Talk:Skiddaw

CCHT external link
This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 09:22, 08 March 2022 (UTC)

Third or fourth highest?
The Wikipedia page for Helvellyn says that it is the third highest mountain in England, presumably because it counts Sca Fell Pike and Sca Fell as separate mountains, making them the highest and second highest respectively. To be consistent with this, shouldn't the Skiddaw page say that Skiddaw is the fourth highest mountain? Alternatively, if Sca Fell Pike and Sca Fell are considered to be one mountain, shouldn't the Helvellyn page should be changed to say that Helvellyn is second highest? 88.109.64.130 15:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the definition of what constitutes a mountain and what is only part of another one is not clear.
 * However, I would suggest that we look at how relevant external sources categorise Scafell Pike and Sca Fell, and try to go with the majority.
 * Wainwright includes them as separate fells. (See List of Wainwrights)
 * Only Scafell Pike is listed in the List of_Marilyns in England. (Though the gap is "just less than the 150m required for Scafell to enter the Marilyn list" and appears to be shown in some (old?) Marilyn lists.)
 * They are listed separately in the List of Hewitts in England.
 * On the basis of these, I'd go for the majority, and say Sca Fell and Scafell Pike should be considered distinct mountains. Therefore Helvellyn would be the third highest and Skiddaw should be changed to say it is the fourth highest. --David Edgar 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, most sources would regard Scafell and Scafell Pike as separate mountains I think. However, I've mentioned both points of view to be inclusive. --Blisco 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * many people such as myself believe Skiddaw is actually the 6th highest because Ill crag and Broad Crag are classed as mountains according to Hewitts. Once a hill reaches 1000ft it's classed as a mountain and Ill and Broad Crag are in the list of Hewitts which state all the Hills over 1000ft which Ill Crag and Broad Crag are part of. --Glaramara12 18:26, 27 March 2011 (GMT)


 * Alfred Wainwright disagreed with your personal point of view, see Ill Crag. Please find reliable sources in support of it. A Hewitt is surely not necessarily a separate mountain. Viewfinder (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the Wikipedia is normally a reliable source for imformnation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Crag and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ill_Crag are classed as fells on the most reliable website for imformation on the whole internet also do you have any reliable sources of information that proves Ill crag and Broad Crag are not mountains? --Glaramara12 18:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A fell is not necessarily a separate mountain, and separation is required for ranking. It may be merely high uncultivated ground. You need to give external external (not Wikipedia) sources in support of your point of view. You want to change the article so the onus is on you to provide sources in support of your claim. Viewfinder (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The most accepted measure of separation is topographic prominence. There has been discussion about Sca Fell which has a prominence of 133m; Ill and Broad have just 50m. If Wainwright excluded them as separate fells, then so should we. Viewfinder (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But is'nt the Ordnance Survey maps a good source of what is a mountain and what isn't as it is a Map and maps are supposed to tell you what is in the surroundings and what is not, i've just looked at my OL6 explorer map which the scafell range is in and on there Broad and Ill Crag are presented in the same way as all the other Mountains around it. --Glaramara12 19:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also there is a mountain in between Nethermost Pike and Dollywaggon Pike called High Crag, its taller than Dollywaggon Pike but the hight difference it like 30 metres and they are right next to eachother, this is the same case as Ill Crag and Broad Crag, Wainwright didnt class High Crag as a Mountain either but the Ordnance Survey says it is and they are the most reliable source for hikers and tourists a like. --Glaramara12 19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The size of the OS text is not evidence of separation and in any case on the OSGB 50K map Scafell Pike and Sca Fell are both in block capitals whereas BC and IC are not. With all due respect you have supplied no evidence that Broad Crag and Ill Crag are regarded as separate mountains or even separate fells, and separation is required for ranking. The previous debate among established editors was between third and fourth. If you make an edit and that edit is reverted, you should take your case to the talk page and not reinstate your edit until the discussion is concluded. That said, there may be a case for footnoting BC and IC as they are listed in the "Furths", although it should be noted that Furths include subsidiary tops as well as separate mountains. I am open to persuasion and don't want to discourage new editors but I really don't think a new editor should be imposing his personal POV on the article. Let's have some reliable sources which uphold the claim that BC and IC are regarded as separate mountains. Viewfinder (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there's nothing to say they are not mountains. Also, see http://www.thelakedistrictmountains.org/index.htm, underneath contents "155 Fell over 2000ft" --Glaramara12 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also i was not talking about the size of the letters on the OS map but the fact that there is a "Cairn" and also next to the word "cairn" it also says the Height in orange like every other mountain. Outcrops and crags only either show the Name or the Height never both. --Glaramara12 21:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also IC and BC both match the Oxford Dictionary Definition of "mountain". --Glaramara12 14:50, 28 March

