Talk:Ben Nevis

message: How about labelling the photo of the arete to Carn Mor Dearg as that? There is reference to CMD arete in main article now.Linuxlad 17:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead - I just took the photo, I didn't know the exact names involved and figured someone would come along who did. Stoive 19:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: ... and if it helps the photo was taken at grid ref approx 176 713 facing southwest (assuming I read the map off multimap correctly just now). There was quite a bit of fog/mist around at the time - part of the effect I was trying to capture, but which (considering your comment on my talk page) may also make it look smaller than it is. Stoive 22:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo labelling 

message: "It is the most impressive mountain face in the United Kingdom " <-- That sentence is too subjctive, I think... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.31.8 (talk • contribs) 14:33, August 18, 2005  (UTC)
True, but not _that_ true. Try  'Considered by many (UK mountaineers) to be the most impressive on the mainland...' (there can't be many faces that high for a kick-off) Linuxlad
Yep, that sentence is quite subjective. I certainly don't agree with it and have met a lot of others who consider The Ben less impressive than many other faces. I think too that it should be changed. :) Chris 62.6.139.10 11:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the 7km long "wall" on the Beinn Lair (a "mere" Corbett)? Quite impressive really! Grinner 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressive? 

message: I have difficulty with the referencing in this article. 355 days of the year no visibility from the top, with a reference to a BBC news page about the Ben Nevis. However, no word about it's weather conditions in there... That makes me wonder how true the statement is, and why teh reference has been put there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marije (talk • contribs) 17:43, October 2, 2005  (UTC)
:Aah yes, that would be my fault, well spotted. The problem was that I thought it took the keys you type in for references, so if you have {ref|bbc} it would automatically tie this up with {note|bbc}. It seems that the references at the end also (for some reason) need to be in the same order as the references appear in the article, rather than alphabetical as I had ordered them.
:Hopefully they should all make more sense in relation to the sentences they refer to now that I've re-ordered the references at the end. Thanks again pointing it out. — pmcm 20:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to doubt these statistics. Granted they come from a "reliable source", but the source looks more reliable on geology than on climate, which is only circumstantial to the article. I find it hard to believe that the summit is covered in cloud for 355 full days a year; more likely it sees some cloud at some point during 355 days. In any case the weather isn't that remarkable; it may be worse than on most Scottish mountains due to the extra altitude, but I doubt it's that much worse. I've updated the weather section to reflect these doubts and moved it to the section on ascents, where it surely has more relevance than in the lead section, with a bit more about navigational difficulties. -- Blisco 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken about the cloud incidence, which is incidentally quite a bit higher than for other Munros, not just because of the altitude and location, but also because of its size and shape which forces airstreams upwards so generating significant extra cloud and precipitation. It seems to me that a summit cloud incidence statistic would be better (the figure of 75% sticks in my mind although I cannot source it). But I do not agree with the transfer of the weather section. Weather does not come under ascent routes. The right place for the weather information is in the lead section, directly under the fatalities information to which it is highly relevant. Also why were the additional rainfall comparisons removed? These were useful and did not occupy too much space. Any further comments? Viewfinder 08:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the ascents section is not the ideal place for it, but I think it was overbalancing the lead section and being given too much prominence as the second paragraph (before the bit about fatalities). To be honest this article could do with a major restructuring - at present it seems to share the common fault of many Wikipedia articles, that of having grown organically from a stub, with short snippets of information held together fairly loosely. (I'm prepared to undertake such a task but won't have time for the next week or few.) The proper place for the weather - in an expanded form with additional comparisons - is probably in a "Geography" section, or perhaps under "Safety". As a stopgap how about putting the heading "Weather" above the relevant paragraph? -- Blisco 08:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The article does need restructuring, not least to remove the empty spaces around the "other facts" header. I will do nothing for 24 hours, then, barring further comment, I will create a weather heading as suggested, and remove the empty spaces. You can then overhaul the article when you have the time. Viewfinder 09:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that these statistics, especially regarding cloud cover, seem highly unlikey.  During the past twelve months, I've spent about 15 days walking in this area of the western highlands.  I think on 12 of these days, I've been able to the summit of Ben Nevis free from the clouds, perhaps only for a few minutes.  Admitedly I've had very good luck with weather this year, but if these stats were true, I shouldn't have seen the summit on 12 occasions even if I'd been there every day.  I know this is against the no original research rule, but I think it casts enough doubt on the statistic that it should be removed. -- ras52 10:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The October issue of Trail magazine has an extended feature on Ben Nevis, including a panel "The Ben in numbers" which repeats the 355-days-of-cloud statistic. What's the betting they lifted it from Wikipedia? ;-> Blisco 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: Surely most of the fatalities were due to falls while winter climbing, not rock climbing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.26.205 (talk • contribs) 14:06, March 22, 2006  (UTC)
No, most people are killed climbing the less-used routes. 92.8.194.2 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities 

