Talk:Ben Nevis

Cable car

cable car to Torlundy, 701 m ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marc Venot (talk • contribs) 06:51, July 30, 2004 (UTC)

Photo labelling

How about labelling the photo of the arete to Carn Mor Dearg as that? There is reference to CMD arete in main article now.Linuxlad 17:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead - I just took the photo, I didn't know the exact names involved and figured someone would come along who did. Stoive 19:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... and if it helps the photo was taken at grid ref approx 176 713 facing southwest (assuming I read the map off multimap correctly just now). There was quite a bit of fog/mist around at the time - part of the effect I was trying to capture, but which (considering your comment on my talk page) may also make it look smaller than it is. Stoive 22:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes (looking on old steam-powered OS Map ODL 32) that's about half way round the arete from CMD itself. Bob Linuxlad

Impressive?

"It is the most impressive mountain face in the United Kingdom " <-- That sentence is too subjctive, I think... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.31.8 (talk • contribs) 14:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

True, but not _that_ true. Try 'Considered by many (UK mountaineers) to be the most impressive on the mainland...' (there can't be many faces that high for a kick-off) Linuxlad

Yep, that sentence is quite subjective. I certainly don't agree with it and have met a lot of others who consider The Ben less impressive than many other faces. I think too that it should be changed. :) Chris 62.6.139.10 11:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

How about the 7km long "wall" on the Beinn Lair (a "mere" Corbett)? Quite impressive really! Grinner 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

references

I have difficulty with the referencing in this article. 355 days of the year no visibility from the top, with a reference to a BBC news page about the Ben Nevis. However, no word about it's weather conditions in there... That makes me wonder how true the statement is, and why teh reference has been put there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marije (talk • contribs) 17:43, October 2, 2005 (UTC)

Aah yes, that would be my fault, well spotted. The problem was that I thought it took the keys you type in for references, so if you have {ref|bbc} it would automatically tie this up with {note|bbc}. It seems that the references at the end also (for some reason) need to be in the same order as the references appear in the article, rather than alphabetical as I had ordered them.

Hopefully they should all make more sense in relation to the sentences they refer to now that I've re-ordered the references at the end. Thanks again pointing it out. — pmcm 20:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to doubt these statistics. Granted they come from a "reliable source", but the source looks more reliable on geology than on climate, which is only circumstantial to the article. I find it hard to believe that the summit is covered in cloud for 355 full days a year; more likely it sees some cloud at some point during 355 days. In any case the weather isn't that remarkable; it may be worse than on most Scottish mountains due to the extra altitude, but I doubt it's that much worse. I've updated the weather section to reflect these doubts and moved it to the section on ascents, where it surely has more relevance than in the lead section, with a bit more about navigational difficulties. -- Blisco 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about the cloud incidence, which is incidentally quite a bit higher than for other Munros, not just because of the altitude and location, but also because of its size and shape which forces airstreams upwards so generating significant extra cloud and precipitation. It seems to me that a summit cloud incidence statistic would be better (the figure of 75% sticks in my mind although I cannot source it). But I do not agree with the transfer of the weather section. Weather does not come under ascent routes. The right place for the weather information is in the lead section, directly under the fatalities information to which it is highly relevant. Also why were the additional rainfall comparisons removed? These were useful and did not occupy too much space. Any further comments? Viewfinder 08:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, the ascents section is not the ideal place for it, but I think it was overbalancing the lead section and being given too much prominence as the second paragraph (before the bit about fatalities). To be honest this article could do with a major restructuring - at present it seems to share the common fault of many Wikipedia articles, that of having grown organically from a stub, with short snippets of information held together fairly loosely. (I'm prepared to undertake such a task but won't have time for the next week or few.) The proper place for the weather - in an expanded form with additional comparisons - is probably in a "Geography" section, or perhaps under "Safety". As a stopgap how about putting the heading "Weather" above the relevant paragraph? -- Blisco 08:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does need restructuring, not least to remove the empty spaces around the "other facts" header. I will do nothing for 24 hours, then, barring further comment, I will create a weather heading as suggested, and remove the empty spaces. You can then overhaul the article when you have the time. Viewfinder 09:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these statistics, especially regarding cloud cover, seem highly unlikey. During the past twelve months, I've spent about 15 days walking in this area of the western highlands. I think on 12 of these days, I've been able to the summit of Ben Nevis free from the clouds, perhaps only for a few minutes. Admitedly I've had very good luck with weather this year, but if these stats were true, I shouldn't have seen the summit on 12 occasions even if I'd been there every day. I know this is against the no original research rule, but I think it casts enough doubt on the statistic that it should be removed. -- ras52 10:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The October issue of Trail magazine has an extended feature on Ben Nevis, including a panel "The Ben in numbers" which repeats the 355-days-of-cloud statistic. What's the betting they lifted it from Wikipedia? ;-> Blisco 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities

Surely most of the fatalities were due to falls while winter climbing, not rock climbing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.26.205 (talk • contribs) 14:06, March 22, 2006 (UTC)

