# Talk:Goat Rocks

I personally don't care what order these two are in on the article, but there's no need to remove one in favor of the other.  For the record, I was the one who wrote this article in the first place, because of a red link on the Mount St. Helens article.  To remove the section on the rock formation completely will only serve to confuse anybody who clicks on Goat Rocks on the MSH article. --Billdorr 14:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the content should be retained and thank you for assuming good faith. I plan to add an image illustrating Goat Rocks (series of peaks) and additional content. Also, I may have an illustration of Goat Rocks (Mount St. Helens) taken while climbing a pre-eruption route in 1977. I think that Goat Rocks (Mount St. Helens) should be moved into its own article, the Mount St. Helens article should link directly to it and this article should have a link For the obliterated rock formation on Mount St. Helens, see Goat Rocks (Mount St. Helens) at the top.  Goat Rocks Wilderness, which I started, links to this article and would continue to do so after the reorganization. This is consistent with my reading of WP:D. BTW,  Goat Rocks (Mount St. Helens) is just my preference. I don't object to Goat Rocks (obliterated rock formation). --16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative to split off the information about the lava dome which existed on the north slope of Mount St. Helens prior to May 18, 1980, into a separate article named Goat Rocks dome.
This article now refers exclusively to the eroded stratovolcano near White Pass.  This is appropriate because Goat Rocks is the sixth highest volcano in Washington and is easily significant enough to deserve a detailed WP article of its own.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does the new article title come from? The feature is referred to simply as "Goat Rocks" in Cascade Alpine Guide 1st ed., 1973, Fred Beckey. I wonder if Goat Rocks (Mount St. Helens) wouldn't be more consistent with the guidance of WP:PLACES. In any case, I think your split edit is consistent with the guidance of WP:DAB. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The title comes from a simple and logical place: the only link in the entire Wikipedia which refers to this dome is the phrase "Goat Rocks dome" in the Mount St. Helens article, which used to be formatted as "[[Goat Rocks]] dome" and so I simply moved the braces to give "[[Goat Rocks dome]]".
I didn't worry about naming policy for the following reason: Since there is only one link to it other than from dab on Goat Rocks (and my userpage), I think that Goat Rocks dome should be merged into the MSH article and then deleted/changed to a redirect.  I'm not at all a m:Deletionist, but it's a minor rock formation which no longer exists and that little stub will never have any further content.  What little is there can easily go into MSH.  Just my feelings.  Thanks.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Mergeto}} Mount St. Helens makes sense to me for the reasons you mention. I left a note at User talk:Billdorr, the only other person commenting above, in case he has any thoughts. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A merge makes sense to me.  It really is a MSH topic, and not quite deserving of it's own article especially since it's been blown to bits for almost 30 years now. --Billdorr 04:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)