message: I don't claim to be able to speak Gaelic, but I've never encountered the spelling Beinn Nebhis before -- I've always seen Beinn Nibheis.  A Googlefight gives 41 hits for Nebhis and 1200 for Nibheis.  I'm inclined to change this unless anyone can find supporting evidence for the former spelling.  ras52 11:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of Pictish in northern Scotland is well known, although beyond the indirect place name evidence you mention little is known of the particulars. (See Scottish island names or the Lunnasting stone for example.) If you have a reliable source for "the Head of Nefys" please let us know. Ben MacDui 09:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The little evidence there is shows that the Picts spoke a Norse dialect. In Norse 'Nevis' would mean 'Head of Ice'. G W Gardiner (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaelic name 

message: As half-promised above, I've finally got round to doing a major rewrite and restructuring of this page. Parts of it still leave something to be desired, but the structure should provide a better framework for future improvement. I hope it meets with general approval. I'll add a few more photographs tomorrow. --Blisco 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The origin of the name Ben Nevis is unclear. The word ben is certainly from beinn, the Gaelic word for 'peak', and Ben Nevis is sometimes referred to as 'The Ben'. Possibilities for the meaning of nevis include 'venomous' (from nimheil), 'burst' or 'flow' (from neb) and 'brow of keen air' (from neamh meaning 'keeness of air' and bathais meaning 'brow'). A locally popular suggestion that the name derives from nèamh meaning 'heaven' is rejected by etymologists.
This bit has been part of the article since very early on, and was written by the same contributor who inserted the erroneous Gaelic name 'Beinn Nebheis' (as questioned by ras52 above). I'm inclined to treat it as suspect; I've never seen the 'brow of keen air' theory anywhere else, and I don't think the anonymous 'etymologists' necessarily reject 'heaven' out of hand. I've moved here in case anyone can find any supporting references, and replaced it with a shorter, referenced etymology. --Blisco 18:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed pending references 

message: I meant to say this when I made the relevant edit on 5 November, but better late than never. I removed mention of the National Three Peaks Challenge from the lead section, because, while notable, I didn't think the bare mention that "Ben Nevis is one of the mountains climbed as part of the Three Peaks Challenge" contributed much to the lead. I meant to try and incorporate it somewhere else in the article (e.g. under "Ascent routes"), but forgot. However, I think it would be better to contextualise it a bit: i.e. give some indication of how many people do the challenge and when, and whether or not it's considered to have a significant environmental impact. (According to the article, 29,000 people did the challenge in June 2003, which is a fair proportion of the 100,000 people who climb the Ben!) But if anyone wants to put it back straight away, with or without context, please do. --Blisco 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to find a way of working in a brief mention of the standard long walks / fell runs that include Ben Nevis: the Lochaber Traverse (i.e. the whole of the north side of Glen Nevis: the Grey Corries, Aonachs, CMD and Nevis — a not too hard long day's walk), Tranter's Round (that plus the Mammores — which seems common amongst the serious fell runners) and Ramsay's Round (a modern extension to Tranter's).  Perhaps these together with the National Three Peaks Challenge would naturally fit into a new section?  Incidentally, I'd love to see a source for 29,000 people doing the National Three Peaks in June 2003 — I simply don't believe that figure!  — ras52 10:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Peaks Challenge 