No, most people are killed climbing the less-used routes. 92.8.194.2 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic name

I don't claim to be able to speak Gaelic, but I've never encountered the spelling Beinn Nebhis before -- I've always seen Beinn Nibheis. A Googlefight gives 41 hits for Nebhis and 1200 for Nibheis. I'm inclined to change this unless anyone can find supporting evidence for the former spelling. ras52 11:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The etymology of the name is decidely questionable - the name Ben Nevis is far more likely to predate the invasion of the Scots and comes from the Pictish Ben Nefys - meaning the Head of Nefys. Ben/Pen means head in Pictish/Welsh and is often used to name mountains e.g. Ben Lawers (Scotland), Pen y Fan (South Wales), Pen y Ghent (North of England), etc. Come to Wales and there's loads more. There are lots more examples of pre Scottish (Pictish) names in Scotland e.g Aberdeen, Aberfoyle etc. The Scottish version of Aber is Inver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.201.125 (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of Pictish in northern Scotland is well known, although beyond the indirect place name evidence you mention little is known of the particulars. (See Scottish island names or the Lunnasting stone for example.) If you have a reliable source for "the Head of Nefys" please let us know. Ben MacDui 09:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In any case, one has to hate these florid 'translations' of Gaelic (and other indigenous) names. I would suggest at least removing the word 'literal' in: 'A literal translation would therefore be "the mountain with its head in the clouds"'. That is not a literal translation it is a jolly figurative one. Positively imaginative, in fact. A literal translation would be Mount Pate-Cloud even if one swallows the strained etymology. DruartG (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence, doubtless - because as I remember my history, the Romans would never have had a chance to influence the name - but a latinised spelling of "Nibheis" would presumably be "Nivis". Which, in Latin, means "of snow". "Snowy mountain". 90.204.152.170 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The little evidence there is shows that the Picts spoke a Norse dialect. In Norse 'Nevis' would mean 'Head of Ice'. G W Gardiner (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Revert by Birdmessenger

I undid this, because it did not state to which version it reverted, and the reasons for it have not been stated. Viewfinder

Rewrite

As half-promised above, I've finally got round to doing a major rewrite and restructuring of this page. Parts of it still leave something to be desired, but the structure should provide a better framework for future improvement. I hope it meets with general approval. I'll add a few more photographs tomorrow. --Blisco 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending references

The origin of the name Ben Nevis is unclear. The word ben is certainly from beinn, the Gaelic word for 'peak', and Ben Nevis is sometimes referred to as 'The Ben'. Possibilities for the meaning of nevis include 'venomous' (from nimheil), 'burst' or 'flow' (from neb) and 'brow of keen air' (from neamh meaning 'keeness of air' and bathais meaning 'brow'). A locally popular suggestion that the name derives from nèamh meaning 'heaven' is rejected by etymologists.

This bit has been part of the article since very early on, and was written by the same contributor who inserted the erroneous Gaelic name 'Beinn Nebheis' (as questioned by ras52 above). I'm inclined to treat it as suspect; I've never seen the 'brow of keen air' theory anywhere else, and I don't think the anonymous 'etymologists' necessarily reject 'heaven' out of hand. I've moved here in case anyone can find any supporting references, and replaced it with a shorter, referenced etymology. --Blisco 18:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Three Peaks Challenge

I meant to say this when I made the relevant edit on 5 November, but better late than never. I removed mention of the National Three Peaks Challenge from the lead section, because, while notable, I didn't think the bare mention that "Ben Nevis is one of the mountains climbed as part of the Three Peaks Challenge" contributed much to the lead. I meant to try and incorporate it somewhere else in the article (e.g. under "Ascent routes"), but forgot. However, I think it would be better to contextualise it a bit: i.e. give some indication of how many people do the challenge and when, and whether or not it's considered to have a significant environmental impact. (According to the article, 29,000 people did the challenge in June 2003, which is a fair proportion of the 100,000 people who climb the Ben!) But if anyone wants to put it back straight away, with or without context, please do. --Blisco 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a way of working in a brief mention of the standard long walks / fell runs that include Ben Nevis: the Lochaber Traverse (i.e. the whole of the north side of Glen Nevis: the Grey Corries, Aonachs, CMD and Nevis — a not too hard long day's walk), Tranter's Round (that plus the Mammores — which seems common amongst the serious fell runners) and Ramsay's Round (a modern extension to Tranter's). Perhaps these together with the National Three Peaks Challenge would naturally fit into a new section? Incidentally, I'd love to see a source for 29,000 people doing the National Three Peaks in June 2003 — I simply don't believe that figure! — ras52 10:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

pre-GA review

Are "Ascent routes" and "Climbing on Ben Nevis" necessary as separate sections? "Climbing..." has a stub section tag (how would it be a GA with stub sections?). The picture in the infobox has too long a caption (there's a guideline stating thet captions should be concise). That is the case with most pictures. "(See External links below for the full view.)" is not encyclopedic. Trivia should not be present in a GA candidate. Please fix this issues before receiving a full GA review. --69.19.14.26 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with trivia in a GA candidate? The GA criteria merely states "no non-notable trivia" [my emphasis]. The Ben Nevis distillery is moderately well known and is named after this mountain, so it is sufficiently notable and relevant, and its inclusion encylopedic. The same is true of the New Zealand mountain (also named after this mountain). I know nothing about the ship of Wendish settlers, so can't comment on them. I'd be slightly sorry to see the removal of the piano story, but I'd agree it isn't terribly notable or encylopedic.

