of minor points are listed, to prevent the list just becoming a role-call of names which no-one can relate to) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some excellent ideas there, all of which ought probably to be pursued. It had also occurred to me to list the bays which are often defined by the headlands at either side though it could become unwieldy. See List of bays of the British Isles where the coastal breakdown is employed to some extent. This also brings us back to the issue re UK/Britain/Ireland/etc cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to list the bays on either side, especially if a table format is adopted, similar to List of monastic houses in England for example, and if the list is broken into constituent sections of coast, each section might not be too unwieldy. When I have a few moments I might have a bash at implementing some of my suggestions, if only in one stretch of coast to start with, to see how it worked... (or feel free to have a go yourself...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles?

Having embarked on completion of the list of points and headlands around the Welsh coast (driven by this initiative) - drawing on those which are named on the OS 1:25,000 scale map - I am coming to abetter understanding of how long this list might become. I'd be interested in comment from others as to whether there is merit in retaining the list as a UK-wide one or else breaking it into separate lists for England, Wales, Scotland and (possibly all of the island of) Ireland - as earlier suggested by PaleCloudedWhite above of course. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There possibly is merit in retaining a UK-wide list, as I think readers perhaps would prefer to have all the info together. However the length of such an article - if constructed in its current format - would be impractical. As an alternative, what about keeping the info all on one article, but 'hatting' different sections, so readers can 'show' and 'hide' information as they wish? - that should keep it manageable, at least in the way it's presented to the reader. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be separate articles for GB and Ireland, for a geographical topic it makes more sense. Sheila1988 (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]