message: *You said you'll fix the "citation needed" tags next week.
*I was never concerned about the tourist-speak; I said nothing unforgivable from the start. In fact, I was surprised that what I considered to be a minor aside was later remarked upon. I think things are looking good.
*I was kinda hinting earlier that I thought something should be mentioned in the lead. I apologize; hinting is counterproductive. I think something should be mentioned in the lead about C.T.R. Wilson's cloud chamber, because it is interesting and important.
*But everything looks Good. Conclusion = PASS.
--Ling.Nut 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|Good Article]] nomination PASS 

message: The original date "late 1870s" was correct - proposed in 1877 according to both Roy (already cited) and Crocket, Ken "The Ben Nevis Mystery" (http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/journals/journal-38-january-2005.pdf) in JMT Journal 38 (January 2005) p19.
The Observatory opened in 1883 (as already stated)
I suggest restoring the "late 1870s" edit. Finavon 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observatory Date 

message: The statement "it is often known simply as The Ben," is true if unsourced, but the same is also true of many other 'Bens'. Generally speaking 'Ben' is the honorific given to the highest mountain in any particular area. If you stand in the high streets of Alness, Dalwhinnie, or Tobermory, and ask for directions to 'The Ben' you will not end up in Lochaber. The statement is thus not so much untrue as misleading. Rather, I think it is true that in Lancastrian rock-climbing circles 'having a crack at The Ben' is a phrase that is unlikely to be ambiguous. I deference to these hardy souls I think it may be acceptable to amend the wording rather than remove it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Ben 

message: I added this piece of trivia and the found to my annoyance that this brew has not yet made its way onto the website reference. However, as I have a bottle in my possession I believe the information to be accurate. I was reluctant to mention this in the citation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Nevis ale 

message: I've updated this with some of the points mentioned in the above discussions. If anyone would like to add or remove anything then go ahead. --Blisco 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list 

message: I've rejigged the referencing system a bit. General (especially printed) sources that apply to the whole article are now cited separately at the top of the references section, which means that notes referring to these sources can use a short form followed by a page number, e.g. "Hodgkiss, The Central Highlands, p. 117". This should make the refs a bit easier to digest, and allows you to cite multiple pages of the same book without having to give the full details each time. I'm not sure whether or not to carry on using the <ref name="foo"> business with such notes; it's probably easier not to, but having a new footnote each time would increase the length of the notes section.
On a related matter, would anyone object if the citation templates (,  et al) were dispensed with? I find them confusing and irritating to use and would much rather format the reference myself, but I can see that they make it easier to fill in the blanks without having to worry about consistent formatting. --Blisco 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I support the general references, but not extending the list of references by repeating footnotes. Does the OS map need to be in both general and footnote refs? Citation templates do encourage people to give full details, but are not easy to use - a standard layout is the goal, and I don't know how else we encourage that. Finavon 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The article states that the summit cliffs are granite but it's my understanding that they are lavas. They are certainly of that character as a climbing rock and the enclosed citation seems to confirm this (see 1.2 - this file is a 2.6Mb download)
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/F02LD01.pdf
Billo72 14:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree that those on the northern cliffs look more like lavas than granite, but then I'm no geologist.  The rocks round on the CMD arête, Carn Mòr Dearg itself, and to some extent those in Coire Leis, do look like granite, though.  My (rather hazy) recollection is that those on the southern crags look like granite too.  — ras52 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For those wanting to avoid downloading this large file, the relevant quote is "the summit and northern cliffs of Ben Nevis are made of andesite and basaltic lavas and tuffs. A granite intrusion forms the southern slopes of Ben Nevis and also the ridge of the Carn Dearg peaks."  (I presume that by "Carn Dearg peaks" it means "the ridge of Carn Beag Dearg, Carn Dearg Meadhonach and Carn Mór [sic] Dearg".)  This is in agreement with the reference cited in the article (Miller's Ben Nevis Geology); the article simply mis-quotes the reference.  I've now fixed this in the article. — ras52 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing my error. I'm even less of a geologist, as you can probably tell. Incidentally, if anyone wants to write about vegetation and land use this article would be a good place to start. --Blisco 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: What do folks think should be done with Tower Ridge? I put the merge tags on, but I'm having second thoughts. I'm generally against the proliferation of articles, and don't want to encourage the creation of an article on every classic climb on the Ben, but I reckon it would unbalance this article to include such a detailed description. A more sensible option might be to create Climbing on Ben Nevis into which the stuff on Tower Ridge could be merged, but I doubt such an article would get much attention at the moment. Perhaps we should just leave it for six months and see what happens? --Blisco 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose merging Tower Ridge into Ben Nevis. Leaving it where it is for now seems fine. It will probably never be a long article. If there is a proliferation of articles on other routes then Climbing on Ben Nevis would be appropriate. Finavon 19:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also oppose for similar reasons. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems quite similar to the detailed route information that used to live on the Aonach Eagach page.  Blisco removed this, leaving a copy in his user area saying "I intend to move it to Wikibooks at some point".  Long term, I think the same should happen to the Tower Ridge page — the detail, beyond what's on this page, is not really encyclopedic.  But until that happens, I suggest we leave it as it is. — ras52 10:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say that it doesn't really look like encyclopedia material to me. Grinner 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower Ridge 

