Talk:Munro

Untitled
I seem to remember reading (and I might even be able to find the reference!) that when Robertson did his round in 1901, the Inaccessible Pinnacle was not listed as a Munro but Sgurr Dearg was. Hence he (quite properly) did not climb and did not need to climb the Inaccessible Pinnacle. Would this also have applied to Munro himself? Thincat 12:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe so too, and I've never been happy with the fact that he is usually credited as missing two peaks, he had climbed all but one of them by his list.Grinner 14:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe he left the In Pinn off his list because he knew he couldn't climb it! Thincat 15:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that he was trying to climb all the Tops as well as the Munro summits. I think you are right, he did not climb the Inn Pinn, being defeated by bad weather I think. The hill he was leaving for last (Carn Cloch-Mhuillin), conversely, was then a summit, but is now a Top. He was leaving it for last and, being easy and local to him, he could have nipped up any time really. So it seems he could have finished the Munro summits at will but chose not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.195.59 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 3 November 2006


 * Robertson did do the In Pin, but it's believed he didn't quite reach the summit of Ben Wyvis, and so strictly speaking shouldn't be regarded as the first Munroist. --Blisco 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this line make sense? "walking 1,639 miles (2,638 km), 150 km of which were on a bicycle" Surely it should be either travelling 2,62km, 150km of which were on a bicycle or walking 2,638km plus 150km on a bicyle. Also unsure why the first measurement is quoted in miles with km in parenthesis while the second bit is only in km. I don't really anything about the subject so haven't fixed anything Chored 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Levels of Precision
I see my edit has been reverted. Is presenting figures to this level of precision really needed? Rounding to the nearest metre for a mountain with a height of 3000 ft seems appropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not when a mountain has been demoted from Munro to Corbett status because it was short by 40cm. Michael Glass (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't bother me hugely, and I can see both perspectives. But the relevant point is that 2998 ft 8 ins is less than 3000 feet.  The original measurement was made with 10 cm or 4 ins precision, so I've adjusted the measurement given accordingly.  Kahastok talk 22:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * At ±0.1 m accuracy, a figure of 0.4 m has an error margin approaching 50%. With that margin of error, is it really appropriate to quote to that level of precision?   Wee Curry Monster talk 09:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair point. But the different is going to look precise (at least in metric) almost regardless of what we put on it because the precision is not convenient.  Would a better idea to be to remove that measurement entirely and assume that the reader can work out for themselves that 2999 feet is less than 3000 feet? Kahastok talk 09:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not simply state that the peak was 40cm short of the mark? Alternately, if mentioning centimetres is an issue for you, convert that to inches. Michael Glass (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's precisely what I did. But measurement wasn't that precise.  The original surveyed measurement was 914.0±0.1 metres, which means that the difference from 3000 feet is in fact 0.4±0.1 metres (16±4 inches).  Saying 40 centimetres or 16 inches implies more precision than is justified. Kahastok talk 12:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point about the margin of error of the measurement. In the light of that, we could simply state that the peak was about 40cm short of the mark, or 30 to 50cm short. Michael Glass (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Does it matter that much? I don't see many readers not realising that 2999 feet (or 2998 ft 8 ins) is less - but not a lot less - than 3000 feet.  Trying to squeeze in a measurement here - let alone two - does not seem to me to add much to the reader's understanding of the topic. Kahastok talk 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll accept the present wording with one addition: the height in metres. Hence my edit, which, while not challenging the present order of units, reflects accurately, but discreetly, the source measurement in this case. It also respects the MOSNUM advice to provide both measurements. Michael Glass (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Munromagic.com, Sgurr nan Ceannaichean is 913.43m. That converts to 2997ft. Knock off the 43cm and it converts to 2995ft. I went for the more precise figure as being more accurate. The previous link was dead so I replaced it with the munromagic link. On the surface that link looks OK, but others might like to check. Michael Glass (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Order of Units. What do other editors think
When it comes to units of measure this article presents some particular challenges. Munros were defined in feet but mountains are now measured in metres. MOSNUM policy, if followed literally, would recommend mountain heights in metres but distances in miles. Sources are mixed. If you follow the sources the result is broadly in line with MOSNUM but the display of units is inconsistent. If you fix on either metric or Imperial measures you will be more or less at odds with MOSNUM, with modern British practice (miles for distances, metres for heights). If you fix on imperial the precision of the measurements will be affected, as the above discussion shows.

Two editors have changed the display from following the sources (and therefore an inconsistent display of measurements) to Imperial first, which is at odds with modern British practice and with MOSNUM, and which affects the precision of some measurements. Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages of both arrangements, so I think it's reasonable to ask other editors what they think of the present arrangement (Imperial first). If there is no response, or other editors are positive about this arrangement, then so be it. However, if editors feel that precision in the measurement of the mountains should be given priority, then we might need to reconsider this question.

I think that the precise measurements do matter. What do other editors think? Michael Glass (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that it is "at odds with modern British practice" to give mountain heights in feet. This is a context that tends to be mixed, and anecdotally I would have said that feet tend to be more common (but not overwhelmingly so).  It is a misunderstanding to suggest that "modern British practice" is necessarily uniform in this matter.


 * I do not accept that the precision of measurements is necessarily affected by the use of imperial units. On the contrary, I believe that the above discussion demonstrates that the correct precision can be attained in either case, but that getting the precision right needs to be considered in all cases.


 * "Following the sources" is a red herring here: editors should be aware that source-based units have been proposed innumerable times at WT:MOSNUM by Michael Glass, and are routinely rejected out of hand. We are not required use the same units first as a given source does, any more than we are required to use the same variety of English as a given source does.


