This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I seem to remember reading that it is "U" to say, "Scaw-fell" (or "Scawf-ell") and "non-U" to say, "Scar-fell" or "Scaff-ell". Does anybody know about this?-- Oxonian2006 21:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As someone who grew up 5 miles from Wasdale it is pronounced Score (Scaw) Fell, regardless of what others say, it is often incorrectly pronounced now, even locally, due to the proportion of true locals plummeting, people from further afield in the lakes may pronounce it differently but as with all place names the local pronunciation is correct.
Speaking as an ex-pat Lakes resident, I can say with confidence that saying "Scaw-fell" would be a one-way street to ridicule. "Scar-fell" is the correct local pronunciation. That's not what you asked of course, but if you want a guide to pronunciation, it's definitely "Scar-fell". 203.96.78.190 20:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In the local area it's refered to as "Scawfl" (Scorefl) in line with the original spelling of “Scawfell”. Most of the country however refer to it as Scarfell in line with modern spelling of Scafell. When I return home to the area and use Scafell, like the rest of the country, I'm accused of forgetting where I come from. The original name was/is Scawfell, and this is the name that was used by the WWII Naval ship, a Street in London, and an island off the Coast of Queensland Australia. All of these are named after the mountain. I’ve heard the spelling of Scafell was the result of an Ordinance Survey error, but I don’t know if this is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.86.101 ( talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it is to do with the Scandinavian "å" which would make "skå" indeed sound like "scaw"? Simon Grant ( talk) 13:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Contemporary guidebooks show that Scafell was called "Scawfell" until the mid-nineteenth century. Language changes, however, and from around the 1880s onwards it has more commonly been called Scafell.
The natural pronunciation, and in my experience the most common, is "scar-fell". The trend to say "scaw-fell" (as though the modern name had a silent "w") may originate in a misreading of Wainwright. Wainwright points out that Scafell was traditionally called "Scawfell" and adds that the traditional pronunciation was "Scawfle". But he is probably just talking about the old name here. I don't think he intends to suggest that the modern name should be pronounced in the same way. Jgb37 ( talk) 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it is strictly accurate to say (as the new box does) that Scafell Pike is an extinct volcano. My (limited, since I'm no geologist!) understanding is that while the rock itself is of volcanic origin, the present peaks were formed by subsequent glaciation, and don't bear any relation to the original volcanoes that formed the rocks. Does anyone know more about this? Cambyses 14:42, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
My very rudimentary knowledge of the geology of the Lake District suggests that you are quite correct. Trilobite 18:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
This clearly proves that it's more difficult to disbelieve something when it comes in an impressive-looking box. I have overcome my inhibitions and removed it the claim ;-). Best wishes, Cambyses 00:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Admittedly Scafell Pike is tiny by international standards, but that's no reason to call it a hill instead of a mountain. Most Enlgish people would consider it to be a mountain - the idea that it isn't would imply that there are no mountains in England, which runs contrary to popular understanding of British geography. Furthermore Scafell Pike is one of the Cumbrian mountains - the tallest of them in fact. The idea that the tallest of a range of mountains is not a mountain makes no sense. It is sometimes said that to qualify as a mountain in this country 1000 feet is a minimum, and I notice this was cited as a reason for the reversion of the edit which relagated Scafell Pike to a mere hill. Whether or not this cut-off height is accepted (and I would tend to favour a less rigid definition based on subjective judgement informed by people's understanding of the words 'hill' and 'mountain'), Scafell Pike is commonly regarded as a mountain and not a hill. It might not be very big, but it is a mountain. Trilobite 18:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"the Encyclopædia Britannica requires a prominence of 610 m (2,000 ft)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.25.123 ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 June 2006
Added to the External Links Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snozzer ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a list of the major peaks visible, with the degree bearings you can see each one at. Hope it's OK. Comments welcome. -- Mark J 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I would take the viewfinder panoramas with a pinch of salt. One shows "Oubas Hill" on the outskirts of Ulverston, which in reality is no more than a low hump on the A590 road and it certainly isn't possible to see Scafell Pike from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.189.18 ( talk) 01:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems that Ordnance Survey used the visibility of Slieve Donard from Scafell for the triangulation of GB and Ireland in the early 19 century. Map diagram 8 here: http://osi.ie/OSI/media/OSI/Content/Publications/The-Irish-Grid-A-Description-of-the-Coordinate-Reference-System-Used-in-Ireland_1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.125.32 ( talk) 12:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia standard in which to state heights above sea level - in feet or metres? We're not quite metric yet in England. I notice some articles put feet first others give priorty to metres. Pikemaster ( talk) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I see the parent peak for Scafell Pike shows in the box as Snowdon - Surely this is not correct? 86.143.67.69 ( talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Ah, no - I see there are different ways of calculating this. My apologies - Please disregard. 86.143.67.69 ( talk) 23:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
In the topography section of the article is the following phrase, "Ill Crag having little footing(clarify) in Wasdale." This sounds like a request for clarification of the technical term 'footing'. Do we need clarification or is the term self explanatory? It doesn't seem to be a good place to add a long winded explanation of a fairly common term. Meta-texts such as (clarify) or (citation needed) tend to reduce the readability of the article. Often they are essential but sometimes, as here, they may be superfluous. OrewaTel ( talk) 12:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I really don't think the Herdy website can be regarded as a WP:RS for this article. Their site's purpose is to sell the mugs and other "Herdy" branded material that they sell. I have therefore substituted the section that had many references to the Herdy website with older material that has other references (and a more complete story of what happened). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 17:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The over-precise heights being added to this article by user Vegibagger are (a) without any supporting references and (b) different from the heights given in established RSs. Please stop adding this data and explain why you think this is an improvement. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I seem to remember reading that it is "U" to say, "Scaw-fell" (or "Scawf-ell") and "non-U" to say, "Scar-fell" or "Scaff-ell". Does anybody know about this?-- Oxonian2006 21:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As someone who grew up 5 miles from Wasdale it is pronounced Score (Scaw) Fell, regardless of what others say, it is often incorrectly pronounced now, even locally, due to the proportion of true locals plummeting, people from further afield in the lakes may pronounce it differently but as with all place names the local pronunciation is correct.
