Talk:Sleeping Giant (Connecticut)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The ridge system and the state park are one article; i've added material about the volunteer support group of the same name, that actually started the park & continues heavy involvement. But is that group mentioned excessively? --Jerzy(t) 09:40, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
- No, I think you did a great job. There doesn't really exist enough information to make separate pages, so this is probably the Right Way to do it. - Plutor 15:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I see that these comments are over a year old, but I've edited the material in question for wording, and I'm concerned about the last sentence, which was somewhat unclear as originally stated. Is the statement as it reads now accurate? Chick Bowen 03:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Expanded and moved from Sleeping Giant State Park
Did a major overhaul of the material originally posted at Sleeping Giant State Park and placed it here (as the landform is broader and older than the park); redirected the park page here, however, the park page could be re-initiated with information specific to the park (without creating redundancy and duplicating all the information posted here). Finally, there was a long open letter posted on the talk page for Sleeping Giant State Park. It was part of an old edit war by two Wikipedians that had been cut and pasted into the talk pages of a number of different Connecticut articles. Those interested in it can see it archived at Talk:Ragged Mountain (Connecticut)/Archive 1
--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CT Walk Book
The 2nd ref is to the 17th edn of this work, stated as "undated". If only for the reason that a dateless ref detracts from face validity, we need to verify that everything based on it could rely instead on the 2007 19th edn. (The 18th, 1997, says that the 5th was 1965, and BTW the increase in quality in the 18th and 19th suggests increased effort per edition as the reason for the slower updates now than (mmm...) 13 in 32 years, or 2.5 yrs/edn.) If someone else with the 19th doesn't do so first, i may get around to it. Note that both pp. 224-225 and 257-260 can be relevant, along with the associated maps. At a glance, nothing there supports the WPA mention; i'll try to get around to checkig the 18th, but perhaps a separate source is needed.
--Jerzy•t 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 360 degrees
My recollection is closer to 7 octants than all 8 (unless there's some specification about the trees being bare). I'm fact-tagging that.
--Jerzy•t 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

