Talk:Rivelin Rocks

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Rivelin Rocks is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Sheffield Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Location[edit]

The article apparently contradicts itself. In the first section it claims the rocks are on private property. In the second section it claims the rocks are within the bounds of a National Park.

They could fall across a boundary, but the article is not specific enough to be clear. 82.68.152.186

Apologies if I'm being presumptious, but it sounds like you're thinking of national parks in the USA sense, where I believe they are publicly owned and preserved as wilderness. In the UK version of national parks, plenty of land is privately owned. They are not preserved as human-free wilderness areas, but as regular countryside (with private land, agriculture, buildings, small settlements, even light industry) with added protection to prevent over-development. Does this answer your question? --VinceBowdren 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

Any idea what is wrong with the formatting on this document - the edit links are at the end. I have had a look but cannot spot an obvious issue (the refs are all okay). RobChafer 14:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they got pushed around when you have pictures on the right-hand side of the page, which take up the position the edit link would normally go. --VinceBowdren 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]