Talk:Snowdon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleSnowdon has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
December 10, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Grid reference[edit]

How about a grid reference for Snowdon? I think the grid used by the Ordnance Survey is pretty standard. Magnus 10:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Rack and pinion[edit]

I'm no expert on railways, but shouldn't it be "rack and pinion"?

"Rack Railway" is an acceptable abbreviation. AHEMSLTD 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Name Origin[edit]

How about an explanation of the English name Snowdon as well as the Welsh one since they are so obviously unconnected?--JBellis 18:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Have amended origin of English name to state that it comes from Old English rather than Saxon, as the Saxon language usually pertains to the Germanic varieties of Saxony on the continent - Old English is the correct term for the old varieties of English spoken before c1100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoggler (talkcontribs) 09:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How long?[edit]

While the article discusses several routes up, none of them mention how many miles or kilometers they are. Rmhermen 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First time[edit]

I am making my first ascent this coming Saturday 12th August using the Ranger Path with my son, Sean, my brother-in-law Steve. Hope the weather stays fine....Can't wait! Tony White: Liverpool

Time immemorial[edit]

Surely statements like "Snowdon has probably been climbed since time immemorial" violate Wikipedia:Verifiability? Aside from the fact that it's a vague and ambiguous phrase, it's probably more verifiable, and more likely, to say that it hasn't habitually been climbed throughout history, since before the 18th century it was very unusual for people to climb mountains other than for reasons of necessity. (See, for example, Robert Macfarlane's Mountains of the Mind.) If the assersion comes from Terry Marsh, we should at least say "according to Terry Marsh, Snowdon has probably been climbed..." – but it seems an odd statement to make in an encyclopedia. Better to stick to the uncontrovertible documented facts. --Blisco 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It violates both verifiability and neutral point of view policies. I would cut that out entirely (since its purely speculation) and start the sentence at "The first recorded ascent..." Sticking to the facts is always a good way to go. Gwernol 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Such a statement need not violate WP:V, provided it is referenced. Wikipedia's mission is not really to report the truth, but rather to report that which is widely accepted as true.
In this case, "time immemorial" is not mentioned verbatim by Marsh: the exact quote is that "No one knows when the first ascent of Snowdon took place", which is followed by the records of 1639 and the 13th century. It may be reading between the lines, but altogether this indicates that the mountain may well have been climbed regularly earlier than that (I'm sure the shepherds didn't fence their livestock in back in those days), but that that information has been lost in the mists of time, which is as good an approximation of "time immemorial" as I can think of).
I can't see how that sentence could violate WP:NPOV; that would only apply if we failed to mention other sources which stated that Snowdon had never been climbed until much later, a stance which no author to my knowledge has taken. If there is only one point of view, that is what we report. --Stemonitis 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Saying "no one knows when it was first climbed" is not the same as saying "it has probably been climbed since time immemorial". It could well be argued that since grass is found almost to the summit, shepherds will always have climbed the mountain in search of their sheep, but that's stretching the limits of no original research somewhat. You can't use a word like "probably" in this way without some solid evidence. "The first recorded ascent was in 1639, but there is a vague reference to a possible ascent in 1284" is enough to suggest the possibility of earlier ascents without indulging in speculation. --Blisco 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Solid evidence of events having happened since time immemorial will, by definition, be lacking. But the fact that we've got historical records going all the way back to within 100 years of the official boundary of time immemorial (1189) is fairly strong evidence. I fear that you are asking me to cite the uncitable. --Stemonitis 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Since its unverifiable it can't be included. The first sentence of the verifiability policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Stick to the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions rather than interpreting for them (which is what I was referring to when I mentioned WP:POV). I think something along the lines that Blisco suggests is the right way to go. Gwernol 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any further context for the 1284 mention? As it stands it's a big leap of interpretation to take it as evidence that Snowdon was climbed in 1284. Aside from the usual questions over historical sources – who wrote it? was it written close to the event or some time after? how close was the writer to the events, and how knowledgeable was he about the area? etc. etc., which may have no bearing on the reliability of the source but at least need to be answered – we currently have no evidence that "this our chief of mountains" refers to Snowdon, or that "on" means "on the summit". I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, but using it to draw the conclusion that Snowdon was climbed before 1189 is not only original research but is on very shaky historical ground. In any case, "time immemorial" doesn't mean "before 1189" except in a very specific, and now (I think) obsolete, English legal context; in other contexts it's vague and, by definition, unverifiable. --Blisco 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The source for the 13th century climb is given in the references I added. Marsh writes "…Thomas Pennant, writing many years later [than 1639] in his Tour in Wales about the attitude of the Welsh people to an English king (Edward I: 1272–1307), relates that 'no sooner had Edward effected his conquest, than he held a triumphal fair upon this our chief of mountains; and adjourned to finish the joy of his victory, by solemn tournaments on the plains of Nevyn.' "
Ah well, perhaps "time immemorial" really will have to go. A shame: I'd have liked it to stay, but never mind. --Stemonitis 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Yr Wyddfa only apply to the summit?[edit]

