Talk:Munro

message: I see my edit has been reverted .  Is presenting figures to this level of precision really needed?  Rounding to the nearest metre for a mountain with a height of 3000 ft seems appropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when a mountain has been demoted from Munro to Corbett status because it was short by 40cm. Michael Glass (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Doesn't bother me hugely, and I can see both perspectives.  But the relevant point is that 2998 ft 8 ins is less than 3000 feet.  The original measurement was made with 10 cm or 4 ins precision, so I've adjusted the measurement given accordingly.  Kahastok talk 22:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At ±0.1 m accuracy, a figure of 0.4 m has an error margin approaching 50%.  With that margin of error, is it really appropriate to quote to that level of precision?   Wee Curry Monster talk 09:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point.  But the different is going to look precise (at least in metric) almost regardless of what we put on it because the precision is not convenient.  Would a better idea to be to remove that measurement entirely and assume that the reader can work out for themselves that 2999 feet is less than 3000 feet? Kahastok talk 09:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not simply state that the peak was 40cm short of the mark? Alternately, if mentioning centimetres is an issue for you, convert that to inches. Michael Glass (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely what I did.  But measurement wasn't that precise.  The original surveyed measurement was 914.0±0.1 metres, which means that the difference from 3000 feet is in fact 0.4±0.1 metres (16±4 inches).  Saying 40 centimetres or 16 inches implies more precision than is justified. Kahastok talk 12:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the margin of error of the measurement. In the light of that, we could simply state that the peak was about 40cm short of the mark, or 30 to 50cm short. Michael Glass (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter that much?  I don't see many readers not realising that 2999 feet (or 2998 ft 8 ins) is less - but not a lot less - than 3000 feet.  Trying to squeeze in a measurement here - let alone two - does not seem to me to add much to the reader's understanding of the topic. Kahastok talk 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll accept the present wording with one addition: the height in metres. Hence my edit, which, while not challenging the present order of units,  reflects accurately, but discreetly, the source measurement in this case. It also respects the MOSNUM advice to provide both measurements. Michael Glass (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels of Precision 

message: The information about the youngest completionist is out of date. That should be Daniel Smith, who was 9 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/daniel-9-youngest-person-climb-1730347 Will this username do? (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youngest completionist 

message: The article mentions that The Scottish Mountaineering Club (SMC) "have attempted to popularise the archaic spelling of compleation" when used in conjunction with Munro bagging.
The spelling is used by the SMC not only to describe the act of 'compleation' but also in other forms of the word  related exclusively to Munro Bagging, such as 'compleatists' (those who have bagged Munros).  As well as the SMC, other groups, organisations and interested parties who have adopted the spelling for that purpose include The Munro Society, walkhighlands.com and wildaboutscotland.com.
From what I have read, the SMC uses the modern spelling when the word does not grammatically modify or otherwise define a relationship with the act of Munro bagging, as in these examples: 
:*"But Thomson himself was ... one to be relied on completely." (https://www.smc.org.uk/Gallery/SMC%20Pioneers/GT.php)
:*"... by early 2006 I was completely hooked on (bagging Munros)" (https://www.smc.org.uk/munros/munroist/5178)
:*"... up there alone where I felt completely at home." (https://www.smc.org.uk/journal/Journal2003.php)
:*"Completely revised and improved (October 2007)." (https://www.smc.org.uk/downloads/gps-data)
Because it is used exclusively and so widely in this sense, it seems appropriate to adopt the "compleat..." spelling for specific Munro acts whenever they are mentioned in the article.  What do others think?
Twistlethrop (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compleat... vs. Complet... 

message: Grant MacLeod, aka @munrobagpiper, is in the process of climbing all munros, with his bagpipe and playing a tune. 203.173.2.65 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Munro 

message: I am a little worried about various references in the Notable Completions section, for example to the first Member of Parliament to complete the Munros, the first person to complete a winter round, the first to do a continuous self-propelled round, and so on.
The point is that we cannot know for sure who achieved these distinctions. We can only know who reported having done so. There must surely be many completers who never bothered to register with the SMC - or were unable to do so for one reason or another.
I am not suggesting that we delete the relevant references. But I wonder if the wording shouldn't be adjusted accordingly. For example, X became the first Member of Parliament known to complete the Munros; Y is the first person who reported completing a winter round; and so on. (Italics added here only to illustrate my point.)
I'm happy to make those changes, but I though I would get the views of other editors before jumping in.Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, fine if your source says that but adding the phrase "known" is considered WP:WEASEL wording and generally discouraged. WCMemail 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable completions: reported vs actual