See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. The piano could probably be incorporated somewhere else; the best place for the time being is probably "The summit", but it would be nice if we could find enough information to create a section on notable ascents, charity stunts and the like. (When I was there there was a man dressed as a moose on the summit, and this is no doubt a fairly regular phenomenon.) I'm not sure what to do with the rest of the Trivia section; maybe it would be enough to give it a different title? --Blisco 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The piano story aside, everything in the trivia section are things named after Ben Nevis. I'm not quite sure what an appropriate section title would be — "Things named after Ben Nevis" is rather unwieldy. — ras52 10:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Think I've solved this. The ship is pretty non-notable; relevant to the history of the Wendish people, perhaps, but not to this article, for the same reason that a certain bridge over the Thames isn't considered notable enough for inclusion in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I've shoved The Remarkables in a See also section: a cop-out perhaps, and I dislike such sections in general, but it's mostly harmless. The piano is now under the summit (so to speak). That just leaves the distillery, which I've turned into a proper section with some more information. Slàinte Mhath! --Blisco 13:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "(See External links below for the full view.)", and have shortened all the captions to comply with WP:CAP. I've removed the section stub notice from the climbing section — in my view it's now just about got enough to justify this, though more would still be good. I rather not merge the ascents and climbing sections. — ras52 12:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the captions were over-wordy, but I don't think they need to be quite so brief. I've reinstated some of the deleted material (while trying to keep the wording concise) where it helps illustrate points mentioned in the text: e.g. the tourist route is well maintained; the summit cairn is lower than the observatory; cornices are a hazard; the Nevis Partnership is repairing paths.

I agree that climbing shouldn't come under ascents, since climbing is a distinct activity from getting to the summit, which most climbers tend not to be interested in. I'll see if I can do some web research and expand this a little. --Blisco 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CAP says more than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting. Personally, I'm not sure I agree, but that's irrelevant: this is a Wikipedia guideline, and we should try to stick to it where possible. In my browser "The steep south face of Ben Nevis…" takes up five lines, and "The lower part of the Ben Path", seven (due to the narrowness of the image); a number of others take four. The points that you mention — that the tourist route is well maintained; the summit cairn is lower than the observatory; cornices are a hazard; the Nevis Partnership is repairing paths — are all true and worthy of inclusion in the article. And if it weren't for WP:CAP, I'd agree with you about putting them in the captions. I don't propose to start a revert war by changing these, though I do think that per 69.19.14.26's comments, not changing them may hinder us achieving GA status.

I'm surprised at the Ben Path caption taking up seven lines; on my screen it takes up four. What are your monitor settings, and what do other people reading this page see? (I've got a 15-inch monitor at 1024x768 resolution, which is fairly small by modern standards.) Perhaps the solution in this case would be to widen the image a bit? Other than that one, none of the other captions take up more than three lines on my screen. I think it's unlikely that any article would fail a GA nomination for having captions this long; see for example the FA Slate industry in Wales, in which all of them are much longer. Having said that, I've looked through some of the recently Featured articles and most of them tend to use much shorter captions, so perhaps there is a case for keeping them short and sweet as a rule. -Blisco 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

On a completely separate note, do we have a source for the 75,000 people per year on the Ben Path? It's lower than I would have guessed. — ras52 10:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is referenced, in the second paragraph of the lead section, though it's slightly hidden: "The mountain attracts an estimated 100,000 visitors a year,[1] around three quarters of whom use the well-constructed tourist path.[2]" I worded it this way to try and vary the prose style, but it's not overly clear, so if you think it would be better as a plain figure then do change it. --Blisco 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The 75,000 (also appears in caption) could be refered to Nevis Strategy - Summary, p8, prepared by the Nevis Working Party (forerunner of Nevis Partnership) October 2001. It is available in PDF at http://www.nevispartnership.co.uk/pdf/newnevis_strategy_summary.pdf, where the page number is 11. Finavon 09:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed -- see footnote 2. Sorry I didn't quite make it clear. --Blisco 11:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination on Hold for 7 days

Hello,

This article looks quite good. A lot of excellent work has been put into it, and I really have almost nothing to complain about. There were a few mildly glowing adjectives here and there that made the article sound just a bit like a pamphlet promoting tourism, but nothing unforgivable.

I put a few {{fact}} tags on the article, particularly on historical events. If I happened to put a tag on a fact that is actually referenced in a nearby sentence, please remove the tag and explain the deletion in a detailed edit summary.

