Talk:Old Man of the Lake
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week. | ||
| Start | This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Peacock terms
Should we change the title to "Old Person of the Lake?" ;-) jk. I meant no offense.--Evb-wiki 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um? No. I was referring to the term "majesty", the rest of my edits were for consistency. Maybe you didn't see the edit because the spacing got changed too.Katr67 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Gotcha. I thought peacock was ref to male. I see now it was ref to showy. Point taken.--Evb-wiki 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, I'm all about gender-neutral language (hmm, does that make it a "peahen term"?), but neutering the "Old Man" would just be silly. :) Happy editing! Katr67 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Originality
The sources are cited, but reasonably large lengths of text are often copied word-for-word. Needs to be rewritten to avoid deletion due to copyright violation? Jefromi (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dating?
The only date seems to be from the earliest observation. Out of curiosity, has any technical dating method (e.g. carbon dating) been applied? -- Securiger (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
A bobbing tree in a lake, no matter how old, does not merit a separate article. Considering the humble size of the article, this should really be joined with Crater Lake.
Peter Isotalo 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, not only because of its age but its involvement in the tourism and research history of the lake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.165.79 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there was enough encyclopedic information about this tree to merit a separate article, then why is it still lingering at less than 5k with plenty of rather trivial information? What seems most relevant here is the tree's relation to the lake, not tourism or its relatively short history (compare with thousand year old cedars and various Petrified Forests). There seems to be nothing about the tree that isn't directly associated with Crater Lake, which has an article at a mere 12k. We're talking about a biological curiosity that does nothing but drift around a lake without generating any significant cultural impact.
- Peter Isotalo 06:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- 5K is "big" enough for GA class. Usually only subs are merged due to length, not a Start class article. As to lingering, um, Wikipedia doesn't write itself, so many articles linger at a smaller size than what they may eventually become, again not a reason for a merge. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- How is this topic in any way independent of the lake article? What is the benefit of keeping two articles with less than 20k of info between them separate when one is quite obviously a dependent of the other? If there's no reason for a merge, then what exactly was the point of separating them in the first place?
- Peter Isotalo 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- And Crater Lake would be dependent on say Cascade Range, which could be considered dependent on the United States. Actually lets just merge everything into Universe? Pretty much everything can be upmerged into something else. But getting a separate article is based on notability, which this article's subject appears to pass. There are about 10 Crater Lake related articles (see its cat), combining them all would make for a large and unwieldy article. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is not The Battle against the Mergists Part XXIV. Please don't turn this into an argumentation absurdly polarized principles. The Crater Lake category includes topics that are related to various degrees with the lake, but with at least the barest minimum of independence of it. This particular article stands out like a sore thumb. It's neither a building, road, person, geological formation or national park. It's not considered holy, or of any particular cultural significance. It's not especially old or large or, indeed, even alive. It seems relevant only within the context of in Crater Lake.
- Peter Isotalo 10:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- And Crater Lake would be dependent on say Cascade Range, which could be considered dependent on the United States. Actually lets just merge everything into Universe? Pretty much everything can be upmerged into something else. But getting a separate article is based on notability, which this article's subject appears to pass. There are about 10 Crater Lake related articles (see its cat), combining them all would make for a large and unwieldy article. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- 5K is "big" enough for GA class. Usually only subs are merged due to length, not a Start class article. As to lingering, um, Wikipedia doesn't write itself, so many articles linger at a smaller size than what they may eventually become, again not a reason for a merge. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you please just go ahead and put some proposed merge templates on the articles and see what happens? Katr67 (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
