Talk:Snowdon

Grid reference

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How long?

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

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

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?

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 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowdon Gang Culture

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 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC). WALES IS THE BEST!!!!!!

Welsh name first English Second ?

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 (talk • contribs) 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??

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

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

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, 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 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)

References

Could someone add a geology section

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

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

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.

   •  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

   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

   •  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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), 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

Intro - water fairies and nymphs

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

@Vsmith https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63649930

the park name and mountain name are being officially changed, and the park uses the Welsh name on their own English language materials, Yr Wyddfa is not just the Welsh name it is now the only official name. Adhiyana (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

But by the way, how do you pronounce Yr Wyddfa? We need some of those audio files adding here. Category:Requests for audio pronunciation in Welsh entries -- Harry Wood (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Good for the Welsh for promoting the indigenous name of the mountain after so many decades of language suppression. But, this is the English language Wikipedia - not the England Wikipedia, and the most common English name is Snowdon - which by itself is not an offensive name, nor are the Welsh objecting to the usage of the non-Welsh name outside of Wales. This is an internal Welsh matter. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Snowdon in Wordsworth's Prelude

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309222543/http://snowdonrace.co.uk/services/servicesView.aspx?serviceid=1&folder=1 to http://snowdonrace.co.uk/services/servicesView.aspx?serviceid=1&folder=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309222552/http://snowdonrace.co.uk/services/servicesView.aspx?serviceid=12&folder=4 to http://snowdonrace.co.uk/services/servicesView.aspx?serviceid=12&folder=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310122544/http://www.architecture.com/RegionsAndInternational/UKNationsAndRegions/Wales/Awards/RIBA%20Awards.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/RegionsAndInternational/UKNationsAndRegions/Wales/Awards/RIBA%20Awards.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025095420/http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/LexiconForms.html to http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/LexiconForms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

Updated (erroneous) visitor figures

A recent edit has a cited 790,000 visitors to Snowdon. The cited document, from such an official source (gov.wales) should have the correct figures, but it is wrong. It gives a figure of 650,000 walkers (+ 140,000 on the train), but this first figure is rather different from the 558,000 cited by the National Park here (https://www.eryri.llyw.cymru/authority/publications/leisure-publications) who have counters on the mountain. So what do we do if a source is suspected (well, known) to be inaccurate? Hogyn Lleol (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess we report both as in "Current visitor number are variously reported as 790,000 or 558,000 by official spources" together with the appropriate refs. It might also help them to try and sort out which figure is right. My own experience that the higher figure is probably right just for August bank holiday, let alone the rest of the year.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've emailed the source of the higher figure, asking for the origin of their figure. The sources of the lower figure are fully transparent. I'll wait and see if I get a response. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I doing something wrong? I cannot find the 790,000 figure, nor its components, nor even any mention of Snowdon in either document of the citation here. Where is the figure quoted?

WG do not collect data themselves. They rely on figures collected at the location. However, I believe they have historically used numbers provided by the visitor centre. These ought to be based on the park authority figures as the visitor centre is not open all year round and not all visitors reach it nor choose to enter it. If the source is the same, I would be suspicious of double counting. Subtracting the train numbers from the total twice does not yield the walker numbers but it comes close. Double counting of the train numbers is therefore possible. I expect that the contact listed on the website will respond, but ping me if you don't get a response in a few days. I may be able help. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The WAG figures are buried a bit deep, under 'statistics and research'; or try this: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2020-01/visits-to-tourist-attractions-in-wales-2018.pdf (btw, no figures are collected by Hafod Eryri, the visitor centre. The only statistics available are those from the SNPA (derived from counters on all the paths) plus the additional passengers carried on the railway (figures provided by SMR). Hogyn Lleol (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No response from email query, but I'm going to restore the figure of 558,008 (with citation), as this is the latest figure (2018) published by the SNPA, who are the only people who actually collect and collate figures. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am content with that. I will see if I can do some digging regarding WG's figure. As it comes ultimately from the park authority, I do suspect accidental double counting. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Ascents" section

The section listing and discussing the routes up Snowdon was inconsistent. Some of the routes had lengths and height gains, some didn't, and there were errors (e.g. describing the Llanberis path as the shallowest gradient). I have had a go at making it consistent, putting a standard statement of length, height gain, and overall gradient at the start of the description of each route. I have taken these from Ordnance Survey 1:25000 mapping but there are problems with getting definitive numbers. Some of the routes have ambiguous start points (does Rhyd Ddu start on the road in the village or at the (higher) station car park? Does the Pyg track start at the road at Pen-y-pass or at the edge of the car park? Exactly how far up the road does the Llanberis path start?) There are other differences in figures given on various websites, e.g. the start elevation of the Watkin path, that I can't see an easy explanation for. By using OS contour lines, at least we have consistency, and I think it's likely to be as authoritative as anything, but others might have alternative ideas.