In all, though, this article will be GA with just a bit of work. I don't think it should take the whole 7 days.

Good work!

Please feel free to ask if you have questions --Ling.Nut 05:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This coming weekend (2/3 December) I'll be able to get my hands on one or two books that might help with referencing. If you wait until Tuesday or Wednesday that'll give me time to put those refs in.

Which bits did you think suffered from glowing adjectives and tourist-speak? My impression was that the language is pretty sober and neutral; I'd say "classic rock climbs" is about the only phrase that might be construed as glowing, but it's used in the factual sense of one that's been well known and renowned for a long period. --Blisco 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did say mildly. :-) Don't worry about that; nothing is out of bounds. Just get the references, plus look up and down the article and see if any main points of the article were left unmentioned in the lead.--Ling.Nut 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination PASS

• You said you'll fix the "citation needed" tags next week.
• I was never concerned about the tourist-speak; I said nothing unforgivable from the start. In fact, I was surprised that what I considered to be a minor aside was later remarked upon. I think things are looking good.
• I was kinda hinting earlier that I thought something should be mentioned in the lead. I apologize; hinting is counterproductive. I think something should be mentioned in the lead about C.T.R. Wilson's cloud chamber, because it is interesting and important.
• But everything looks Good. Conclusion = PASS.

--Ling.Nut 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Observatory Date

The original date "late 1870s" was correct - proposed in 1877 according to both Roy (already cited) and Crocket, Ken "The Ben Nevis Mystery" (http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/journals/journal-38-january-2005.pdf) in JMT Journal 38 (January 2005) p19. The Observatory opened in 1883 (as already stated) I suggest restoring the "late 1870s" edit. Finavon 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A Ben

The statement "it is often known simply as The Ben," is true if unsourced, but the same is also true of many other 'Bens'. Generally speaking 'Ben' is the honorific given to the highest mountain in any particular area. If you stand in the high streets of Alness, Dalwhinnie, or Tobermory, and ask for directions to 'The Ben' you will not end up in Lochaber. The statement is thus not so much untrue as misleading. Rather, I think it is true that in Lancastrian rock-climbing circles 'having a crack at The Ben' is a phrase that is unlikely to be ambiguous. I deference to these hardy souls I think it may be acceptable to amend the wording rather than remove it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The stated reference does not verify the claim, hence the fact tag. Furthermore, this is referred to in the lead, but not expanded on in the article. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Nevis ale

I added this piece of trivia and the found to my annoyance that this brew has not yet made its way onto the website reference. However, as I have a bottle in my possession I believe the information to be accurate. I was reluctant to mention this in the citation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bottledbeer.co.uk/index.html?beerid=2403 Finavon 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Finavon - the above reference is now inserted. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC) PS I have a friend with a similar name to yours. You're not by any chance related?

More the Castle under your friend [1] Finavon 16:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

To-do list

I've updated this with some of the points mentioned in the above discussions. If anyone would like to add or remove anything then go ahead. --Blisco 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

References

I've rejigged the referencing system a bit. General (especially printed) sources that apply to the whole article are now cited separately at the top of the references section, which means that notes referring to these sources can use a short form followed by a page number, e.g. "Hodgkiss, The Central Highlands, p. 117". This should make the refs a bit easier to digest, and allows you to cite multiple pages of the same book without having to give the full details each time. I'm not sure whether or not to carry on using the <ref name="foo"> business with such notes; it's probably easier not to, but having a new footnote each time would increase the length of the notes section.

On a related matter, would anyone object if the citation templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite web}} et al) were dispensed with? I find them confusing and irritating to use and would much rather format the reference myself, but I can see that they make it easier to fill in the blanks without having to worry about consistent formatting. --Blisco 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I support the general references, but not extending the list of references by repeating footnotes. Does the OS map need to be in both general and footnote refs? Citation templates do encourage people to give full details, but are not easy to use - a standard layout is the goal, and I don't know how else we encourage that. Finavon 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Geology

The article states that the summit cliffs are granite but it's my understanding that they are lavas. They are certainly of that character as a climbing rock and the enclosed citation seems to confirm this (see 1.2 - this file is a 2.6Mb download)

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/F02LD01.pdf

Billo72 14:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that those on the northern cliffs look more like lavas than granite, but then I'm no geologist. The rocks round on the CMD arête, Carn Mòr Dearg itself, and to some extent those in Coire Leis, do look like granite, though. My (rather hazy) recollection is that those on the southern crags look like granite too. — ras52 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For those wanting to avoid downloading this large file, the relevant quote is "the summit and northern cliffs of Ben Nevis are made of andesite and basaltic lavas and tuffs. A granite intrusion forms the southern slopes of Ben Nevis and also the ridge of the Carn Dearg peaks." (I presume that by "Carn Dearg peaks" it means "the ridge of Carn Beag Dearg, Carn Dearg Meadhonach and Carn Mór [sic] Dearg".) This is in agreement with the reference cited in the article (Miller's Ben Nevis Geology); the article simply mis-quotes the reference. I've now fixed this in the article. — ras52 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my error. I'm even less of a geologist, as you can probably tell. Incidentally, if anyone wants to write about vegetation and land use this article would be a good place to start. --Blisco 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tower Ridge

