Talk:List of Marilyns in Wales

Maesglase grid reference[edit]

I have just reverted a change in grid reference for Maesglase. The Ordnance Survey 1:25k maps show two closed 670 m contours on the top of this hill — Maen Du at SH823152 with a 674 m spot height, and Craig Rhiw-erch at SH817150 with no spot height. The original Relative Hills of Britain book gave Maen Du as the summit (though it quoted a height of 675 m); a subsequent erata changed this to Craig Rhiw-erch, attributing it a height of c 676 m, and this seems to be generally accepted as the higher point. (For example, whilst the first edition of the Nuttall's The Mountains of England & Wales - Volume 1: Wales gave Maen Du as the summit, the second edition gave Craig Rhiw-erch. This noted on their website.)

The recent edit by Mrs Trellis gave the summit a grid reference of SH825148. So far as I can see, this is a point at about 630 m down the south-east flank of Maesglase, and does not correspond to any top I've ever seen quoted. If this wasn't a simple typo, can we have a [[WP::REF|reference]] to back this up? — ras52 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it all depends on how Maesglase is defined. I agree that the summit of Maen Du is at SH 822 151 but all the OS maps represent Maesglase as the main ridge bearing nothwards and the crest bearing east-west but with the summit at Maen Du. So is this peak really Maen-du ? and if not where should the peak of Maesglase be defined? I took a view refering to the 1:10000 OS maps but would be happy to accept an alternative view of fixing the peak of Maen Du and Maesgalse at one and the same point. Mrs Trellis 19:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure I'm following you. I agree that the top of Maen Du is at SH822151 or SH823152 (I'm certainly not going to quibble about a <100 m difference; both grid references are in use). Do we also agree that the highest point on this hill (whether or not we call the hill Maesglase) is whichever is the taller of Maen Du and Craig Rhiw-erch? I'm not qualified to comment on the methodology of the recent surveys that suggest Craig Rhiw-erch is the taller, but as I've not seen any surveys (new or old) suggesting the contrary, I'm prepared to accept that it is.

On this page (a list of Marilyns — i.e. 150 m prominences), the point listed should therefore be Craig Rhiw-erch, c 676 m at SH817150. As to what it's called, in The Relative Hills of Britain, the Maes Du summit coordinates are given with the name Maesglase; in the 2006 erata, the name Maesglase is retained, but with the Craig Rhiw-erch summit coordinates. On the OS 1:50k maps, the label Maesglase is south of the two tops and stretches from west of Craig Rhiw-erch (which is unlabeled) to east of Maen Du, and seems unambiguously to refer to the whole hill. On the 1:25k maps, the label Maesglase is south-east of Maen Du, but is in a larger font than both Craig Rhiw-erch and Maen Du which suggests to me that it refers to the whole hill. Even if Maesglase does properly refer to some specific feature on the south-eastern flank, it is clearly in current use to refer to the hill as a whole (c.f. the Nuttalls' book, the Relative Hills of Britain, the TACit tables of Hewitts).

Finally, there's the fact that the SH825148 grid reference is inconsistent with the other data given for the hill, both on this page and over on the Maesglase page. If this is the grid reference, then the hill's height is c 630 m, its prominence is <10 m (there is no contour ring shown on any map), and the descriptions (such as intensively forested to on the western slopes) are not true. So I propose to leave this list with the name Maesglase and with Craig Rhiw-erch's grid reference, and to edit the Maesglase page to reflect the fact that Craig Rhiw-erch and Maen Du are two of the summits and Maesglase is the whole hill. — ras52 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References[edit]

I've added a few notes to the table clarifying a few inconsistencies between this list and the one in the The Relative Hills of Britain book. I'm not particularly happy with the formatting though, and I'm hoping someone might have some ideas on how to improve it. Personally, I prefer to keep notes separate from references, but this means that only one can use the <ref>-style footnotes. I've used the deprecated {{fn}} templates for the others, but this has several problems — first, the footnotes are not automatically numbered; second, the back links don't properly work with multiple forward links; and perhaps worst, the multiple forward links prevent the wiki page from validating as HTML. Any thoughts? — ras52 13:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

As a non-Welsh speaker working from a teach-yourself Welsh pronunciation book, I'm well aware that my pronunciation may be a bit off in places. As this is only intended to be a guide I don't think every technicality, such as the exact sound of ei, is necessary... but if anyone spots any mistakes, please correct them! Mark J (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the Manual of Style for Pronunciation says: English pronunciation in Wikipedia should be transcribed in such a way that its interpretation does not depend on the reader's accent. For this end, broad transcriptions of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) should be used, as outlined at Help:IPA for English, and the first instance should include a link to that page. "Sound-alike" transcriptions may be used in addition to the IPA. For foreign pronunciations, a phonetic transcription is normally used, with a link to Help:IPA. Phonemic transcriptions require a link to the phonology of the language in question.

