Talk:Skiddaw

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] 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.
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)

[edit] 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)