Talk:Lost Monarch

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article related to Hyperion redwood tree

This largest redwood needed it's own article anyway.

If few people edit this, it may remain too short for Wikipedia in the long-run. But if editors are willling to make the effort, there is a lot of information on the Lost Monarch if diligent searching is done. There are publications online, .pdf documents and other information regarding this redwood, wildlife in it, plants growing on and around it, etc..

Have just recently sent an email to another Wikipedia editor / user, Mdvaden, requesting either permission to use an image of Hyperion, or that one be donated if available.

This article is very related to Hyperion (tree), and reference has been made to each of the other trees, in each of the articles, to eliminate confusion surrounding one redwood being the largest, while another is the talles.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polypodium scouleri internal link

Someone changed an internal link for Polypodium scouleri, that previously went to the Genus level article. They changed it to go to a species level internal link, for which no article exists. So I reverted it back to the genus level for now.

It's not common policy to add internal links to non-existent articles is it? Shouldn't an article be made first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.246.76 (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location: Discuss prior to removing pertinent details: you too, anonymous editors

Noticed that someone waltzed-on in to the topic and tried to remove a lot of the statements in the location section. They need to be aware that their cares and concerns are not the basis for Wikipedia. Especially since the details about the location are not sufficient to point to the grove's location. And, the details ARE published. And it's within the Wikipedia guidelines to list information published in books, like The Wild Trees, or Van Pelt's Giants of the Pacific Northwest.

One person editing here is User Mgiganteus - I requested for them to chime in too.

To whoever is anonymously deleting:

List your suggestions here. Any or all of what you suggest can be modified, changed, added to or deleted. If you want removal of verifiable information, you might also provide alternative resources pertaining to the same info. Thanks.

I have not removed anything but it seems irresponsible to make any specific info known, just for the sake of article 'completeness'. I would suggest removing the location subsection entirely. 131.111.243.37 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove of Titans was recently (19SEP2021) opened to the public , see https://www.nps.gov/redw/learn/news/gotboardwalk.htm for the press release announcing it. The trees are not labeled or plaqued so finding Lost Monarch required a picture to find. This is far from the largest coast redwood, or the tallest, and it saddens me that some keyboard warriors have kept this page inaccurate and incomplete under the pretenses of conservation. Secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society - I encourage everyone to go visit the Grove of Titans and see these natural wonders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:4A00:4C27:994E:E16C:36D7:BA89 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iluvatar removed as second largest

I removed Iluvatar as a second largest for comparison, because a new second largest redwood has emerged, called Fusion Giant or Melkor. Since the coastal redwood main article page lists a comparison chart, it seemed feasible to just leave a second largest out of this topic here for now. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory claims about tree volume

I'm not sure which page is correct, but this page contradicts the Hyperion page by asserting that Lost Monarch is not the largest coast redwood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stebenthom (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Reference

The reference to Humboldt State University is dead linked. I was unable to find it in a brief search. I left the citation in the article, but I'm leaving a comment here in case someone can find a new link to put there. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lost Monarch. 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/20080509130652/http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/redwoods.html to http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/redwoods.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]