For Crib Goch and Y LLiwedd, I haven't put height gains, as these have significant "downs" as well as "ups", so the difference between start and finish elevations is not especially meaningful.

I also added a graph showing the profiles of the routes, again based on OS 1:25000 contours. It's quite confused, which I think is inevitable to some extent when trying to show 8 overlapping routes, but I am very open to suggestions for how to improve it.

Other minor changes: I moved Crib Goch after Pyg to preserve the anticlockwise order, and I deleted the words in the "ascents" section about the views, which duplicated the longer account in a separate section later.Johnstoo (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

name

Given the recent news that the National Park Authority has decided to refer to the mountain as Yr Wyddfa rather than Snowdon when using English, just as it does when using Welsh, it seems likely that this will start a process whereby Yr Wyddfa will become the most widely recognised name in English (similar to what has occurred with Uluru), especially if other organisations such as the Ordnance Survey decide to follow suit. But realistically it isn't yet, and we shouldn't speculate on how long that will take. So for the time being, I think we are left with a situation where the "official" name differs from the most widely understood one in the English-speaking world. (I'm not sure whether it's strictly meaningful to talk about an "official" name in the context of a mountain, but the name used by the National Park Authority must come pretty close to being such a thing.) My question is: is there a well-established style guide on Wikipedia that says the main name to use in these circumstances? I think that being able to follow a clearly established guideline will help to preempt any temptation for edit-warring that might otherwise arise, given strongly held views.

Thanks. Dani di Neudo (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is a guideline: WP:COMMONNAME. Basically when Yr Wyddfa becomes the common name in English, as per sources (books, media etc.) then Wikipedia will follow suit. We are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - that seems to be pretty clear-cut, and I see that the page you linked has the status of being WP policy. (It also links to Wikipedia:Official names, although in itself that is just an essay.) In view of the common names policy, even though I personally will now use Yr Wyddfa outside of Wikipedia, I agree that we should stick with Snowdon in the article for the time being. But we should keep an eye on the situation, so that we can follow suit as you say. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting discussions here on Uluru, I'm certainly of the mind that Snowden should be moved eventually. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it will change. But we start by pointing out this isn't even a change in the official name of the mountain (Snowdonia National Park doesn't have the power to do that), and even if it were, there are plenty of cases where changes in official names don't result in changes in common usage. WP:CRYSTAL means we shouldn't try to make these kinds of predictions. Kahastok talk 20:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Doubtful the new name will supplant Snowdon in popular language, as with other Welsh towns/cities, though as always needs to wait, if there is a shift, with WP:COMMONNAME AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The names of Welsh towns and cities have not been changed except Llanelli, ex Llanelly. This is because they are predominantly English speaking wheras Llanelli is Welsh speaking to a significant extent. Yr Wyddfa is in a predominantly Welsh speaking area and the authority that counts has agreed to change the name and English commentators need to respect that. HackneyGlyn21 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Shocked to see this and some of the replies. The name of the mountain is Yr Wyddfa, it always was but now it is officially and Wiki should respect that and use that name. It is perfectly legit to also say the English name etc etc but it's substantive name should be changed. HackneyGlyn21 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. When Peking and Bombay officially become Beijing and Mumbai there was no question about not using the new names, regardless of whether they were 'more recognised' as the old names by English-speakers. There's no difference here. Welsh is the de jure language of Wales so official contemporary Welsh names should take precedence over historic English names. 51.52.118.61 (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

English Wikipedia uses the common name in English-language sources, Beijing and Mumbai were more likely the common name before Wikipedia. Snowdon to Yr Wyddfa is too recent and we do not follow official names, but the names most sources and readers are more likely to search/use. As this is English Wikipedia, English common names take preference over non-English (official) names, that is why it's Germany not Deutschland, China not Zhōngguó, and Cardiff not Caerdydd. Yr Wyddfa can become more used in English-language sources (some have already, but not many yet), and if that happens another RM can start with more evidence and more likely to pass per WP:NAMECHANGES. But it is still too soon. Additionally a mountain has no official name (only whatever is most common), the NPA admitted themselves they have no power to change the (official) name. "The Authority doesn’t have statutory powers in the field of place names." - Snowdonia NPA DankJae 13:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