2011 (UTC)


 * Ill and Broad crag are both listed as fells on two reliable official fell listings. http://www.leaney.org/lake_district_fells_listings.php

http://www.thelakedistrictmountains.org/Links%20etc/fellslist2000ft.+.htm --Glaramara12 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So why are Ill and Broad Crag classed as Nuttalls http://www.haroldstreet.org.uk/waypoints/download/?list=nuttalls

--Glaramara12 16:49, 29 March

That IC and BC are included in some fell lists is no evidence that they are separate mountains. Please can you reproduce or provide a link to the ODD definition which, according to you, upholds your claim. Viewfinder (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0537390#m_en_gb0537390 --Glaramara12 21:29, 19 March

Nothing in the above link upholds any claim that IC/BC are separate mountains. Viewfinder (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well IC/BC are uprising of rock from the surrounding area and both are taller than most of the surrounding fells except for Scafell and Scafell pike and once i heard that IC/BC are classed as subsidary peaks of Great End but IC/BC are larger than Great End so shouldn't it be the other way round? Glaramara12 22:58, 27 April (UTC)

Ranking Revisited
I have checked the references and I accept that, despite their exclusion by Wainwright, English ranking lists include Ill Crag and Broad Crag, and some refer to them as mountains, but I continue to oppose claims that they are "separate" mountains. The SMC refer to them as peaks or summits, but not mountains. , do you dispute that the Munros are separate mountains but the Munro Tops are not? The SMC no longer distinguishing between mountains and tops outside Scotland, but if BC and IC were in Scotland, would they be Munros or Tops? Tops, surely. I therefore propose that Skiddaw's #6 ranking be retained, but "mountains" be changed to "peaks" or "summits", and the word "separate" be removed. One other thing: your deletion of our 2011 discussion on this subject was unnecessarily antagonistic, out of order and quite properly reverted by another editor. Viewfinder (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This settlement is just about acceptable. Though, I'd like to note that Wainwright's Fell List is one of a number of recognised and respected fell listings and should not soley be used for classifications. Regarding your reference to the Munros/Tops, if the Lake District was in Scotland, which it's certianly not, I'm sure you'd agree that (based on your assumption that IC/BC would be 'Tops') many other 'seperate' mountains/fells listed by Wainwright would also be classed as 'Tops', because many 'seperate' mountains/fells listed by Wainwright have a prominence less than that of IC/BC (Eg; Green Gable 50m and Red Pike 40m) and I suspect that if Wainwright didn't include them as 'seperate' fells/mountains, regardless of prominence and other listings, they'd be disregarded as 'seperate' for the sole reason that he didn't include them. It is all very contradictory. For these reasons, IC/BC should be regarded as 'seperate' fells, and therefore making Skiddaw the 6th Highest Mountain in England, because they have a greater prominence than many other 'seperate' fells listed by Wainwright and so it would be hypocritial and unjustified not to. Their exclusion by Wainwright should absolutely not be the deciding factor. Glaramara12 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2015 (BST)

, I've just noticed your most recent edit to the link. The previous link tied the ranking closer to the ranking Skiddaw should be within the 'Highest Mountains in England" list and the current link only considers the 'Furth' classification which seems to be Scottish based and only a record of mountains which are 3000ft + in the British Isles and is not a full list of the highest mountains in the individual countries. The current link is also quite obscure in its suggestion as to where Skiddaw lies in the previously mentioned more specific 'Highest Mountains in England' list. However, it also adds to the suggestion that the widely accepted minimum prominence for a mountain in Britian (Wainwright listed or not) to be considered 'seperate' is 30m, which IC/BC are ofcourse well above. But again, I suppose it's an acceptable compromise. Glaramara12 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (BST)