The lead section currently implies that the mountain as a whole is called Snowdon, while the summit (only) is also called Yr Wyddfa. Is there a reliable source confirming this state of affairs? I'll admit that I tend to make this distinction myself, and others do too, but I suspect it's rather unofficial; it certainly doesn't exist in Welsh as far as I can tell. It would probably be better to start the article in the orthodox way, something like "Snowdon (Welsh: Yr Wyddfa) is the highest mountain in Wales...", possibly going on to mention the mountain/summit distinction if it can be referenced. --Blisco 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Yr Wyddfa" in Welsh is used to refer to the whole mountain. It has to, because - despite its literal meaning - if it only referrred to the summit, what else would we call the rest of it?! All Welsh maps label the mountain "yr Wyddfa", and I have never come across a Welsh reference implying the contrary. Indeed a quick search of half a dozen official bodies' websites confirms this, in both their English and Welsh language versions. I agree that the intro could do with altering. Hogyn Lleol 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

im am sorry to say everybody but this page is crap!!! it does not tell you n e think of snowdon how am i children supost to learn of this page !!!!!!!.... all it says us loads of name who walked up there once before i want infomation about snowdon!!!! peace out dudes!!!!! form xxxxchavettexxxx formt he chav land peace!!!Italic text p.s so i excpect more info on snodonia thn ppls name ok !!!!!

ppl want info on snowdon"

In english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark wounds (talkcontribs) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowdon Gang Culture[edit]

Snowdon is the name of a Movement, kind of gang culture located in the North East of England —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcstoney hiphop (talkcontribs) 18:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC). WALES IS THE BEST!!!!!!

Welsh name first English Second ?[edit]

Should not this majestic mountain appear under it's true Welsh name as the main article and the English name as the redirect, after all we would not put Londres as the name for London. This is a Welsh mountain and we should refer to it by it's original and current name?

What do we think? AndyBoyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBoyd (talkcontribs) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No. See Swansea, Munich, Rome etc. and [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.66.138.14 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Parent Peak Ben Nevis??[edit]

Hi. Surely Snowdon is not a child peak of a mountain in Scotland?? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the 'parent' - not in the sense of being a bump on the side of another mountain, but in a topographical sense - is defined to be the nearest higher and more prominent mountain on the same island. Ben Nevis is the only possible candidate. Mark J (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It is true in a purely mathematical sense, but I see no evidence that anyone finds it a relevant or useful description in the case where the parent peak is not part of the same mountain range, where the "key col" is not anything remotely resembling a mountain pass but is some point identified by computerised search through vast tracts of lowlands.
It gets even sillier when you look e.g. at the article on Scafell Pike. Its "parent peak" is listed as Snowdon. So why Snowdon rather than Ben Nevis? Well because, so it turns out, there is a route from Scafell Pike to Snowdon whose lowest point is at 66 metres somewhere in Shropshire, whereas to get to the Scottish Highlands you have to drop down to 47 metres to cross the Forth and Clyde Canal. In other words, it all depends on minor details of the lowlands a long way away from any mountains. A bit of common sense is needed. For example, both Scafell Pike and Moel Cynghorion have Snowdon as their parent peaks if you bother to calculate it, but whereas it is a fact worth mentioning about Moel Cynghorion, it is useless trivia in regard to Scafell Pike. No name is good name (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I have now taken this topic here as it is more general than just this article. No name is good name (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IPA phonetics incorrect[edit]

Hi the pronunciation guide (IPA transliteration) is incorrected. Currently it reads [ɐɾ 'wɪðva] but it should read [əɾ 'wɪðva] (see Welsh phonology for confirmation). I corrected it 18 months ago (without having a login, but usually I'm on non-English Wikipedias, so for a character I didn't want to creat an account), but it was reverted within 20 minutes, even though this tiny correction of a single character cannot be regarded as vandalism. Now I feel discouraged to edit it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.124.107 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hillary training on Snowdon[edit]

I have some questions; is it true that Edmund Hillary trained on Snowdon. I've not heard that. Also, I'm not sure that Scotland is visible from the summit. Not sure about Ireland either. I've never seen it, I thought it was too far below the horizon, but does anyone know better? Pikemaster (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that claimed Edmund Hillary trained on Snowdon because according this book he wrote[1], his first visit to Britain was after climbing Everest.