'Comment. On English Wikipedia the article should remain as Snowdon. In Welsh Wikipedia it should change to Yr Widdfa (if it isn't that already). ---Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 20:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It already is: see Welsh: Yr_Wyddfa ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Wait - As observed above, this may well be a major step in the gradual popularisation of the names Yr Wyddfa and Eryri among English-speakers. But the recent announcement on its own doesn't make the change in common usage, so we should wait. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait: while I fully approve of changing the name to Yr Wyddfa, it's not yet the English-language WP:COMMONNAME, which is what matters here on enwiki. But hopefully in a few years WP:RS will have adopted it, and we can make the change. — The Anome (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Pray tell, why should English speakers adopt a name that is both difficult to pronounce and in a foreign language? Pretty much all the names in Wales known to English speakers by their native Welsh names are the way they are due to them never having English names or English names that were never popularised. This makes no sense beyond the realms of political point scoring - perhaps Welsh speakers can stop using their own language versions for places like my native Devon? 2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:444B:191C:9A63:25E4 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Presumably you will now tell us what easily-pronounced English-language name we should call Eyjafjallajökull by? Archon 2488 (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in entering the political debate here, but you're not addressing the same point that the person above you made. They mentioned that Welsh names already used in English are those with no (popular) English name. That applies to Eyjafjallajökull. It does not apply to Yr Wyddfa/Snowdon. 86.150.145.103 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

During the only period in history when an easily pronounced English-language name was needed, Eyjafjallajökull was near-exclusively called "the Icelandic volcano".

In principle, there is no reason why Snowdon is not legitimate and should not continue to be used indefinitely. It is the official name of the mountain in English according to the Welsh Language Commissioner, presumably based on their longstanding policy that forms should only be merged where they are very similar anyway (e.g. Caernarfon). Snowdonia National Park Authority don't have the power to change that. Kahastok talk 17:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Disgraceful attitude. HackneyGlyn21 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Welsh isn't a foreign language in Wales. And 'it's difficult to pronounce' is a tired racist cliche about the Welsh language. 'Yr Wyddfa' and 'Eryri' don't even contain any sounds that aren't also in English. I'm not arguing for us to change from 'Snowdon' to 'Yr Wyddfa' right now - I !voted 'wait' - but this is not an appropriate way to respond. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Welsh is difficult to pronounce for native English speakers who have never learnt Welsh. English is difficult to pronounce for native Welsh speakers who have never learnt English (there are some in Argentina). French is difficult to pronounce for native English speakers who have never learnt French. English is difficult to pronounce for native French speakers who have never learnt English. This isn't racism. It's just how language works.

Saying that words don't even contain any sounds that aren't also in English invites me to ask you if you find it easy to pronounce the Georgian word prtskvna. That's one syllable. If you convert any of the consonants to an extra syllable, or add any vowels between the consonants to make it easier, then you've failed to pronounce it correctly. And it doesn't contain any sounds that aren't in both English and Welsh.

In reality, if Snowdonia National Park Authority is expecting non-Welsh tourists - be they English, Scottish, French or Japanese - to just wander around saying Yr Wyddfa like a local, they're kidding themselves.

The question here though, is not whether Snowdonia National Park Authority is wise, but what name English-speakers actually use. Right now, it's Snowdon. There's no current reason to assume that that will change. Kahastok talk 20:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:444B:191C:9A63:25E4 whilst I agree with the other users that it is best to wait until this name is in common usage in English, the argument that English speakers should not have to adopt something they find difficult to pronounce is wrong. Lots of articles on English wikipedia are not intuitive for English speakers to pronounce, this is handled by using IPA transcription and recordings. The expectation that every article title should be easy for native English speakers to pronounce is best described as a colonial mentality. By the way, as a native English speaker I was able to easily pronounce Yr Wyddfa after a 10 second Google. Adhiyana (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's just how language works. You will never hear a monoglot native English or Welsh speaker pronounce Beijing or Shanghai like a Chinese native speaker would. Nor will you ever hear a monoglot native Chinese speaker pronounce either Llanelli or Dolgellau like a Welsh native speaker would. Nor will they pronounce Newport or Wrexham like an English speaker would.

