Talk:Old Man of the Lake

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Plants Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I did a quick google search, but I haven't seen any references to either radioarbon or dendrochronology tests being done on the tree. :( 74.138.112.120 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

it is too a geological formation, or at least it will become one eventually, when enough minerals deposit by evaporation to sink it. Or whenever that threatens to happen, does the next rain lower the mineral levels enough to dissolve the minerals from the sunk parts and up it goes again? If you threw another big log in there, would it do the same thing or would it lose buoyancy and sink? Was it dropped by an early logger, or has it been there for thousands, not hundreds of years? All these unanswered questions. Insect life? Woodpeckers? Were the branches below the water line cut off with an identifiable make of dragsaw? Was it a victim of a landslide? Does it periodically sink and get replaced in a secret ceremony involving removal of branches by a team of Sasquatches and local Eagle scouts, supervised by Klamath elders? So many questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.138.107 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter ^Isotalo 10:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could we also merge Universe into Multiverse? Might as well be all inclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Some .gov photos for the article are at google .gov. Upload and use {{PD-USGov}} where it applies. Suntag (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Old Man of the Lake. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/notes/vol27e.htm
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/notes/vol19g.htm
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/notes/vol11-3c.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why has it not decomposed?

152.115.72.198 (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1988 story

It seems sensationalized by Mark Buktenica for the CBS News in reference 7. Wording such as "superstition got the best of the scientists" looks jarring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.70.59 (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change:

In 1988, submarine explorations were conducted in the lake, and the scientists decided to tie the Old Man off the eastern side of Wizard Island to neutralize the navigational hazard until their research work was complete. Upon immobilizing the log, the weather went from clear to stormy. After it started snowing in August, scientists released the Old Man for likely superstitions reasons. Soon after, the weather cleared up, reinforcing the belief.

--King Starscream (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]