The successful team which included Hilary did train there. Its documented and they stayed at the old Pen-y-Pass Hotel, which has multiple memorbilia of the event. Scotland is visible - Criff Fell I think, the Wiklow Mountains can be seen on a good day. Apol;ogies for the 'vandalism' revert, I am using hte iPad and the Rollback as Vandalism key is too easy to hit by accident. ----Snowded TALK 12:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
According to visitwales, it was George Mallory who stayed in Pen y Pass before going to Everest, they do not mention Hillary. As I am yet to read about the 1953 team training in Wales in any of their memoirs (although I have not read all), I would like to add [citation needed] to that fact. But I will wait a few days in case you have a source available.
Do a google search on hunt everest snowdonia. ----Snowded TALK 17:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone add a geology section[edit]

Could someone add a geology section. What are the rocks composed of? Describe all rocks of which it is formed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.171.220 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snowdon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 16:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The unique environment of Snowdon, particularly its rare plants, have led to its designation as a national nature reserve. Can this sentence be consolidated into the Flora section? It is rather awkward on its own.
    In addition to plants that are widespread in Snowdonia, Snowdon is home to some plants rarely found elsewhere in Britain. Can we rephrase this – it reads rather clumsily.
    Lead: and has been described as "probably the busiest mountain in Britain". This doesn't appear in the main body of the article, see WP:LEAD. Neither does It is located in Snowdonia National Park (Parc Cenedlaethol Eryri) in Gwynedd
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Well referenced to RS, no OR, spotchecks confirm accuracy of citations.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I think we need a location section, with distances from other major points. Also the environment section should cover animal life as well as flora.
    I must admit, I'm struggling here. I've been looking all over the place for both these elements and coming up blank. There are plenty of sources for the distances to or from Llanberis, Beddgelert, Rhyd Ddu, etc., but none for the mountain itself. The only sources I can find for distances from the summit is the toposcope installed there. I don't know if that's considered verifiable (anyone can go there, and there are images available; it's certainly easier to verify than some obscure texts I've seen cited on Wikipedia). For the fauna, it's even worse; most sources contain only the statement that Chrysolina cerealis is endemic to Snowdon, which is untrue (as documented at that article; they make the same claims about Lloydia, ignoring its wide Alpine and Arctic distributions). Although it is higher than anywhere else, the steepness of the upper reaches of Snowdon means that there is little vegetation, and so no interesting animals there. The lower reaches are entirely typical of upland regions of Britain, in my experience, which may be why no-one seems to have written about Snowdon's fauna specifically in any detail. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    OK, I appreciate that you have tried. This might stop it getting FA status if you nominayed there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images licensed and captioned. I move one (Lloydia serotina) to avoid sandwiching of text. Consider other adjustments as at some resolutions there are further examples.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    OK, listing as GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pyg or Pig[edit]

Pyg in welsh means 'pitch' not pig. The National Park web site calls it th Pyg track as does nearly every guidebook I have (and I have a lot) for Snowdonia. A google search shows 2.6 times as many references to pyg as pig. So per official name and common use, pyg wins out ----Snowded TALK 08:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. 'Pyg Track' is used by dozens of reliable sources e.g. Snowdon.com, Walk up Snowdon, Snowdon 500, Walking Britain, etc., etc., etc.. Even the reference cited (and quoted) uses that spelling (Hermon, Peter (2006). "The Snowdon Range". Hillwalking in Wales, Volume 2. British Hills Series). I propose the spelling 'Pyg' is used in this article. I am quite happy to make those changes myself, if agreed. Daicaregos (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I made them .... ----Snowded TALK 08:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
But "pig" is also used frequently, and makes more sense (relating to Bwlch y Moch, rather than the hotel, which isn't where the path begins or ends) or the obvious post-hoc, folk-etymology explanation of men carrying tar (for no obvious reason). Please desist from making changes until agreement can be found. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Its used significantly less than pyg which is also the name given on the official web site of the national part, plus the other references given above. You seem to be making an argument based on your interpretation of etymology rather than going with the sources. This is about the spelling of a name and on that the sources are very clear. ----Snowded TALK 09:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there isn't scope for a discussion. I'm saying that jumping in early and making half-arsed edits isn't going to help, and that they should be undone. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I too agree that the use of "Pyg" is considerably more common than "Pig" (in fact none of my many walk books uses the latter). For interest, however, the use of both can be traced back over 100 years :
Cassell's Magazine, 1904, "Pyg Track"
Bye-gones, relating to Wales and the Border Counties', 1909, "Pyg Track"
Outing, vol 27, 1896, "Pig Track"
Rock Climbing in North Wales, 1906, "Pig Track"
Hogyn Lleol ★ (chat) 09:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree, common use is very very clear, but its legitimate to say that it is also called the Pig Track. I think I have made all the changes, bar the map where the map creator will need to be contacted. In the meantime if Stemonitis comes up with any counter evidence on official or common use I will be more than happy to look at it. ----Snowded TALK 09:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hermon (one of the main sources for the article), has this to say, under the heading "Pig Track":

Note the spelling. Sometimes you will see 'Pyg Track' reflecting the once-held view that the track took its name from the Pen-y-Gwryd Hotel. Nowadays it is generally accepted that the name derives from Bwlch Moch (Pass of the Pigs) which you cross early on.