Without extensive practice, people will always adapt words to fit the phonological rules of their native language or the languages that they grew up around as young children. That applies just as much to native speakers of Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Igbo or Mapudungun - or for that matter Welsh - as it does to native speakers of English, French, Spanish or Portuguese. The only difference is that the native speakers of languages like Welsh are more likely to have been exposed to languages like English as young children. Kahastok talk 23:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Tourists can learn, can't they? As another user said, "difficult to pronounce" is indeed a tired cliche that has done a great deal of damage. I know this is all besides the issue at hand but I cannot let some of these attitudes slide. Humbledaisy (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus, WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Snowdon → Yr Wyddfa – The official name has just been announced as being exclusively Yr Wyddfa, with Snowdon being used only in a legal capcity. Titus Gold (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Link to sources below: https://snowdonia.gov.wales/paper-on-place-names-principles-approved-in-order-to-safeguard-and-celebrate-welsh-place-names-within-the-national-park/

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/snowdonia-national-park-called-yr-25536121

https://nation.cymru/news/yr-wyddfa-snowdon-to-be-known-by-welsh-name-from-now-on-after-national-park-vote/

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-11-17/mount-snowdon-to-be-known-as-yr-wyddfa-from-now-on

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snowdon-to-be-known-by-welsh-name-of-yr-wyddfa-0762p302p Titus Gold (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per above and as per WP:NAMECHANGES, although it may be worth waiting to see if the use of Yr Wyddfa continues to be used in media and official sources etc. over the next few days+. I would also note that Yr Wyddfa is already commonly used in both Welsh and English already, even before the official name being exclusively Yr Wyddfa.

Titus Gold (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The nom's support is assumed so you don't need to add that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per NAMECHANGES.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NAMECHANGES says If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. At this point they clearly don't and so we clearly shouldn't. This proposal has come way too soon. We are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As most people around here know, we name articles by their most commonly used name in reliable English-language sources, not by their official name. This article should not be moved until it is demonstrated that "Yr Wyddfa" is used most commonly in English-language sources outside of just announcing that the official name has been changed. When Britannica gets around to moving their article, that will be a good indication that the name is in common usage. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposal is contrary to policy as has already been demonstrated this week on this talk page. Also there is a fundmental misunderstanding here. The Snowdonia National Park Authority has agreed to use this name exclusively in its material, but it does not have the legal power to make this the official name. It is the name used by the park authority, and as the nom. admits, the legal (i.e. official) name remains. In any case Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME and policy is clear that WP:OFFICIALNAMES should not be used just because they are official. As and when the majority of media and common usage catch up, and the common name becomes Yr Wyddfa, then at that point Wikipedia should follow suit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's too soon right now. Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME and policy is clear that WP:OFFICIALNAMES should not be used just because they are official. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - There has been a call for this change for some time, but with the announcement of the official name change, Wiki should now follow suit. Eryri National Park website has already changed its literature to refer to both Eryri (Snowdonia) and Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) by the native Welsh names. Jason.nlw (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. DankJae 11:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - this is almost a perfect example of why official changes with political undertones shouldn't make us disregard what exists in popular language, as with Welsh towns/cities, expect Snowdon to be far more widely used as now, as well as in the future AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Any decision regarding the official name of anything is political, but when the change of usage favours a native (and minority) language, it is more visible, and evokes an emotive reaction from the speakers of the dominant language. Your argument is therefore flawed; people have made the same argument about almost every instance where a native place name has been restored to official usage. When the spelling of Caernarfon was restored (from Caernarvon), similar argument were made (just look at the talk page), but nobody questions Caernarfon now. 2A00:23C6:7C14:9801:A89C:72E9:6972:5BCA (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. One - a mountain does not have an "official" or "legal" name - it's a mountain. Secondly, its name in English is Snowdon, just as its name in Welsh is Yr Wyddfa and English Wikipedia should use its English name (and Wicipedia Cymraeg should use Yr Wyddfa). Thirdly, it will continue to be called Snowdon by English speakers regardless. Fourthly, Turkey's name wasn't changed to Türkiye on Wikipedia when the nation announced its official name change because we're all (in English) still going to call it Turkey regardless of what Turkey wants. – Dyolf87 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

How can say that Snowdon ' will' be used by English speakers? That is an assumption, and examples such as Uluru and Dengali show that the native names, when made official, can become common usage. Your view isn't as neutral as you image and propose. 81.141.6.73 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Dengali"? Do you perhaps mean Denali? Britannica has actually moved their article to Denali, but they have yet to move Snowdon. This is good evidence that general English language usage has not yet shifted for this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not having this argument with you over two pages. The indigenous peoples of Australia and Alaska and the politics around them at the moment is in no way indicative of the situation in Wales regarding the use of Welsh. – Dyolf87 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