message: The lead section contains the word "outwith".  Having worked with some lovely Scots folk over the years, I was well aware of its existence and its meaning.  However, on the basis that the vast majority of readers are not Scots and will be confused, I was about to edit it to read "outside". On the edit page, I found that the author had anticipated me and had inserted a note explaining the word, no doubt to discourage edits.  On the basis that he felt it so important I left it in, but would suggest that a GA status article should surely not include obscure dialect words for no apparent reason when there is a perfectly good English word that the majority of readers would understand much better.  I know this probably seems trivial, but what do people think? kritikos99 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quaint, my friend, is in the ear of the listener. This is a Scottish article and I can see no reason not to use a perfectly acceptable, and hardly opaque Scottish expression within it. WP:MOS, often ambiguous, seems quite clear on this subject. "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wouldn't expect the author to agree with my query, no-one else got a point of view?  Where we differ, I guess, is that I don't see that an article about a mountain has "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation".  If the article was about bagpipes or haggis, then OK.  Sorry about the cliches...  The mountain could have been anywhere really. kritikos99 13:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why use a dialect word when "outside" is available and equally comprehensible for both Scots and non-Scots? It's one thing to use British instead of American spellings in an article pertaining to Britain; you have to pick one spelling or the other, so you might as well write with the spellings used by the relevant group of people. In this case, however, "outside" is universal while "outwith" is not. A. Parrot (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a perfectly acceptable "English" word and is used correctly here. It appears in Wiktionary. Even for those not used to hearing it, the meaning should be clear. We should not be dumbing down our language. Words that are not used will be "lost". "Outwith" is used, albeit in a limited geographical area - that to which this article refers. It is less likely to be confused than the alternative "without" (There is a green hill far away...)! On a wider issue, the article lead should summarise information from the article, so perhaps this sentence should be in Etymology, with "walkers and climbers from" changed to "vistors from". Finavon (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, it certainly isn't Southern. I've never even heard of it. --Mark J (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quaint Scottish expressions 

message: The image in the infobox at the stat of the article is currently too large (it takes uo about half the page). It would be good if someone could sort it out (I'm not that good at sorting out images).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacevezon (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image is too Large 

