Talk:Appalachian Trail

message: An editor redirecdted 2019 Harper's Ferry train derailment to a section of this article. Redirecting it is fine, I think, but I have changed the redirect to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia#21st century because that has more detail about the accident, not just the effect on the Appalachian Trail. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect of CSX wreck 

message: and , I note that you have different approaches to describing trail length, each of which has merit. I suggest:
*In the lead sentence, say: "The Appalachian National Scenic Trail, generally known as the Appalachian Trail or simply the A.T., is a  marked hiking trail...". This is a true statement to two significant figures that is persistent.
*In the infobox and lower in the lead, use: " as of 2022", since this is supported by the AT Conservancy source. This is a true statement to four significant figures that is transitory. (2,194.3 miles is overly precise.)
I hope that this resolves the potential for a slo-mo edit war!
Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me - the only drawback is that the infobox will become incorrect as the official length changes. The length is semi a guess, anyway; it's not like anybody has taken a measuring wheel along the whole place, so listing it to four significant digits is kind of silly, regardless what the offical source says. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , I concur about the accuracy of the measurement, which is also affected by the length of each segment used to measure the whole if there were to be a complete measurement. This is an example of relying on a source. Precision is a different concept than accuracy—it reflects the repeatability of the measurement even if it is inaccurate. I think two significant figures is fine for the infobox. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  , I have to say that it currently reads oddly with duplicated measurements - saying "almost 2,200" in the first sentence and 2,194 in the second. I think we could drop the four-digit figure altogether - it's still in the infobox - and just say that the conservancy says it"s the longest etc etc. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thanks for the observation. I concur. I hope that I have addressed it to your satisfaction. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trail length 

message: The National Park Service uses "the Appalachian Trail" on a web page titled "Appalachian" and subtitled "National Scenic Trail". The logo in the article uses "Appalachian Trail" with a subtitle of "National Scenic Trail". Therefore, I suggest that the lead sentence drop "The Appalachian National Scenic Trail generally known as the Appalachian Trail or simply the A.T. ..." and read simply, "The Appalachian Trail (or the A.T.)..." and add "..is a National Scenic Trail..." . Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of trail? 

message: Why is there not so much as a single mention, of a certain event: How Mark Sanford disappeared for a week, claiming that he had gone "hiking the Appalachian Trail", when in actual fact, he had gone to a mistress he was cheating on his wife with …leading to "hiking the Appalachian Trail" becoming a euphemism for extramarital affairs. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Mark Sanford extramarital affair has everything to do with Mr. Sanford and clearly nothing to do with the AT, since he wasn't there. Should the article on Buenos Aires make mention of him, because that's where he actually was. I don't think so. It's enough that both venues are mentioned in the article on the subject. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

text: It was in the article some years ago but removed by editors who thought it superfluous. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that report, . It seems to merit a brief mention in "popular culture", a section found in many geographical articles. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the Talk archive: The initial "why isn't it here?" came in 2009 but it wasn't added; the next query came in 2013 and apparently it got added, only to have an editor remove it in 2016. From my point of view the brief mention that was just added seems fine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article on the Appalachian Trail, and yet there is no mention of Mark Sanford!?