When the official National Park authority has already begun using Yr Wyddfa on its website, and Welsh media have followed suite, surely one can only expect that the usage will spread? Yr Wyddfa is what will been seen in Wales, where the mountain is. 2A00:23C6:7C14:9801:A89C:72E9:6972:5BCA (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• When the media follow suit, we will have references to the effect. Until then, WP:NAMECHANGES is clear we should stick with the WP:COMMONNAME. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  "Surely" doesn't come into it. Its English name is Snowdon. – Dyolf87 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  But it's no longer the official name. In such circumstances, any English name is equally invalid. These arguments are so common in the talk pages for Welsh places (see Aberdyfi for a perfect example), and in almost every case, when a Welsh name supplants a later Anglicisation or an outright English name, the change of usage towards the Welsh name is accepted. This seems to elicit a strange linguistic imperialism among English speakers... 81.141.6.73 (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  The official name is unchanged. See Schedule 1 of The National Park Authorities (Wales) Order 1995.[2] Although per policy your argument is wrong anyway. We use WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't have an official name - it's a mountain. If you want, you can call it Mike. The problem with calling it Mike is no-one will know what you're talking about. The use of Yr Wyddfa in English is the same. To EVERYONE outside of Wales it is Snowdon. Dyolf87 (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  The national park does have an official name though, and that is unchanged as per my reference. The point being that the change in question is just a change to a style guide and not a change of official status. Legislation constituting the Snowdonia national park authority, use in the land registry, use in Ordnance survey and all other 'official' uses is unchanged. The point is moot though as we use WP:COMMONNAME. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support, and overdue. Saintstephen000 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Yr Wyddfa is the name that will been used and seen in Wales where the mountain is. People made the same arguments against the change of usage when Dengali, for example, was restored as a native name. This is no different. English speakers may react emotively to this now, but the older Welsh name has always been there, and now it is the sole official name. It isn't complicated. --Unsigned comment by 2A00:23C6:7C14:9801:A89C:72E9:6972:5BCA (talk)

"Dengali"? Do you perhaps mean Denali? Britannica has actually moved their article to Denali, but they have yet to move Snowdon. This is good evidence that general English language usage has not yet shifted for this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per above. Metsavend (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME is Snowdon. As it happens, the official name is also Snowdon, as will be confirmed by a visit to the Welsh Language Commissioner's website. This is in accordance with Welsh government policy, which recommends a single form be adopted only where Welsh and English forms are only one or two letters different - and even then, allows for established exceptions. But even if the official name had changed, the fact remains that the WP:COMMONNAME is Snowdon. Kahastok talk 17:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME is Snowdon. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support It is the official name in Welsh and English now, and we should reflect this. Common name ultimately cannot trump all. Humbledaisy (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should we violate our very clear policy of using the most common English name for the article title over the official name in this specific case? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I question that policy, really, because Wikipedia has a huge amount of influence. It doesn't exist in a vacuum and keeping what is no longer the official name surely helps promote that name and keep it in use. I understand retaining the most common name in the English language, but it seems a little farcical to me that we might finally change the article's name to the official one in 30 years time, having spent those 30 years buffering its acceptance. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the policy, then the proper course of action is to start a discussion at WP:COMMONNAME to change the policy, not go against the current policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The title of Wikipedia articles does not necessarily have huge influence on the most common name for a topic among English speakers. To name examples, I remember when the article for Ivory Coast used their government's preferred name of Côte d'Ivoire before it was moved in 2012 on the ground of "Ivory Coast" being the more common name among English speakers e.g. I remember it being used by the mainstream media in the UK beforehand. An example other than a country would be the bedroom tax which was moved from "under-occupancy penalty" in 2019 again, on the ground of it being more common e.g. in the mainstream media. Another example is the town of Bagenalstown in County Carlow, Ireland which was moved from its official name of Muine Bheag earlier this year on the ground of "Bagenalstown" being more common in Ireland although the Irish language name had been official since Ireland's independence a century ago. Tk420 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Every time I see this argument, it runs into the problem of joining the dots from Wikipedia has influence over the common name to we should rename the article without passing through Wikipedia should campaign for a change in usage.

Wikipedia doesn't take a side in the question of what the mountain should be called. While individual Wikipedians might have their own POVs, as an institution we don't care. Even if Wikipedia had a far stronger influence over English usage than you suggest, it would not be an argument to rename this article, because it is not Wikpedia's job to change English usage.