Speaking as an ex-pat Lakes resident, I can say with confidence that saying "Scaw-fell" would be a one-way street to ridicule. "Scar-fell" is the correct local pronunciation. That's not what you asked of course, but if you want a guide to pronunciation, it's definitely "Scar-fell". 203.96.78.190 20:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In the local area it's refered to as "Scawfl" (Scorefl) in line with the original spelling of “Scawfell”. Most of the country however refer to it as Scarfell in line with modern spelling of Scafell. When I return home to the area and use Scafell, like the rest of the country, I'm accused of forgetting where I come from. The original name was/is Scawfell, and this is the name that was used by the WWII Naval ship, a Street in London, and an island off the Coast of Queensland Australia. All of these are named after the mountain. I’ve heard the spelling of Scafell was the result of an Ordinance Survey error, but I don’t know if this is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.86.101 ( talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it is to do with the Scandinavian "å" which would make "skå" indeed sound like "scaw"? Simon Grant ( talk) 13:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Contemporary guidebooks show that Scafell was called "Scawfell" until the mid-nineteenth century. Language changes, however, and from around the 1880s onwards it has more commonly been called Scafell.
The natural pronunciation, and in my experience the most common, is "scar-fell". The trend to say "scaw-fell" (as though the modern name had a silent "w") may originate in a misreading of Wainwright. Wainwright points out that Scafell was traditionally called "Scawfell" and adds that the traditional pronunciation was "Scawfle". But he is probably just talking about the old name here. I don't think he intends to suggest that the modern name should be pronounced in the same way. Jgb37 ( talk) 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it is strictly accurate to say (as the new box does) that Scafell Pike is an extinct volcano. My (limited, since I'm no geologist!) understanding is that while the rock itself is of volcanic origin, the present peaks were formed by subsequent glaciation, and don't bear any relation to the original volcanoes that formed the rocks. Does anyone know more about this? Cambyses 14:42, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
My very rudimentary knowledge of the geology of the Lake District suggests that you are quite correct. Trilobite 18:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
This clearly proves that it's more difficult to disbelieve something when it comes in an impressive-looking box. I have overcome my inhibitions and removed it the claim ;-). Best wishes, Cambyses 00:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Admittedly Scafell Pike is tiny by international standards, but that's no reason to call it a hill instead of a mountain. Most Enlgish people would consider it to be a mountain - the idea that it isn't would imply that there are no mountains in England, which runs contrary to popular understanding of British geography. Furthermore Scafell Pike is one of the Cumbrian mountains - the tallest of them in fact. The idea that the tallest of a range of mountains is not a mountain makes no sense. It is sometimes said that to qualify as a mountain in this country 1000 feet is a minimum, and I notice this was cited as a reason for the reversion of the edit which relagated Scafell Pike to a mere hill. Whether or not this cut-off height is accepted (and I would tend to favour a less rigid definition based on subjective judgement informed by people's understanding of the words 'hill' and 'mountain'), Scafell Pike is commonly regarded as a mountain and not a hill. It might not be very big, but it is a mountain. Trilobite 18:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"the Encyclopædia Britannica requires a prominence of 610 m (2,000 ft)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.25.123 ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 June 2006
Added to the External Links Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snozzer ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a list of the major peaks visible, with the degree bearings you can see each one at. Hope it's OK. Comments welcome. -- Mark J 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I would take the viewfinder panoramas with a pinch of salt. One shows "Oubas Hill" on the outskirts of Ulverston, which in reality is no more than a low hump on the A590 road and it certainly isn't possible to see Scafell Pike from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.189.18 ( talk) 01:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems that Ordnance Survey used the visibility of Slieve Donard from Scafell for the triangulation of GB and Ireland in the early 19 century. Map diagram 8 here: http://osi.ie/OSI/media/OSI/Content/Publications/The-Irish-Grid-A-Description-of-the-Coordinate-Reference-System-Used-in-Ireland_1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.125.32 ( talk) 12:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia standard in which to state heights above sea level - in feet or metres? We're not quite metric yet in England. I notice some articles put feet first others give priorty to metres. Pikemaster ( talk) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I see the parent peak for Scafell Pike shows in the box as Snowdon - Surely this is not correct? 86.143.67.69 ( talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Ah, no - I see there are different ways of calculating this. My apologies - Please disregard. 86.143.67.69 ( talk) 23:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
In the topography section of the article is the following phrase, "Ill Crag having little footing(clarify) in Wasdale." This sounds like a request for clarification of the technical term 'footing'. Do we need clarification or is the term self explanatory? It doesn't seem to be a good place to add a long winded explanation of a fairly common term. Meta-texts such as (clarify) or (citation needed) tend to reduce the readability of the article. Often they are essential but sometimes, as here, they may be superfluous. OrewaTel ( talk) 12:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I really don't think the Herdy website can be regarded as a WP:RS for this article. Their site's purpose is to sell the mugs and other "Herdy" branded material that they sell. I have therefore substituted the section that had many references to the Herdy website with older material that has other references (and a more complete story of what happened). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 17:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The over-precise heights being added to this article by user Vegibagger are (a) without any supporting references and (b) different from the heights given in established RSs. Please stop adding this data and explain why you think this is an improvement. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)