However what we've done here doesn't confirm to that — we are solely using "sound-alike" transcriptions and not putting any IPA transcriptions in. Do we think that is appropriate? I have to say, I find IPA transcriptions considerably more useful than these "sound-alike" ones which I find confusing. And I don't think the pronunciations here conform to Wikipedia's notion of "sound-alike" transcriptions anyway. "(uh)" should probably be replaced with "ə" (even though it's not an IPA ə), and "(th)" should be replaced with "dh"; there are probably more.

More generally, do we think the column is a productive use of horizontal space in this page? In the English list, we've decided to add counties and districts; do we think this is more useful use of the space? If we're after more space, we can always remove the col heights as these are readily computable from the height and drop columns. At the end of the day, we cannot include everything in these tables. At least, not unless and until Mediawiki provides a way of hiding columns. (Now there's an idea for a rainy afternoon...) —ras52 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Ras.

I believe that in the case of Welsh and Scottish hill names, pronunciation is a useful use of space, much more so than, say, col height and county/district which I think should probably be deleted from the tables. The first was left over from the list of peaks by prominence, and the second merely an experiment of mine. The spellings of the names are so foreign to English speakers that I can't see how an easy-to-read pronunciation would be anything other than helpful, so I honestly think that if we have space on the page, it should stay. Here, we do, especially if we remove the above fields. On the Hewitts and Nuttalls page, I got round the space issues by moving the pictures to galleries in between the tables, which doesn't seem to have worked out too bad. I doubt there are many more fields that should be added, anyway.

As to whether the pronunciation is IPA or not, I don't wholly care, although we don't have space for both and I do prefer respelling - the reason being that this can be read (and understood) at a glance, whereas IPA, in my experience, can't. Or some sort of compromise can be made. I agree with the two examples you've given - I was literally about to replace (th) with dh as I've done on the Hewitts and Nuttalls, and using a special symbol for the schwa doesn't seem obstructive when it comes to quick reading. Perhaps other substitutes could be made for sounds that are difficult to represent in English, but I don't want to go for every nuance, just a reasonable guide.

Roll on the hideable columns! Mark J (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just read this article. probably not competent to make the necessary edits. confusion here between the black mountainS, on the english welsh border, and the black mountain, no where near it. in any case the high point of the black mountainS isn't on the border, but at Waun Fach.

Daiyounger (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the confusion you refer to here, Daiyounger. There is an individual hill called Black Mountain within The Black Mountains range ('Y Mynyddoedd Duon' in Welsh) at the eastern end of the Brecon Beacons National Park and that is referred to correctly in the article. There is also The Black Mountain ('Y Mynydd Du' in Welsh) at the western end of the Brecon Beacons National Park. That situations is admittedly confusing in itself but there is presently no confusion in the article itself. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Marilyns in Wales. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to re-direct page[edit]

This is an old list of Marilyns on data which is out of date (some measurements have been updated, especially prominences), and whose sourcing is unclear (and thus, the data is not really useable). A new article, List of Marilyns in the British Isles, now includes all the Welsh Marilyns (sortable vs. all the 2,011 British Isles and vs. just Welsh), and the data is sourced from an October 2018 download of the Database of British and Irish Hills (the best database for mountains in the British Isles). The DoBIH tables also show the topo map, map section, grid ref and other classifications of each Marilyn. The table is also linked (each Marilyn linked to their own Wikipedia article where it exists). The new table is also in a format that it can be downloaded and updated again from the DoBIH in the future without much editing (and thus limits WP:OR issues, which are important when downloading from what is a Primary source), and thus by keeping all Marilyns in one Wikipedia article, we have a better chance of maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the Marilyn lists and data. Note, that some Marilyn articles have "parent" peak data (which seems also unsourced), however the DoBIH will not list parent peaks outside of defining parents of "tops" (as per the new Wikipedia articles on Munro Tops, Donald Tops etc.), or other low-prominence peaks (e.g. Nuttall), and in particular, the DoBIH will not list "parents of parents", and will not list parents of Marilyns. I think their approach is correct, as I think this issue can cause much confusion among non-technical readers.Britishfinance (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also ensured that every Marilyn listed here that is linked to an individual Marilyn article, is also linked in the new List of Marilyns in the British Isles article. Because the new article is downloaded automatically from the DoBIH, I have set up REDIRECT pages to the source individual article so that future DoBIH downloads will automatically link to the individual article. On this basis, given that the new article contains everything of this article, and more (plus its data is up to date), I am re-directing this article to the new article. The only exception are the Welsh translations of the names, but these are all on the individual Wikipedia articles of each Welsh Marilyn where they are properly sourced and referenced. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]