What do folks think should be done with Tower Ridge? I put the merge tags on, but I'm having second thoughts. I'm generally against the proliferation of articles, and don't want to encourage the creation of an article on every classic climb on the Ben, but I reckon it would unbalance this article to include such a detailed description. A more sensible option might be to create Climbing on Ben Nevis into which the stuff on Tower Ridge could be merged, but I doubt such an article would get much attention at the moment. Perhaps we should just leave it for six months and see what happens? --Blisco 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging Tower Ridge into Ben Nevis. Leaving it where it is for now seems fine. It will probably never be a long article. If there is a proliferation of articles on other routes then Climbing on Ben Nevis would be appropriate. Finavon 19:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose for similar reasons. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite similar to the detailed route information that used to live on the Aonach Eagach page. Blisco removed this, leaving a copy in his user area saying "I intend to move it to Wikibooks at some point". Long term, I think the same should happen to the Tower Ridge page — the detail, beyond what's on this page, is not really encyclopedic. But until that happens, I suggest we leave it as it is. — ras52 10:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that it doesn't really look like encyclopedia material to me. Grinner 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of visitors

The lead section states that there are approximately 100,000 visitors each year. Having had a look at the reference, the John Muir Trust website says that there are around 100,000 ascents each year, which isn't exactly the same thing - there are keen fellrunners who will make multiple ascents each year. I'd suggest we either reduce the number of visitors, or change the wording of 'visitors' to 'ascents'. Clear air turbulence 22:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and fix it! If you don't have a figure for the number of visitors, I'd suggest changing the wording to 'ascents'. I'd be curious to know whether this really makes a difference — my utterly unsourced, gut instinct impression is that the vast majority of visitors only make one ascent per year. Nevertheless, your point is completely valid: the reference is about ascents, not visitors. — ras52 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it works both ways. My first "visit" wasn't an "ascent". I didn't reach the top! Thincat 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm being bold and fixing another discrepancy - the number on the image caption

86.135.89.147 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Quaint Scottish expressions

The lead section contains the word "outwith". Having worked with some lovely Scots folk over the years, I was well aware of its existence and its meaning. However, on the basis that the vast majority of readers are not Scots and will be confused, I was about to edit it to read "outside". On the edit page, I found that the author had anticipated me and had inserted a note explaining the word, no doubt to discourage edits. On the basis that he felt it so important I left it in, but would suggest that a GA status article should surely not include obscure dialect words for no apparent reason when there is a perfectly good English word that the majority of readers would understand much better. I know this probably seems trivial, but what do people think? kritikos99 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quaint, my friend, is in the ear of the listener. This is a Scottish article and I can see no reason not to use a perfectly acceptable, and hardly opaque Scottish expression within it. WP:MOS, often ambiguous, seems quite clear on this subject. "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't expect the author to agree with my query, no-one else got a point of view? Where we differ, I guess, is that I don't see that an article about a mountain has "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". If the article was about bagpipes or haggis, then OK. Sorry about the cliches... The mountain could have been anywhere really. kritikos99 13:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But why use a dialect word when "outside" is available and equally comprehensible for both Scots and non-Scots? It's one thing to use British instead of American spellings in an article pertaining to Britain; you have to pick one spelling or the other, so you might as well write with the spellings used by the relevant group of people. In this case, however, "outside" is universal while "outwith" is not. A. Parrot (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a perfectly acceptable "English" word and is used correctly here. It appears in Wiktionary. Even for those not used to hearing it, the meaning should be clear. We should not be dumbing down our language. Words that are not used will be "lost". "Outwith" is used, albeit in a limited geographical area - that to which this article refers. It is less likely to be confused than the alternative "without" (There is a green hill far away...)! On a wider issue, the article lead should summarise information from the article, so perhaps this sentence should be in Etymology, with "walkers and climbers from" changed to "vistors from". Finavon (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not even just Scottish, my other half is a native Yorkshireman and uses it. At best, it seems to be Nothern. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly isn't Southern. I've never even heard of it. --Mark J (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image is too Large

The image in the infobox at the stat of the article is currently too large (it takes uo about half the page). It would be good if someone could sort it out (I'm not that good at sorting out images). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacevezon (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine using my browser, and the image size is set by the infobox. Is this also a problem with others e.g. Ben Macdui, Ben Wyvis, Matterhorn, K2? 07:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) there is aproblem with this information