And that's before we point out that the official name of the mountain has not changed. Only the style guide of Snowdonia National Park Authority. Kahastok talk 17:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose My heart may say 'Yr Wyddfa', but en wikipedia policy, WP:COMMONNAME, says 'Snowdon'. Llwyld (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• Rename I think this should be a test case for WP:COMMONNAME: we are so wildly inconsistent about this. Look at the process for Mt. McKinley/Denali or Swaziland/Eswatini, but Turkey/Türkiye and long-term issues with Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire or East Timor/Timor-Leste. The policy is inconsistently applied and arbitrary. When there is an unambiguous official name change like this, it's really not too much to expect that we adjust the article now instead of impose some artificial standard to wait for 18 months until someone else brings it up again, and then again in two years, and then again when it will finally pass in 3.5. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Your examples show exactly why we should wait until the new name becomes the most common English term for a subject. The perceived "inconsistency" is because some name changes do take hold very quickly, while some take a long time, and some official name changes may never become the most common English term. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to change the guideline, open an RFC on the guideline page. Don't attempt to prosecute the case on individual contengt pages. All you would get as a result is more inconsistency. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME in the English language Wikipedia. Within only days of the official name change by the local authorities, the vast majority of people will know it as Snowdon. If there's a common widely used English language name that that should be the title of the article here. Sionk (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - As discussed above, mountains aren't legal entities and don't have official names. I would support this change if I thought common usage had changed, per WP:COMMONNAME, but doing this just because the National Park authority makes the change is distinctly premature. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Support William386 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. It's name has been changed on National Park publications but not on Official Literature such as governmental documents and certainly not on Ordnance Survey mapping. Even if it had changed officially it is still predominantly known as Snowdonia in the English language and this is English language Wikipedia that we are discussing. It should be changed to it's new name on Welsh language Wikipedia. ---Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 13:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Spain is still know as Spain on English language Wikipedia whereas it's Espana in Spanish language Wikipedia. Same applies here. User:Billy B (Talk) 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC) --Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Zero rational other than "I prefer it" given above. --SinoDevonian (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. So far, there has been no mention of Google Trends which keeps track of what people search for on Google and is a resource recommended by WP:COMMONNAME to try to determine the most common name for a topic in the English language. According to a comparison I ran for this discussion there are much more searches for "Snowdon" vs "Yr Wyddfa" from within the UK including Wales and there have ironically been more searches for "Yr Wyddfa" from Scotland than from Wales if it is to be believed! However, this comparison does not distinguish between speakers of different languages but the Snowdonia article does cite an article by Nation Cymru, under Snowdonia#Use of Eryri in English, which quotes a recent YouGov survey in which the name Snowdon is preferred over Yr Wyddfa by 69% of non-Welsh speakers. Ether way, it is too early to tell if usage of the Welsh name has entered common use in English.

In case this is useful in future debates, I learned the words "endonym" (name used by the inhabitants) and "exonym" (name used by outsiders), which I have so far not seen in this discussion, (see the endonym and exonym article on Wikipedia) earlier this year in a Geofocus video on You Tube (Turkey CHANGES its Official Name) which discusses countries which changed their official names in recent years (apologies for the low source volume). To try to find an older example of a similar naming dispute, the government of Ivory Coast has officially preferred the French name Côte d'Ivoire to be used in every language since 1986 but this has not stopped "Ivory Coast" from being the most common name in English for that country nearly 40 years on i.e. official usage does not always translate into common usage in English. My point here is the most common endonym (say, within Gwynedd or the Llanberis community) for the mountain could be different to the most common exonym (say in the rest of Wales remembering Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English which states in the event of strong national ties to a topic to use that country's dialect (the formal dialect not colloquialisms)) which could be the most common name for it among English speakers. Tk420 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)-edited

Oppose in line with WP:COMMONNAME, the common name in English is and remains Snowdon, Snowdonia National Park, Wales, not the Welsh words. Jèrriais janne (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously the common name. This is English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Google trends of Yr Wyddfa vs. Snowdon shows WP:COMMONNAME is Snowdon. --Guest2625 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2022 (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.

Parent Peak

How can Ben Nevis be the parent peak of Snowdon when it’s in a completely different country? 212.159.112.230 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite difficult to explain simply. One of the definitions given in MORE RELATIVE HILLS OF BRITAIN by Mark Jackson (here) ....calculated by tracing the runoffs from every peak more prominent than yours, to get the territories as before. The parent is always higher and more prominent than the child. . However unlikely this sounds, Ben Nevis is indeed tha parent peak of Snowdon when considering them as Marilyns.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The two mountains are both in the same country. It is in any case though an expression of geography not political arrangements.