It is also the spelling used by the Rough Guide, the Snowdonia Society's publication, and others. Neill & Neill claimed that both spelling may be correct, but their views may be very out of date by now. The most up-to-date source is thus unambiguous in its claim that "Pyg" is erroneous. It also makes more sense. There is no reason to associate the path with tar (pyg), and the initialism theory, although widely repeated (and explained in the article), is much more likely to be a back-formation or post hoc explanation than a genuine etymology. Yes, this last part is largely my own opinion, but the most reliable source currently cited favours "Pig". That is also the view taken by our article on Pen-y-Gwryd, although the sourcing for that statement is less clear. I will keep looking. The question is really whether we want to use a widely-repeated but erroneous spelling, or to follow more recent scholarship and reject the erroneous spelling. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The National Park Authority uses "Pyg", but their main article on the track also makes reference to the other theories, including the tar. (See here.) Hogyn Lleol ★ (chat) 10:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Names are determined by common use. The etymology is ambiguous and not proven in either direction. Given the National Park use I think it's clear. I'm not sure what you mean by 'most authoritative source' here? ----Snowded TALK 12:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The NPA explicitly says it doesn't know, so that can't count for much. I think you misunderstood what I said. My claim was that Hermon a) is the source actually used in the article, b) is more up-to-date than almost all the others, and c) claims that understanding of the etymology has moved on recently. In that light, it would seem foolish to continue using outdated sources. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The NPA don't say they don't know which spelling is correct. They say “Nobody knows for sure why this path is called the Pyg Track.” Nobody knows for sure why Carmarthen (Caerfyrddyn) is so called, but that doesn't imply it is not called Carmarthen. Further, the NPA page is dated 2010, whereas Peter Hermon's book was published in 2006. I also note that the Ordinance Survey map (dated 2012) shown on the Walk up Snowdon site, shows it as 'Pyg Track' (and that is the English language version). The spelling 'Pyg' appears to be official, common and current use. Daicaregos (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Ordinance survey is pretty definitive I would say, especially over a hill walking guide. Especially when most such guides use "Pyg" ----Snowded TALK 20:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the word "pyg" in this context pronounced as an English speaker would read it, or a Welsh one (i.e. is it pronounced "pig" or - approximately - "pug")? The article cites the NPA explanation of "pyg" being Welsh for tar, but doesn't comment on the pronunciation. In fact the article implies the 2 words are pronounced the same, as it merely refers to them as "alternative spellings". If however the pronunciation is different, I think this should be made clear in the article. If as I suspect they're pronounced the same, I wonder - purely out of academic interest - if that has any bearing on the etymology? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The pronunciation is much the same (well - "peeg" - it used to be spelled with a circumflex : "pŷg"). The Welsh word is not that common (a better translation would perhaps be 'pitch' or 'bitumen'). The Welsh word in common use today for tar is 'tar'! Personally, I think the tar/pitch thing is a red herring! Hogyn Lleol ★ (chat) 17:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. You may be right. Having the same pronunciation does somewhat queer the pitch (no pun intended!) of the case for "pig" being an anglicisation of "pyg". But I'm not arguing for the use of "pig" - I understand that sources must be followed. (As an aside, I note that my two OS maps of the area - separated by 4 years between publication - use different spellings; in 1984 (on the 1:25,00 scale) it's "pig", but by 1988 (1:50,000 scale), it is "pyg". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Having just read the article on Welsh phonology, specifically the bit informing the reader that the vowel "y" changes pronunciation if it's in the final syllable of a word (and presumably therefore if it's in a word of only one syllable), can someone clarify whether the word "pyg" is always pronounced like "pig", or only in this context? (If it's always pronounced that way, much of what I wrote above is of course quite erroneous haha...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Older dictionaries often spell it with a circumflex, ie. as "pŷg" ("peeg"), and old poetry with it in shows it as rhyming with "eeg" sounds. (NB There are exceptions to the final "y" rule, such as "byg" and "ryg", but these are often spelled with a grave acccent for that reason.) Hogyn Lleol ★ (chat) 13:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I found pŷg in one old climbing book from the 20s I picked up in Hay a couple of years back. Just a curiosity ...