Outwith v. outside

Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities_for_commonality: "Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences." This guideline is perfectly clear. In a choice between "outwith" and "outside", "outside" is to be used because it is common to all varieties of English. It is not part of our remit, for example, to use local words lest they die out. And nor is it any argument to claim that it's clear from the context because (a) we can't possibly know this to be the case for all our readers, and (b) it is our job to make the meaning as clear as we can. ðarkuncoll 11:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Mark J (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about "outwith", even without the context. I have yet to find someone who does not understand it. There are plenty who stop and think, but is that such a bad thing? Why does Wikipedia have to dumb down language? Finavon (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Outwith is a wonderful word. Its meaning is completely clear to readers even if they haven't seen it before; it has no obvious synonyms ("outside" is a poor substitute); it adds colour without making the text obscure, pompous, or quirky. It deserves to be used more widely, and where better than here. Mhkay (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If Randy in Boise is going to get interested in Scottish icons then he will undoubtedly enjoy the enriching taste of Scotch colloquial culture as well. Autodidactyl (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has replaced "outwith" yet again. It is seems to be good enough for the OED and is not described as only Scottish. I can't see why it should be removed from use on Wikipedia just because some people do not have sufficiently wide vocabulary to understand the word. --jmb (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Although its meaning is pretty obvious due to the context, it's not a very common word, so really it would be better not to use it when there are perfectly good well-used words with the same meaning. Riedquat (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to voice an opinion either way but really, aren't there more pressing issues on Wikipedia than arguing about how widely known a word "outwith" is? There's a backlog at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English if you've run out of stuff to do ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of those arguing for the use of the word has considered that readers of the site may include people who don't speak English as a first language but will read this edition of Wikipedia (rather than Simple English or their own language edition) for a British article as it is most likely to be complete and authoritative. Although the word itself is not pompous, unfortunately some of its supporters above appear to be, in terms of their vocabulary compared with others. It is possible to use plain language without "dumbing down" (quote Finavon). Is Wikipedia here to educate or is it just for the benefit of those who like nice but obscure words and already know about the subject anyway? Halsteadk (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Scottish flag

I oppose the recent deletion of the Scottish flag from the infobox. I have read MOS:FLAGS#Use_of_flags_for_non-sovereign_states_and_nations and find no clear cut guidance, but its main concern about the use of non-sovereign flags is that they may be insufficiently known. But I think that Scotland is well enough known to readers of the article. Any other comments? The issue should be resolved because The Scottish flag appears on other Scottish mountain pages. Viewfinder (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For one, there's a lack of direct relevance. Yes, of course Ben Nevis is in Scotland, but it's also in other areas that have flags - why does Scotland get this precedence? If anything, guidelines suggest that if any precedence should be given, then it should be to the sovereign state. The second viable objection is under the MOS:FLAGS guidance 'do not emphasize nationality without good reason', which links into my third objection, that the flag has no purpose - it is simply windowdressing. As MOS:FLAG again points out, whilst flags occasionally have their use, a lot of time they are deployed pointlessly on Wikipedia. I don't think it improves the article in any way at all. --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ergo the flags should be removed from the infoboxes at Mount Everest, Aconcagua, Mount McKinley, K2, Kangchenjunga and Manchester United F.C.. A quick survey of other mountain suggests about half of them have flags in their infobox, half do not. Personally I like these flags and do not see anything nationalistic in them. Also, the Scottish flag is more informative than that the British; we all know Scotland is in the UK. Viewfinder (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way I read MOS:FLAGS, they suggest that having them piled on top of each other is discouraged. Fair enough, some pages do go overboard. On the other hand, a few can be quite useful - you can recognise a flag quicker than reading through a list of country names so I would suggest that as long as one doesn't go overboard, adding the flag icon is a very quick way of visually imparting information.

Secondly, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, the Channel Island and Northern Ireland have a status that is not sovereigin, but not that of a disputed territory either, comparing to, say, the Kurdish flag. So personally, I'd say keep it. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

PS This article made GA with the flag there, so it clearly wasn't an issue during the GA process... Akerbeltz (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(Response primarily to Breadandcheese) Isn't the fact that the mountain is the *highest* in Scotland (and the UK) significant? It's not just *a* mountain in Scotland, but it's the most significant one? Given that one of Scotland's overriding characteristics is its mountainous landscape, I would say the flag is appropriate. I say put it back unless you're going to go and remove it from lots of other articles too. Halsteadk (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Highest mountain

The article has been changed to say Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in the UK (rather than in the British Isles). I dare say both these claims are true. Following a similar discussion about River Shannon ([2]) the article there now claims that river is the longest in Ireland. There was a reflection that the Shannon might be the longest river on any European island. Finally, Mount Paget claims that this mountain is "the highest peak in the island of South Georgia, and any territory of the United Kingdom. However, a higher peak still, Mount Jackson, lies within the British Antarctic Territory". So, I rather prefer "British Isles" but if that causes difficulty, I am content with "UK". Thincat (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the term "British Isles" as it is imperial and outdated. Why do people need to measure what they have with a different country? As you rightly pointed on the river Shannon or for the that matter the rivers Tay or Clyde have no need.Bjmullan (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I only know the term British Isles as a geographical term but then, I didn't go to school here... is it possible that you're over-reacting? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Even as a geographical term it is outdated. [3] Bjmullan (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's one site, which doesn't tell us THAT much, especially since Google Scholar 170,000 results for "British Isles" [4] Akerbeltz (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, the term "British Isles" dates back to classical Greek times, see the map at British Isles#History. It therefore long pre-dates the United Kingdom. It neither makes nor implies any political claim. That it may offend some Irish nationalists does not make it incorrect, and no satisfactory alternative has been put forward. Viewfinder (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very common misconception. The term "British Isles" only dates back to John Dee around 1577. Check out the Etymology section in British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is two alternatives.