Personally, I think it is a nonsense to have one mountain described as the parent of another in a range so far separated and unrelated. I will leave it to those who defined the terms. Hogweard (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Highest mountain edit and link to Nuttalls list

A.D.Hope in this edit [3] you made a change I am perfectly OK with, but linking to the list of Nuttalls in Wales to highest mountain when talking about the highest mountain outside of Scotland doesn't really work because it only shows the Welsh mountains. Also, checking the Nuttalls link in the infobox, I see it links only to the English Nuttalls which don't mention Snowdon. The weirdness here is that the Nuttalls are specifically a list of mountains in England and Wales, per the source book. That is how they were presented until an undiscussed split almost exactly a year ago. I have thus proposed a merge to bring this list back together in a manner that would both be useful and representative of the Nuttalls' book. Please see: Talk:List of Nuttall mountains in England and Wales#Merge proposal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I only know the basics about the various UK mountain categorisations. I seems like you have things in hand, though, and the basic fact of Snowdon being the tallest mountain outside Scotland is at least correct! A.D.Hope (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why shouldn't it just be "highest mountain in Wales"? Or at least move it being highest outside Scotland to later in the lead. DankJae 19:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It depends what you want to emphasise. We don't really need both statements in the lead, because if Snowdon is the highest mountain in the British Isles outside the Highlands then it must also be the highest in Wales. Personally I'd go with the more impressive record. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Still probably helpful to also be clear that it is highest in Wales too. However always confused with the “Highest in the British Isles outside the Scottish Highlands” which is a very selective way of saying 76th highest on the British Isles when you ignore the previous 75, so not even a record. And prefer such selective wording to be secondary.

Like similar articles like Kongur Tagh do that, highest in a specified area then highest when compared to other areas. Just always considered the “highest outside Scotland” to be desperate.

I prefer the lead when this article was nominated to GA, “is the highest mountain in Wales at an altitude … making it the highest point in the British Isles outside Scotland”. DankJae 13:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm in two minds, but can't really get around the fact that 'highest in Wales' is a bit redundant if it's also the highest everywhere outside the Highlands. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In the end, this article opens with Wales, rather than "Snowdon is the highest mountain in the British Isles outside the Scottish Highlands, that is located in Wales" (not supporting such lead), best describe the defined area first IMO. Like saying Pico Cristóbal Colón is the "highest mountain in South America excluding Argentina" rather than firstly stating the clearer point that it is the "highest in Colombia". DankJae 12:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

We could change it to 'highest mountain in England and Wales', which is the form used by Britannica and Visit Snowdonia, although I do prefer the current wording as it's that bit more precise. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I am mainly proposing it be "highest mountain in Wales" first, with "highest mountain in British Isles outside Scotland/in England and Wales" made secondary really, with the latter more of a comparative description than a defined statement. Technically nothing wrong with stating it is the "highest mountain in England and Wales" aside the chance readers first think it is in England, so prefer the original GA wording still.

@Sirfurboy, opinions on this? You expressed no opposition to it, so I won't revert it. DankJae 12:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually just realising A.D.Hope you removed it being "highest mountain in Wales" recently so I am basically calling for a reversion, in line with the long-standing lead from GA. DankJae 12:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Highest in England and Wales would justify the link to the Nuttalls, mind. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems like as good as reason as any to use 'England and Wales'. @DankJae, the first sentence states that Snowdon is in North Wales, so the wording shouldn't cause any confusion in that regard:

Snowdon, or Yr Wyddfa, is a mountain in the Snowdonia region of North Wales. It is the highest mountain in England and Wales, at an elevation of 1,085 metres (3,560 ft) above sea level.

You could also call it the 'highest mountain in the UK outside Scotland', but then the Nuttalls link would be less justifiable. Northern Ireland is also on a different landmass, so could be excluded on that basis. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Still prefer "highest mountain in Wales, located in Snowdonia [...] making it the highest mountain in [other]" As both "North Wales" and "England and Wales" are less defined areas than Wales. But if you two agree it should be "England and Wales" rather than "Wales" be free to. DankJae 13:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

When the name for part of an area includes the name of the area I generally think it's fine not to be more specific: compare 'Lancashire is a county in North West England' to 'Shropshire is a county in the East Midlands of England'. The average reader can be relied on to know that North Wales is in Wales, surely?