─────────────────────────I'm prepared to live with this, given sensitivities. However the map change to "Pig or Pyg" rather than just "Pyg" is a little petty. I would have thought plain "Pyg" was more in keeping, given we have established common use and no evidence (other than a Cicerone walk guide) has been presented otherwise. Or possibly "Pyg (Pig)" if we really want to be pedantic. Its a really nice map and I realise the author has issues here, so I won't press the point. However the double name detracts from the simplicity of the map and servers no purpose. ----Snowded TALK 06:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It does serve a purpose. Even if one spelling is preferred, it is patently obvious that both spellings are frequently used. Attempting to brush that under the carpet by removing all mention of it aids no-one. A decision about which spelling to use in prose does not imply a ban on mentioning the alternative. Indeed, we must mention the alternative, and the map does exactly that. Your arguments indicate that you are continuing to assume that "Pig" is wrong, when it is not; it is a perfectly reasonable alternative and must be treated as such. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency here. The map doesn't present any other alternative names/spellings. The title of the article is at the English name "Snowdon", but this isn't presented on the map - only the Welsh is. Why should the Pig/Pyg Track deserve both? Also if more than one variant is to be presented on a map, I think it is less confusing to present the alternative name within brackets [i.e. "Pyg Track (Pig Track)"], rather than using "or", which could feasibly be misinterpreted as part of the whole name. The OS use brackets when giving both English and Welsh names of places. In the name of simplicity and elegance I personally would prefer only one name on the map (which is what the OS seem to have always done in this case, whether they have used "Pyg" or "Pig"); the alternative name is given in the text. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There are no other alternative names, only translations. The map would clearly be too crowded with everything translated, although I could easily produce a purely Welsh-language version for use on cy.wiki. "Yr Wyddfa" properly refers only to the summit (mound), so is the appropriate label here, given that "Snowdon" covers a much larger area (effectively the whole scope of the map). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the Snowdon/Yr Wyddfa definitions - I had wondered about that. Perhaps you are right on this matter, because the difference between "Pyg" and "Pig" is not about spelling (at least not according to the National Park Authority), but rather derivation, and I think the similarity of their spellings has clouded the discussion (even you yourself refer to it above as a case of different spellings). If the explanations on their etymology are to be believed, it is better (in fact necessary) to regard them as 2 completely different words. Having said all that, of course the OS do only use either one or the other, haha... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is a spelling issue, with the folk etymologies following the chosen spelling post hoc, in typical Welsh fashion (cf. Beddgelert, which many local people will swear is named after the dog, rather than the other way round). Everyone knows that it's the word represented by the sound /pɪg/ (not, for example, /piːg/, "tar"), but disagrees on how to write it and what it means. It seems awfully unlikely that one person might talk about the tar-track, another about the swine-track, and another about the hotel-track, and in just such as way as to get the three confused. No, this has folk etymology written all over it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that seems reasonable. You mentioned earlier in this thread that you were still looking for (more) sources that would support such a view - I'm assuming that this search has not yet borne fruit? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't found much, no. The only source to explicitly compare etymologies and then plump for one is Hermon (l.c.), who rejects PyG as a Victorian pun, and favours a derivation based on Bwlch Moch (which is why the article favoured that spelling until recently). None of these tourist guides is exactly a scholarly source, however. ... Actually, I've just come across Turnbull (2010),[Pig 1] who also takes that view: "The Pig Track is sometimes written as 'Pyg', by a sort of anti-acronym out of Pen y Gwryd. The path is actually named for Bwlch y Moch, the Pig Pass." The 19th-century joker who came up with "PyG track" must be wetting himself realising how many people he's fooled. I have a suspicion that "Pyg" has stuck because it sort of looks "more Welsh", without being any more authentic. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I too was wondering if "Pyg" has become preferred for reasons of political correctness. Unfortunately this is such a minor topic of interest that it is unlikely that scholarly research will be done on it (although, you never know, haha...), and in the absence of that, common usage should take precedence over (possible) truth. In fact, because of the ways that languages develop, usage triumphs over origin anyway; whatever is used becomes 'correct', and the etymology just takes another direction (just look at the villages in the Piddle Valley in Dorset, where many of their names were changed by the Victorians from "Piddle-" to "Puddle-", on the grounds of decorum - a Victorian mangling if ever there was one). As an aside, I personally can think of another reason why the "tar" explanation is false - there is already a parallel track (Miners Track) that leads to the mines, and that takes a gentler route; why would anyone choose another, more difficult route over which to carry something as heavy as tar? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
all might be true but it's not our place to speculate! Common use is clear and Stemonitis admits s/he has found nothing to contradict this. Given the importance of consistency we should keep all track names as single ones OR a possible compromise use 'Pyg(pig)' the current version shows the map creators personal preference, and that's not really the way things should work around here.----Snowded TALK 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No, let me repeat: the map correctly reflects the diversity of usage. You, on the other hand, are trying to censor the more plausible spelling for no good reason. You can argue for the primacy of the PyG spelling, but not for its universality. Your crusade to remove all mention of "Pig" must end now. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Try and cool it a little Stremonitis, between that and the tirades on my talk page represent a clear failure to follow WP:AGF. Lets keep this to the facts . The correct spelling per the ordinance survey and the park web site is PYG. It is also possible to find references to PIG which is a secondary use. If you read rather than simply react, I suggested a compromise of "Pyg(pig)" if you really feel your normal arguments for consistency do not apply in this case. As to plausibility, please read WP:OR. You may well be right that pig is the more natural etymology, in fact I think I probably agree with you. The simply fact however is that etymology does not determine name. For that the sources are clear; its Pyg. Your current version of the map is the worst of possible options. Firstly its over long, and the beauty of that map is its simplicity and clean lines. Secondly it gives priority to to the secondary spelling (per sources please) and Thirdly its inconsistent with all the other names which simply use a single name. There is no crusade here. Just a simple attempt to conform with policy. Why you blew the original simple correction to a major issue is beyond me, but can we now keep this one simple please. ----Snowded TALK 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a simple issue, but you continue to misunderstand it. There is not one correct spelling. There is no "official" spelling. The OS, naturally, has to choose a spelling, but that doesn't make others "wrong", particularly since it has used different spellings at different times (and for some time, at different map scales, if I recall correctly). This is natural language, and two spellings are used, like hiccup and hiccough. Neither is wrong and neither is right (although etymology explains that one is more authentic); either is acceptable. The rest of your argument relies on there being a right answer, which there isn't. There are two widely-used spellings, and any attempt to disguise that fact is a disservice to the readers. The fact that you accept that "Pig" is a much more plausible title only serves to make your insistence on purging it from the page the more ironic. