Talk:Sgurr Dearg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Scottish Islands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of islands in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Other mountains requiring rock climbing?

To quote an anon editor's edit summary:

altered intro text as sgurr dearg is not the only hill in britain which requires rock climbing to reach the summit. It is, however, the only Munro with this distinction.

As far as I can remember, the only other 'hills' requiring rock climbing to reach the summit, in GB at least, are Stac Lee and Stac an Armin off Boreray - which wouldn't be classed as hills at all, let alone mountains, if they weren't on the list of Marilyns - and minor summits like Pillar Rock which also don't count as bona fide mountain tops. I don't know about Ireland but don't imagine it's any different. I've therefore reinstated the basic claim with a qualification, as I think it's true enough to be mentioned. But if I've forgotten a genuine one then please correct! --Blisco 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Cobbler requires climbing at moderate at least to reach the true summit. Thanks --Mehmet Karatay 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

I'm thinking this article ought to be moved to Sgurr Dearg. As far as I know, the term "Inaccessible Pinnacle" is only ever applied to the pinnacle itself, not to the mountain as a whole, and yet the mountain needs an article. Given that there seems to be little justification in having separate articles on Sgurr Dearg and the In Pinn, it makes more sense for the article to be named after the larger entity. It would also enable us to resolve the mess of the opening sentence. ("The Inaccessible Pinnacle... is... the summit of Sgurr Dearg" – so is this article about the mountain or the summit? It ought to read something like "Sgurr Dearg is a mountain in the Cuillin... its most distinctive feature is the summit, the Inaccessible Pinnacle...".)

Thoughts? --Blisco 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds eminently sensible for mine. Grinner 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, unless there's a case for saying that "Sgurr Dearg" is the name of the (lower) summit originally listed by Munro rather than the mountain as a whole. I don't think that is the case, but it's worth considering. --Stemonitis 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that "Sgurr Dearg" is generally used to mean the lower summit, which is different from saying that it only refers to the summit and not the mountain. I've tried to reflect the fact in the article, but it's difficult to do so in a neutral and verifiable way. There seems to be a lot of confusion on the matter (at least in the sources at my disposal), and I certainly found it hard to put the situation into words. Part of the problem no doubt stems from the fact that we peak baggers tend to attach names to summits rather than mountains, a practice that falls to pieces here.

The confusion becomes apparent when you see Sgurr Dearg in views from the SE (e.g. the first photo on this page), where the lower summit does indeed look like the "proper" summit of the mountain, with the In Pin tacked onto the side, as it were. Now how do you put that into encyclopedic language? (Better still, where can we find a suitable free image that illustrates the fact?)

Anyway, I've moved it, but improvements to the wording are welcome. --Blisco 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)