One change I would make is to 'highest mountain in England or Wales', as that makes it clearer that Yr Wyddfa is in Wales as opposed to 'England and Wales'. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Those regions of England are officially recognised with clear boundaries compared to "North Wales", luckily there isn't a higher mountain in Montgomeryshire.

No it has to be England and Wales linked directly, Snowdon/Yr Wyddfa is not the highest mountain in England. DankJae 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

no, but it is the highest mountain in either England or Wales. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What about:

Snowdon, or Yr Wyddfa, is a mountain in the Snowdonia region of Wales. It is the highest mountain in England or Wales, at an elevation of 1,085 metres (3,560 ft) above sea level.

A.D.Hope (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Still oppose “or” it is not the highest mountain in England but higher than any mountain in England, it doesn’t mean the same. DankJae 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Imagine re-adding Ireland for a bit, “it is the highest mountain in Ireland or England or Wales” still sounds wrong. DankJae 14:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

'England and Wales' has the same problem. This is why I favoured 'Great Britain' earlier. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

“Great Britain” would also need “outside Scotland” so at that point just keep “British Isles” plus you only suggested UK or England and Wales.

In the end, “highest in Wales” I find the most accurate statement at least first than using a broader statement with exceptions or confusing wording. But if you two believe Snowdon is highest in England and Wales rather than highest in Wales then go ahead, I seem to not be winning my case here. DankJae 14:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Also tbh, “highest mountain” shouldn’t link to “Nuttals” at all, but to List of mountains of the British Isles by height, being a Nuttal doesn’t mean it is the highest. And I believe that link was shoehorned in the first place by the splitter of the Nuttals article? ​ DankJae 14:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I've been thinking about the terminology to the point where I can't think straight, so let me take a break and come back to it. I'm not (and can't) impose anything though, including the current article wording, so don't worry on that count. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Be free to, although seems a weak consensus for your changes currently. So you don’t need to.

Although remembering you stating “highest in British Isles” is more impressive than “highest in Wales”, with the lead changed from “highest in Wales” to “a mountain in Snowdonia” still overall feels less impressive IMO. DankJae 14:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, how about:

Snowdon, or Yr Wyddfa, is a mountain in the Snowdonia region of Wales. It has an elevation of 1,085 metres (3,560 ft) above sea level, which makes it both the highest mountain in Wales and the highest in the British Isles south of the Scottish Highlands.I think this takes into account everything everyone has said. The Nuttals link will have to be abandoned, but List of mountains of the British Isles by height is arguably the more appropriate link. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Still prefer the previous lead (ex. Nuttals link), it being highest in Wales as the most important IMO, but appreciate the attempts. @Sirfurboy, wbu? Need a third opinion. DankJae 18:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I can be the one to choose between those, sorry. I have no strong opinion. Perhaps someone else will chime in. I have generally heard it as "highest in England and Wales". But why does England get included and not Scotland? Well... there are historical reasons why that might be so. As the UK becomes quasi-federal, those reasons may be less important now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so do we have a consensus around including the location, 'highest in Wales', and 'highest in GB outside the Highlands' in the lead sentences? As in, are we now discussing the format rather than the content? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

All of that was in the previous lead. (British Isles for GB tho) DankJae 02:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Haha, I know. If it ain't broke, and all that. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What about the lead stating it being "the highest mountain in Wales and 3rd by prominence in the British Isles"? Rupples (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Would readers know what "by prominence" means. DankJae 11:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion by Rupples, but height above sea level is probably a more understandable measure for the lead.

I've tried implementing the lead I suggested above. Personally I do think it's best to lead with the location, for readers who don't know, then height and records related to that height, but I can see the 'height is most important' argument. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe readers wouldn't know about "prominence", but they might go on to enjoy reading about Nuttalls, Simms, Hewitts, Marilyns, Monros, Murdos, P600s, Furths, Donalds, Grahams, Corbetts, HuMPs, TuMPs, Hughs, Deweys, Donald Deweys, Highland Fives, Myrddyn Deweys, Sub–Majors, Dodds, Hardys, Wainwrights, Birketts, Synges, Carns, Binnions, County Tops, Provincial Tops, Vandeleur-Lynams, Arderins — not to mention Bridges, Buxton & Lewis's, Clems, Fellrangers, and Yeamans, and others I may have missed. Rupples (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Damn it! Omitted the Welsh 3000s. Rupples (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What about putting it in the 'Environment' section? The thing with links is that they need to be understandable without clicking through, and there's more space to explain prominence in the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)