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand the issue fully and I am not attempting to purge the use of 'pig' at all, its legitimate to say in the body of the text that it is an alternative spelling. However if we look at the sources for which should be used, per common name policy, then the evidence is overwhelmingly for Pyg. The etymology is interesting, but my opinion on that (or yours) have nothing to do with the common name. You haven't (and I accept you are frustrated by this) been able to come up with anything substantial that would give priority to Pig so that spelling is a secondary name. So instead of making more false accusations about my intent (its tiresome and you are an experienced enough editor to know better) please focus on the proposals either to have a single name, in which case, pending evidence rather than opinion from you, its Pyg, or show the secondary use in brackets as I suggested. ----Snowded TALK 14:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it does not follow that we must restrict the map to one name. The text says that both names are encountered, and the map reflects that. Yes, we use a single spelling in the prose except where discussing the variation, but neither that, nor the common names policy indicates that alternatives have to be removed from the map. The so-called "common names policy" applies to article titles (indeed, WP:COMMONNAME redirects to a section of Wikipedia:Article titles), and does not mandate the removal of alternative names from other parts of articles. There is, in fact, no policy and no reason to remove the helpful indications that show that there is variation. The closest analogy I can find is "Derry", an article which covers the habitation known variously as "Derry " and "Londonderry". Neither name is wrong, but different people prefer different versions. In that article, the map is captioned "Derry / Londonderry shown within Northern Ireland", i.e. both names are given. This situation is not entirely equivalent, but it's close enough that the same principles would apply. Regardless of the spelling used in the article, the map must include both names, and ought to treat them equally. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course we don't have to restrict it to one but neither are we required to have both. If we do have both then they are not required to be treated equally, because very simply the balance of citations show for Pyg, especially the key "official" sites of the national park and the ordinance survey. Now I realise that "pig" is important to you (I still don't understand why but no matter) hence the suggestion of the compromise "Pyg (pig)" ----Snowded TALK 18:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
We may not be required to include both, but it would be dishonest (to the reader) to insist on one being removed. "Pig" is important, because it's much more plausible, and almost all the authors who have considered the two consider the "Pyg" spelling to be a Victorian invention, and its purported etymology to be absurd. I suggest the compromise "Pig or Pyg Track", which is fairer than your suggestion, and has the advantage of already having been implemented. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It may well have been a victorian invention (many things were), but it stuck and it won't be the first name in history to have an absurd etymology. Personally I think the name on the map should conform with what we have established for the article itself, based on sources. You chose to put the secondary meaning first, so don't claim its a compromise, it clearly isn't. You don't seem to understand that a confused etymology does not mean we ignore common (and this case) official use of a spelling whatever the legitimacy of its origin. You also seem to want to ignore the fact that you were not able to establish primary use for your preferred spelling; good editors fall back to sources, not their own opinion. Making or hunting down another map may have to be an alternative given you are the author of the current and clearly not prepared to compromise ----Snowded TALK 19:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You "think the name on the map should conform with [...] the article", and I disagree, and I have given good reasons why I disagree. There is no policy dictating that one course is unacceptable, since this is not actually a big issue. You accepted that "we don't have to restrict it to one", so you should please accept that there is nothing false, nothing misleading, about the current map. No further action needs to be taken. Despite this, and contrary to your assertions, I am prepared to compromise; this is demonstrated by the fact that I did compromise, and included both spellings on the map. However, as far as I am aware, no further edits are needed. (My attention was drawn to one genuine, factual error, which I have corrected; I don't think anyone can claim that aesthetic questions such as crowding fall into the same category.) I hope we can now draw a line under this and all move on with other things. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The way I see it you created a storm in a tea cup over a minor correction, we're unable to support your position but used your ownership of the map to hold into a residue of your original position. Petty minded at best. If I come across another map with more authority I'll substitute it, although it won't be a priority.----Snowded TALK 22:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You fail to grasp the point, still. It is not a correction. "Pig" is not incorrect. This is where your entire argument continues to fall down. If it were a correction (as with the placement of Gladstone Rock), I would of course correct it, but it is not. To replace the map based solely on the inclusion of a spelling you disfavour, that would be petty. --Stemonitis (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No one has said it is incorrect, but its a secondary use per the sources. You have made it primary. Having worked yourself up into a hissy fit when Pyg and Pig had around 45 minutes of inconsistent use, its is hypocritical at best for you to continue that inconsistency on the map. Primary use in the article is Pyg, per sources, the map should conform.----Snowded TALK 08:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No, both are more or less equal. The map reflects that, and so does the article. That is consistent. Very deliberately, the map makes neither spelling primary. It makes sense for the article to use a single spelling except where discussing the variation, and it does that. To describe my reversion of obviously unconstructive edits as a "hissy fit" is to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Bad edits are reverted. (And to accuse anyone of hypocrisy is a personal attack, which has no place here.) The point is that there is nothing wrong with the map, nothing that contravenes policy, and your continued bullying to try and get me to make an undesirable change is helping no-one. I consider this matter closed, and you should too. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Stubborn beyond belief, you have been unable to establish equal status as is very very clear from the evidence above. All the main official sources use Pyg and that has primacy. Its a very very small matter but you are unable to let your original position go. I've persisted on this because I think your behaviour here is an issue. Especially as the author of the map in question. But you are "closed" and I accept that. ----Snowded TALK 08:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ Ronald Turnbull (2010). Three Peaks, Ten Tors: and Other Challenging Walks in the UK. Cicerone Press. p. 24. ISBN 9781849651479.