Weather section with warning?
The weather section was removed with comment that it applies to any British mountain. Maybe something like that should be a fixed feature on all such pages then? My experience - and the core reason for adding it - was that it was a surprising change in weather (from clear and calm before ascent and during ascent via Bakestall to estimated 30-40 mph winds and 100 yds visibility back to clear again within a few hours) combined with the fact that numerous people were dressed inappropriately and even met a couple who were lost although they were dressed as experienced walkers (they were very happy to meet someone who could tell them how to get down). For safety reasons, I went back down via Bakestall rather than the planned Long Side route (I couldn't find the path and other walkers were in same situation, plus I didn't consider it safe to walk in the windward side on an unknown path near supposedly steep drops with high velocity wind and little visibility). Skiddaw seems to be considered a somewhat easy/safe mountain and yet it appeared as potentially very dangerous on my first visit. Looking at the Skiddaw article it says "...a number of stone windshelters have been erected. Given the prevailing conditions these have a predominantly psychological value" - this implies imho that there is little use for them (again re-inforcing the perception that it is a easy/safe mountain). I found these windshelters both useful (gave a helpful rest out of the blistering winds) and a number of other walkers were also occupying several of them. I am not sure what is appropriate to include in the article but would suggest some kind of warning to reduce the risk of inexperienced walkers putting themselves in danger due to the article not having any warnings. Suggestions? 88.104.193.229 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My reference to their purely psychological value was intended to convey the reverse. Skiddaw is a windy place and, like most such constructions, they don't help all that much. I fear this probably counts as original research on my part, unless Wainwright said it in print- he certainly did of other windshelters. I have reworded to remove ambiguity.

As has been pointed out to me when I've raised similar concerns myself, every page of wikipedia contains a disclaimer at the bottom. Policy is that we don't add any others. See here for full details. Bobble Hat 12:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Windshelters: The knowledge about the windshelters would still be valid in there - as long as it doesn't imply that they have no use due to calm weather (which I am not implying is what was said). Further information about their sheltering power against dominant wind directions would also be useful (should be based on accumulated experience to be useful). For example, the first shelter on the NE ascent was sufficiently good to give a very useful repite even in the somewhat dire conditions. Or perhaps this is too much or too vague to include?
 * Weather warnings: I would still think we can improve any factual information about specific weather incidents & impacts for specific mountains. This would not be covered in any useful way by any generic disclaimer. Based on my limited experience, I would say that some (parts of some) mountains lends themselves to be more dangerous than other due to their actual properties and propensity for dangerous weather. For example, maybe Long Side descent is no problem in bad weather, maybe it is suicidal, such information would be quite useful to include. I can say that the NE ascent/descent was no problem at the time I was there. Discussion on whether this would be useful - and how to implement - would be appreciated. 88.104.193.229 00:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find information about windshelters' orientation and efficacy in a reliable published source then in theory you can add it to wikipedia. If it is original research then you can't. (my hypocrisy noted) However given the transient nature of any such edifice, this could almost immediately be out of date. My experience is that they come and go just as often as cairns.

The same for difficulty of descents etc. There are blackspots. Don't try Striding edge in a northerly gale. Don't slide down Sharp Edge on any parts of your anatomy that you hold dear. But you need a source. "Wainwright notes that...", "MRT record 6 fatalities in 10 years", or whatever. Also remember that as soon as you add a warning to one route, you risk declaring all of the others to be safe by implication.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a 'how-to'.

Fair question though. I only know through asking it myself. Bobble Hat 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

New image
New image of Skiddaw at File:Skiddaw from derwentwater by Richard Corbould.jpg, an 18th or 19th century painting of unknown date. Feel free to use or not use. Dcoetzee 09:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
I have added a 'citation needed' template to the etymology section as it looks like original research. I have also deleted the 'Cumbric' form skwïðow for two reasons: 1) there is no agreed orthography for reconstructing Cumbric and, without a source, the word is effectively an invention; 2) the wï is a misreading of Welsh wy - this is a falling diphthong, not a rising one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psammead (talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the unsourced references to a Cumbric etymology, and instead included Whaley's (2006:311) note that Richard Coates has suggested the possibility of a Cumbric origin for the name. C1614 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)