1. Stop comparing a mountain in one country with mountains in another country this is also on a different island. How does it compare with Iceland which is also a European island?

2. As given at British Isles...Although still used as a geographic term, the controversy means that alternative terms such as "Britain and Ireland" are increasingly preferred. Bjmullan (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at Scafell Pike which mentions England, Snowdon which mentions Wales and GB and Carrauntoohil - no mention of BI. Also River Tay , River Severn, River Shannon, River Clyde, Marilyn (hill) and Loch Ness which make no reference to BI. What makes Ben Nevis so different? Bjmullan (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" is geographically correct and this is a geographical article. If there is a clear majority in support of your position, then I will accept it, but given that there is a majority against your position, please stop your unilateral anti-consensus editing of the article. Viewfinder (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have listed a number of articles above regarding significant geographical features of these islands that do not use the term BI and I have also given an alternative. You need to tell me why Ben Nevis is different. BTW the term Great Britain is also geographically correct so there goes your argument. Bjmullan (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The logical extension of your argument is that it is wrong to state that Mount Everest is the world's highest mountain because it is also Asia's highest mountain. Given the strength of your personal objection on the use of the term British Isles in Wikipedia, could I suggest that you pursue the whole British Isles issue by dispute resolution, perhaps by nominating British Isles for deletion or name change? Viewfinder (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to my last edit, the right place for you to be pursuing your case is at WP:BISLES. Not here. Viewfinder (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And regarding some of your examples, the River Severn is not the longest river in the British Isles, and neither Scafell Pike nor Carrauntoohil are the highest mountain the British Isles. Viewfinder (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your other comment, there is no accepted collective geographical term that has been applied the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and Iceland. Viewfinder (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Much discussion has been had on this topic. There appears to be a small wiki-break in place at the moment, while editors reflect on the guidelines that have been proposed at the British Isles Terminology Task Force Specific Examples page. While no guidelines have been agreed yet, I think all would agree that - in general - usage on geographic topics, like this, is fine and this will be reflected in a future MOS. The change in this article doesn't appears to have any support to change it to something other than British Isles, so it should remain as it is. --HighKing (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"What makes Ben Nevis so different?" - It's the biggest (in the British Isles). Mister Flash (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not in dispute - the issue is simply how to phrase it. Some us are comfortable with "British Isles", some of us might prefer "Britain and Ireland". Personally I am unconcerned either way and I wish the Task Force good luck in finding an agreed solution. Ben MacDui 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, what do we mean by "Britain and Ireland"? Is the IoM included? Are the Orkneys, Shetland, Scilly Isles or the Channel Islands included? And what about Northern Ireland? With British Isles we know exactly what we mean (leaving aside the dispute about whether or not to include the Channel Islands - Wikipedia does include them). British Isles is clear - pity some people don't like its use, but that can't be helped. Mister Flash (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

With British Isles we know exactly what we mean maybe if you are from these isles but lets consider other people who can find the term confusing. Remember that many Americans would call the UK England, what do they make of the term? You also bring up another interesting point, namely that the term British Isles also includes the Channel Islands which is not part of the island group therefore it's use as a geographically correct term is incorrect and that the term is primarily a loaded political one.Bjmullan (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Information added by Tommytomato

I think the recent edit by Tommytomato : Essex rock band Kings_Cross_(band) plan to play Britains highest fully electric gig on the peak of Ben Nevis on the 15th October 2010 is trivia and has no place in an article about the highest mountain in the UK. Bu what do others think? Bjmullan (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If it happens it may be worth noting but at present in my view it is more like an advert than an encyclopedic entry. Ben MacDui 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ben Nevis of Glenbogle

Should there be a reference to the Compton Mackenzie character?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monarch_of_the_Glen_%28novel%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenbogle

82.163.24.100 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Coord Tags Per Article - Bad Idea?

The recent inclusion of a Coord tag for the similairly named Ben Nevis, Svalbard introduces an intersting problem. Several people, including myself, are building geo-located indexes of wikipedia. We currently have no way of knowing which co-ord tag to use. My scripts ended up using the wrong one, and placing Ben-Nevis into Svalbard area. Should we prefer a new page for the Ben Nevis in Svalbard, to keep 1 coord tag per page? Or should there be some tag on Coord to say "primary"? [[User

Willsmith|WillSmith (London)]] (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

James Robertson, First accent?