Intro - water fairies and nymphs[edit]

I'm not particularly well versed in Celtic water bestiaries, but is it quite right that afanc and the Tylwyth Teg are strongly associated with the mountain? I thought they were basically lake beings, as their articles suggest. I don't know if it means anything that the Welsh-language version of the article doesn't mention them, whilst it does keep in the giant, Rhita Gawr. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Folklore section makes it clear that the afanc and the Tylwyth Teg are associated with lakes on the mountain's flanks. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was just wondering if it merits the intro mention, which makes it sound as if they are a key part of the overall mountain myth - not that mention isn't deserved in the article at all. They sound slightly minor, but maybe I'm misunderstanding their significance - however, I've been on and around the mountain for many years and spoken to a great many local people about the area and never heard them being emphasised in that way. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The lead is merely summarising the article, and the sentence in question is only trying to say that there are various myths and legends attached to the massif, rather than drawing out examples of particular significance. I don't think it counts as undue weight. In fact, I think leaving out some mention of the other myths and legends would be to overemphasise Rhitta Gawr's place. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

deleted - topic found. (& I still think it is silly)

When named 'Yr Wyddfa' Comes first[edit]

What right does the English language have when the Welsh language is still spoken? the national language of Wales is Cymraeg first, English second even if there are more English speakers than Welsh, the name for our national anthem is 'Yr hen wlad fy Nhadau' and is referred to as 'The land of our fathers' in English so why is it any different to the names of places in Wales?, giving the mountain English first preference is not only outdated but ignorant, wrong and borders on the English having a superior race status, belittling the Welsh Country, I am not asking to rename the whole page, I'm just asking for the Welsh name to have more importance because 'Yr Wyddfa' has been named that long before the Saxons arrived.. The Welsh status has always been belittled by England, they tried to wipe the common folk away, take away our minerals and food, tried to take away our language, flooded our valleys and even today, they choke the funding of our welsh language tv channels.. we are paid very little and yet today, when I try to correct the Snowdon name, I am confronted with a flush of people willing to defend the English given name, it is disheartening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talkcontribs) 17:46, 1 December 2015

This is the English Wikipedia, therefore English names come first in articles. Also, the article is named "Snowdon". Vsmith (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a question of readers being able to understand the article names within the language of the encyclopedia that they are reading. It is not a matter of politics or arrogance or belittling. It would make as much sense for this article to use Yr Wyddfa as its primary name as it would for the Welsh Wikipedia to name its article Y Ffindir as "Suomi". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Snowdon in Wordsworth's Prelude[edit]

Would someone like to incorporate something on Wordsworth's Snowdon section in his great "Prelude" of 1850?

[ The following text, in the common domain, from: http://homes.lmc.gatech.edu/~broglio/1102/snowdon.html ]