 * The case in policy for using feet first for mountain heights is this: WP:MOSNUM requires that "[n]ominal and defined quantities should be given in the original units first". A Munro is defined as a mountain in Scotland over 3000 feet, so that's what we say.  Every mountain height in this article is being implicitly compared to 3000 feet, and common sense would suggest that comparing 1344 metres with 3000 feet is illogical.  There are specific circumstances here that MOSNUM does not consider and all policy allows room to prevent a rule being used to override common sense where such circumstances apply. Kahastok talk 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to follow reliable sources even in cases where the source values are not put first. As for the question of precision of measurements, 914.4m is exactly equivalent to 3 000 ft, so the Munro height could be presented equally precisely in either Imperial or metric measures. It doesn't quite work with some of the other measures, but considering the margin of error inf the measurements, this fact should not be exaggerated. The example of comparing 1344 metres with 3000 ft is a red herring because the equivalent in feet is given. However, readers of this article may well be interested in reading the exact height of a mountain as measured (say 914m) and also the margin of error (say, plus or minus 10cm. I think it could be argued that this is a defined value. As such, it's perfectly proper to put the source value in first place in this instance. Michael Glass (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, a defined value is a value that is defined as something. A value, in other words, that is used as a definition.  For example, the limit of an exclusive economic zone is 200 nautical miles.  For example, a Munro is a Scottish mountain higher than 3000 feet.  We can cite a measured value in metres or feet first - it is the same measurement in either case.  A mountain does not intrinsically have a measurement system of its own.


 * Your interpretation that you can effectively use that rule to replace every other rule in WP:UNITS - and common sense - with your own POV is very clearly not founded in either the spirit or the letter of policy.


 * That said, I am inclined on looking back at that case, to suggest that metres may be appropriate because we are explicitly citing the result of a specific survey. The measurement is not defined, but it may reasonably be described as an indirect quotation.  Whether that is sufficient to overcome the fact that all other mountain measurements in the article will be feet-first - well, I am not convinced.


 * That you might be able to exactly express 3000 feet in metric units is irrelevant. We can express any value exactly in either system.  If you think that there is an "exact height of a mountain as measured", then you're failing to understand that any measurement is inherently inexact.  The question in both systems is how much precision to use.


 * Given that the concept of a Munro is defined in feet, I see no particularly good reason overall why we should then go through all the mountains we're comparing with 3000 feet in metres first. It fails common sense, and is only likely to cause readers to pause and wonder why.  If the why is because we couldn't agree to apply common sense, we are failing as an encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are exaggerating the importance of the Munro being 3 000 feet high just because it was defined that way in 1891. Certainly, I believe that it's important to mention this fact, but as the same value can be expressed as 914.4m, this is equally as accurate. I suggest you look at Standard Gauge, where the definition changed from 4ft 8.5in to 1435mm. (Actually 1435mm is 0.1mm shorter, but it is well within the tolerance of railway gauges.) So if standard gauge can be expressed in two ways, so can the height of Munros. That being the case, I think we should look at practicalities. Is it more practical to express the value primarily in metric terms or in imperial? I'm inclined one way and you're inclined the other. So what I suggest we do is to stop arguing the toss about a non-existant difference and leave it to others to give their opinion - if they give a toss. Michael Glass (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Use Metric and Imperial, as seems to have been used in most mountain articles, i.e 555 metres (1821 feet). Mick Knapton (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Youngest completionist
The information about the youngest completionist is out of date. That should be Daniel Smith, who was 9 Will this username do? (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Compleat... vs. Complet...
The article mentions that The Scottish Mountaineering Club (SMC) "have attempted to popularise the archaic spelling of compleation" when used in conjunction with Munro bagging. The spelling is used by the SMC not only to describe the act of 'compleation' but also in other forms of the word related exclusively to Munro Bagging, such as 'compleatists' (those who have bagged Munros). As well as the SMC, other groups, organisations and interested parties who have adopted the spelling for that purpose include The Munro Society, walkhighlands.com and wildaboutscotland.com.

From what I have read, the SMC uses the modern spelling when the word does not grammatically modify or otherwise define a relationship with the act of Munro bagging, as in these examples:
 * "But Thomson himself was ... one to be relied on ''completely." (https://www.smc.org.uk/Gallery/SMC%20Pioneers/GT.php)
 * "... by early 2006 I was completely hooked on (bagging Munros)" (https://www.smc.org.uk/munros/munroist/5178)
 * "... up there alone where I felt completely at home." (https://www.smc.org.uk/journal/Journal2003.php)
 * "Completely revised and improved (October 2007)." (https://www.smc.org.uk/downloads/gps-data)

Because it is used exclusively and so widely in this sense, it seems appropriate to adopt the "compleat..." spelling for specific Munro acts whenever they are mentioned in the article. What do others think? Twistlethrop (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Musical Munro
Grant MacLeod, aka @munrobagpiper, is in the process of climbing all munros, with his bagpipe and playing a tune. 203.173.2.65 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Notable completions: reported vs actual
I am a little worried about various references in the Notable Completions section, for example to the first Member of Parliament to complete the Munros, the first person to complete a winter round, the first to do a continuous self-propelled round, and so on.

The point is that we cannot know for sure who achieved these distinctions. We can only know who reported having done so. There must surely be many completers who never bothered to register with the SMC - or were unable to do so for one reason or another.

I am not suggesting that we delete the relevant references. But I wonder if the wording shouldn't be adjusted accordingly. For example, X became the first Member of Parliament known to complete the Munros; Y is the first person who reported completing a winter round; and so on. (Italics added here only to illustrate my point.)

I'm happy to make those changes, but I though I would get the views of other editors before jumping in.Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree, fine if your source says that but adding the phrase "known" is considered WP:WEASEL wording and generally discouraged. WCM email 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)