Thats not really true is it, his accent was first on record. 194.46.174.66 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What has accent have to do with it? Does it matter what accent he spoke with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.213.203 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't Scottish, it doesn't count ;-) --92.21.252.70 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

New height

The article now says "It [...] was remeasured in March 2016 and found to be slightly closer to 1,345 metres (4,413 ft)." The article released by OS is from March 2016, but I would be surprised if they had time to resurvey the peak, process the data, update the map and release this article in 18 days… As shown by one of the images on Flickr, the survey must have been done back in September 2015: https://www.flickr.com/photos/osmapping/25831849046/

I think this is the date that should be used in the article.

There is a problem with rounding in the conversion of heights. The precise value from the OS is 1344.527meters and that rounds up to the headline 1345 meters, but to give the measured height in ft you need to convert before rounding, and so reach the correct height in whole ft (4,411 ft).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Nevis. 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/20071103202517/http://www.takeupthechallenge.com/pages/page-nevis-history.htm to http://www.takeupthechallenge.com/pages/page-nevis-history.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bottledbeer.co.uk/index.html?beerid=2403
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.texaswendish.org/Pages/BriefHistory.aspx

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) 21:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

First (recorded) ascent date

I have made a change in the date based on reliable sources that the date earlier cited on the website for the first recorded ascent by James Robertson should be 19 August 1771 rather than 17 August 1771. According to Henderson, D.M.; Dickson, J.H. (1994). "A Naturalist in the Highlands: James Robertson his life and travels in Scotland 1767-1771". Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press: 183. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) the relevant entry transcribed from Robertson's journal reads

August 19th. I ascended Ben Nevis which is reckoned the highest mountain in Britain. The plants on this mountain are similar to those on Ben Awin [apparently Ben Avon] and Carngarm [Cairngorm?], only here, at the West side near the foot I found the M... [illegible?  or missing?] "The rock from top to bottom is a red Granite hardly distinguishable into strata. A third part of the hill towards the top is entirely naked, resembling a heap of stones thrown together confusedly. The summit far overtops all the surrounding hills, tho' those towards the South and South East are very high, and are formed either into Cones, or into a number of rugged peaks, or into long narrow ridges.

The entry for the previous day talks about Fort William, ruling out the possibility that he climbed on 17th and made the diary entry on the 19th. I am sure someone can persuade the NLS to scan up the copies of the relevant journals (or pages) - https://manuscripts.nls.uk/repositories/2/resources/17908 Shyamal (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Volunteers

I have reduced the stuff about volunteer effort as it seemed to be using too many words to say a simple idea that volunteers help to maintain a footpath and who organises it... and with no references given. Victuallers (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

GA concerns

After reviewing the article, I am concerned that the article might not meet the good article criteria anymore. I have outlined my concerns below:

• There are multiple uncited sentences and paragraphs throughout the article.
• The climate table seems to cite sources from the early 1900s. Are there any current sources that can be used?

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns? If not, I may nominate this article for WP:GAR. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In principle I'd like to help improve this article about my old friend, although (i) I have few hard copy references to use and (ii) I am still stuck here after more than six months! I will try to find the time over the next few days. Ben MacDui 10:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui: Still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to but I am very busy and otherwise distracted at present. Maybe next month? Ben MacDui 18:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui: I still haven't brought this to GAR. Are you interested in working on this or should it go there? Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I think it's pretty clear I am not going to have the time to do anything much here soon, so please go ahead. Ben MacDui 11:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Ben Nevis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

There are multiple uncited sentences and paragraphs throughout the article. The climate table seems to cite sources from the early 1900s. Are there any current sources that can be used? Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Re the climate data: there was a weather station on the summit until 1904 and "The twenty years worth of readings still provide the most comprehensive set of data on mountain weather in Great Britain", to quote from the article. It would be more than could be expected to have comparable modern data. PamD 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I have sourced the content about Oor Wullie, and expanded and sourced information about the Peace Cairn. PamD 19:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Could you perhaps sprinkle {{cn}} where the issues are? That would help us fix them. — hike395 (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Hike395: I have added cn tags. Some of the uncited information can probably be removed or the citation moved to the end of the sentence. Other information will need research to resolve. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will look at it! — hike395 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hike395 do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I made a bunch of improvements on 5 November, fixing all of the {{cn}} tags, and PamD did further work on 5 November and 12 November. I believe the article now fulfills the good article criteria. — hike395 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@PamD and AirshipJungleman29: The "History" section does not have any information between 1911 and 2018. Is there any information to add there, perhaps about the growth of tourism to the site or other major events? A smaller quibble is that the lead is missing some information Z1720 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 This may mean that the history section may need to be updated to reflect more accurate and up-to-date information, and the missing information may need to be added. KOLANO12 3 17:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the lede with a few sentences, to match the article material. I moved the paragraph about finding the piano (in 2006) to the history section. After a fair amount of investigation, I cannot find any notable/encyclopedic historical information about Ben Nevis between 1911 and 2006. The Ben Nevis Race started in 1937, but that is already (properly, IMO) in the "Outdoor recreation" section. Given that there isn't much historical material available post-1911, I still believe that this article fulfills the good article criteria. — hike395 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)