IN one of those excursions (may they ne'er

                   Fade from remembrance!) through the Northern tracts 
                   Of Cambria ranging with a youthful friend, 
                   I left Bethgelert's huts at couching-time, 
                   And westward took my way, to see the sun 
                   Rise, from the top of Snowdon. To the door 
                   Of a rude cottage at the mountain's base 
                   We came, and roused the shepherd who attends 
                   The adventurous stranger's steps, a trusty guide; 
                   Then, cheered by short refreshment, sallied forth.          10
                     It was a close, warm, breezeless summer night, 
                   Wan, dull, and glaring, with a dripping fog 
                   Low-hung and thick that covered all the sky; 
                   But, undiscouraged, we began to climb 
                   The mountain-side. The mist soon girt us round, 
                   And, after ordinary travellers' talk 
                   With our conductor, pensively we sank 
                   Each into commerce with his private thoughts: 
                   Thus did we breast the ascent, and by myself 
                   Was nothing either seen or heard that checked               20 
                   Those musings or diverted, save that once 
                   The shepherd's lurcher, who, among the crags, 
                   Had to his joy unearthed a hedgehog, teased 
                   His coiled-up prey with barkings turbulent. 
                   This small adventure, for even such it seemed 
                   In that wild place and at the dead of night, 
                   Being over and forgotten, on we wound 
                   In silence as before. With forehead bent 
                   Earthward, as if in opposition set 
                   Against an enemy, I panted up                               30 
                   With eager pace, and no less eager thoughts. 
                   Thus might we wear a midnight hour away, 
                   Ascending at loose distance each from each, 
                   And I, as chanced, the foremost of the band; 
                   When at my feet the ground appeared to brighten, 
                   And with a step or two seemed brighter still; 
                   Nor was time given to ask or learn the cause, 
                   For instantly a light upon the turf 
                   Fell like a flash, and lo! as I looked up, 
                   The Moon hung naked in a firmament                          40 
                   Of azure without cloud, and at my feet 
                   Rested a silent sea of hoary mist. 
                   A hundred hills their dusky backs upheaved 
                   All over this still ocean; and beyond, 
                   Far, far beyond, the solid vapours stretched, 
                   In headlands, tongues, and promontory shapes, 
                   Into the main Atlantic, that appeared 
                   To dwindle, and give up his majesty, 
                   Usurped upon far as the sight could reach. 
                   Not so the ethereal vault; encroachment none                50 
                   Was there, nor loss; only the inferior stars 
                   Had disappeared, or shed a fainter light 
                   In the clear presence of the full-orbed Moon, 
                   Who, from her sovereign elevation, gazed 
                   Upon the billowy ocean, as it lay 
                   All meek and silent, save that through a rift-- 
                   Not distant from the shore whereon we stood, 
                   A fixed, abysmal, gloomy, breathing-place-- 
                   Mounted the roar of waters, torrents, streams 
                   Innumerable, roaring with one voice!                        60 
                   Heard over earth and sea, and, in that hour, 
                   For so it seemed, felt by the starry heavens.
                     When into air had partially dissolved 
                   That vision, given to spirits of the night 
                   And three chance human wanderers, in calm thought 
                   Reflected, it appeared to me the type 
                   Of a majestic intellect, its acts 
                   And its possessions, what it has and craves, 
                   What in itself it is, and would become. 
                   There I beheld the emblem of a mind                         70 
                   That feeds upon infinity, that broods 
                   Over the dark abyss, intent to hear 
                   Its voices issuing forth to silent light 
                   In one continuous stream; a mind sustained 
                   By recognitions of transcendent power, 
                   In sense conducting to ideal form, 
                   In soul of more than mortal privilege. 
                   One function, above all, of such a mind 
                   Had Nature shadowed there, by putting forth, 
                   'Mid circumstances awful and sublime,                       80 
                   That mutual domination which she loves 
                   To exert upon the face of outward things, 
                   So moulded, joined, abstracted, so endowed 
                   With interchangeable supremacy, 
                   That men, least sensitive, see, hear, perceive, 
                   And cannot choose but feel. The power, which all 
                   Acknowledge when thus moved, which Nature thus 
                   To bodily sense exhibits, is the express 
                   Resemblance of that glorious faculty 
                   That higher minds bear with them as their own.              90 
                   This is the very spirit in which they deal 
                   With the whole compass of the universe: 
                   They from their native selves can send abroad 
                   Kindred mutations; for themselves create 
                   A like existence; and, whene'er it dawns 
                   Created for them, catch it, or are caught 
                   By its inevitable mastery, 
                   Like angels stopped upon the wing by sound 
                   Of harmony from Heaven's remotest spheres. 
                   Them the enduring and the transient both                   100 
                   Serve to exalt; they build up greatest things 
                   From least suggestions; ever on the watch, 
                   Willing to work and to be wrought upon, 
                   They need not extraordinary calls 
                   To rouse them; in a world of life they live, 
                   By sensible impressions not enthralled, 
                   But by their quickening impulse made more prompt 
                   To hold fit converse with the spiritual world, 
                   And with the generations of mankind 
                   Spread over time, past, present, and to come,              110 
                   Age after age, till Time shall be no more. 
                   Such minds are truly from the Deity, 
                   For they are Powers; and hence the highest bliss 
                   That flesh can know is theirs--the consciousness 
                   Of Whom they are, habitually infused 
                   Through every image and through every thought, 
                   And all affections by communion raised 
                   From earth to heaven, from human to divine; 
                   Hence endless occupation for the Soul, 
                   Whether discursive or intuitive;                           120 
                   Hence cheerfulness for acts of daily life, 
                   Emotions which best foresight need not fear, 
                   Most worthy then of trust when most intense. 
                   Hence, amid ills that vex and wrongs that crush 
                   Our hearts--if here the words of Holy Writ 
                   May with fit reverence be applied--that peace 
                   Which passeth understanding, that repose 
                   In moral judgments which from this pure source 
                   Must come, or will by man be sought in vain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.202.206 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Snowdon. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hillary, Edmund (1975). Nothing Venture, Nothing Win. Hodder & Stoughton General Division. ISBN 0-340-21296-9.