message: Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities_for_commonality: "Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences." This guideline is perfectly clear. In a choice between "outwith" and "outside", "outside" is to be used because it is common to all varieties of English. It is not part of our remit, for example, to use local words lest they die out. And nor is it any argument to claim that it's clear from the context because (a) we can't possibly know this to be the case for all our readers, and (b) it is our job to make the meaning as clear as we can. ðarkuncoll 11:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Mark J (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing ambiguous about "outwith", even without the context. I have yet to find someone who does not understand it. There are plenty who stop and think, but is that such a bad thing? Why does Wikipedia have to dumb down language? Finavon (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Outwith is a wonderful word. Its meaning is completely clear to readers even if they haven't seen it before; it has no obvious synonyms ("outside" is a poor substitute); it adds colour without making the text obscure, pompous, or quirky. It deserves to be used more widely, and where better than here. Mhkay (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Randy in Boise is going to get interested in Scottish icons then he will undoubtedly enjoy the enriching taste of Scotch colloquial culture as well. Autodidactyl (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone has replaced "outwith" yet again.  It is seems to be good enough for the OED and is not described as only Scottish.  I can't see why it should be removed from use on Wikipedia just because some people do not have sufficiently wide vocabulary to understand the word.  --jmb (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although its meaning is pretty obvious due to the context, it's not a very common word, so really it would be better not to use it when there are perfectly good well-used words with the same meaning. Riedquat (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately none of those arguing for the use of the word has considered that readers of the site may include people who don't speak English as a first language but will read this edition of Wikipedia (rather than Simple English or their own language edition) for a British article as it is most likely to be complete and authoritative. Although the word itself is not pompous, unfortunately some of its supporters above appear to be, in terms of their vocabulary compared with others. It is possible to use plain language without "dumbing down" (quote Finavon). Is Wikipedia here to educate or is it just for the benefit of those who like nice but obscure words and already know about the subject anyway? Halsteadk (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outwith v. outside 

message: I think the recent edit by Tommytomato : Essex rock band Kings_Cross_(band) plan to play Britains highest fully electric gig on the peak of Ben Nevis on the 15th October 2010 is trivia and has no place in an article about the highest mountain in the UK. Bu what do others think? Bjmullan (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information added by Tommytomato 

message: Should there be a reference to the Compton Mackenzie character?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monarch_of_the_Glen_%28novel%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenbogle
82.163.24.100 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Nevis of Glenbogle 

message: The recent inclusion of a Coord tag for the similairly named Ben Nevis, Svalbard introduces an intersting problem.  Several people, including myself, are building geo-located indexes of wikipedia.  We currently have no way of knowing which co-ord tag to use.  My scripts ended up using the wrong one, and placing Ben-Nevis into Svalbard area.  Should we prefer a new page for the Ben Nevis in Svalbard, to keep 1 coord tag per page? Or should there be some tag on Coord to say "primary"? [[User
:Willsmith|WillSmith (London)]] (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Coord Tags Per Article - Bad Idea? 

message: Thats not really true is it, his accent was first on record. 194.46.174.66 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If it wasn't Scottish, it doesn't count ;-) --92.21.252.70 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Robertson, First accent? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Nevis. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103202517/http://www.takeupthechallenge.com/pages/page-nevis-history.htm to http://www.takeupthechallenge.com/pages/page-nevis-history.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.bottledbeer.co.uk/index.html?beerid=2403
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.texaswendish.org/Pages/BriefHistory.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have made a change in the date based on reliable sources that the date earlier cited on the website for the first recorded ascent by James Robertson should be 19 August 1771 rather than 17 August 1771. According to  the relevant entry transcribed from Robertson's journal reads
August 19th. I ascended Ben Nevis which is reckoned the highest mountain in Britain. The plants on this mountain are similar to those on Ben Awin [apparently Ben Avon] and Carngarm [Cairngorm?], only here, at the West side near the foot I found the M... [illegible?  or missing?] "The rock from top to bottom is a red Granite hardly distinguishable into strata. A third part of the hill towards the top is entirely naked, resembling a heap of stones thrown together confusedly. The summit far overtops all the surrounding hills, tho' those towards the South and South East are very high, and are formed either into Cones, or into a number of rugged peaks, or into long narrow ridges.
The entry for the previous day talks about Fort William, ruling out the possibility that he climbed on 17th and made the diary entry on the 19th. I am sure someone can persuade the NLS to scan up the copies of the relevant journals (or pages) - https://manuscripts.nls.uk/repositories/2/resources/17908 Shyamal (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First (recorded) ascent date 

message: I have reduced the stuff about volunteer effort as it seemed to be using too many words to say a simple idea that volunteers help to maintain a footpath and who organises it... and with no references given. Victuallers (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Volunteers