Talk:Isle Royale

message: I'm no linguistics expert.  Is there a simpler way to explain the pronunciation?  I cannot make heads or tails of "il-rol&le".  Is it "eye'll"  or "ill"?  And is it "rol-and-ley" (which makes no sense)? It'd be great if someone would share a layperson's approach. -Uninformed Anon
:Basically the "e" at the end is just cosmetic so it is pronounced the same as the normal English word royal, as in "the royal family." Rhymes with boil.  -Taranah 08:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the correct pronunciation is "isle" like "aisle" (think grocery store aisle, or bride walking down the aisle), and then "royale" as "royal" as in the "royal" family. Aisle Royal.   Keeper | 76 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: When a fuller description of geology is added, the accompanying image can be used, at at larger size.  Its origin in the USGS bulletin now in External links, which is a more comprehensive and scientific source than the other geology resource cited there.  Kablammo 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image added.  Kablammo (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: I have proposed that this article be merged into Isle Royale National Park.  The entire island (and islands) are in the park, and most of the content is likely to be related to the park.  The past history can easily be handled in the park article.  This page would of course redirect to the park.
There were prior discussion of merger, which were inconclusive.  Talk:Isle_Royale_National_Park#Merge_from_Isle_Royale.
Please discuss below.  Kablammo (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isle Royale itself is not the same as the park. While the articles may currently be similar, they should each be expanded and focus on their respective (different) subjects, rather than merging and losing the distinction. -- dcclark (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isle Royale National Park is coextensive with the island; there is no part of the park that is outside the islands and their waters, and no part of the islands that are not in the park.  It appears that much of the recent expansion here deals with the use of the island as a park. I would like to add some material but not to fragmented and overlapping articles.  Kablammo (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However much of the park is outside the island which is the subject of the other article (not "the islands" which is not the subject). Compare this to, for instance, Mount Rainier and Mount Rainier National Park. Rmhermen (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought that "Isle Royale" conventionally refers to both the big island and all the islets and rocks littered around it-- certainly from a geological point of view it is the same entity.  I would consider Mott Island to be part of Isle Royale; perhaps others do not.  Kablammo (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose  I think they should remain separate articles as per the reasoning of dcclark.  Asher196 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The last merge discussion was years ago and the majority did not support it either time. Rmhermen (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not by my count.  Look above at Talk:Isle_Royale_National_Park#Merge:_reprise; two years ago five editors supported a merge, and no one opposed it; they only differed in which article should be merged into which.  In any event I am copying this discussion to Talk:Isle_Royale so the discussion can be centralized.  Please post further comments there.  Thank you.  Kablammo (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the participants at that time, I did not support the move, I offered a suggestion if the merge were to proceed. I don't see any reason to alter my opinion at this time. older ≠ wiser 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct-- my apologies.  I will cross-post to the other discussion page.  Kablammo (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: As neither this merge proposal nor the two articles themselves have attracted much interest, and as there is neither a consensus to merge nor much work being done on these articles, I am removing the merge proposal.
For the reasons I mentioned above, I will leave further editing of these to articles to others, as I frankly don't know where to put new additions and Wikipedia has many other projects which could use attention.  I hope that those who take an interest in Isle Royale will be able to give it the treatment it deserves.
Some thoughts:
* Midcontinent Rift has some good sources on geology.  
* Geological history of Isle Royale, now the third link under External links for the Isle Royale page, does not really add anything and contains some unscientific information.
* There is a book by a member of the Sivertson family with some good human history on Island Royale.  It would be a useful resource.  The history of those families on the island did not end with establishment of the park.
* There are a number of published sources on the wolf study. Wolves and Moose on Isle Royale has many; this is a useful starting point as well.  
* The ecology sections of these articles are entirely unreferenced—as a matter of fact the articles only share 7 footnotes between them.  
Best wishes.  Kablammo (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kablammo It's been a long time, but I agree that these should be merged. There is substantial duplication and overlap between the articles, and the rest of what is on one page is still relevant to the other, and the split like this is a disservice to the reader, who would have to read two pages of much of the same organization and content to get all the information. Although the park technically includes islands beyond Isle Royale itself, they are so small they are still considered part of Isle Royale and share the same geography.  Reywas92Talk 21:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it's kind of an unusual situation.  A very important entity as an island, and a very important entity as a National Park. But coverage of each in the normal fashion would be a 99% duplication/overlap.  I suppose a redirect from a merged one and an explanation at the beginning of the lead would handle all of that. Maybe the island one should get merged into the National park one? North8000 (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's what I think would work best to keep the national park title since the island would be unknown were it not one. I can work on something in the next couple days to see how it'd look. Reywas92Talk 04:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawal of merge proposal

message: I noticed the comment on the page about the frequency of encounters with Boy Scouts, who were trying to earn their "50-mile Backpacking Merit Badge". This is incorrect, because the 50-Mile Backpacking Badge is not a "Merit Badge". It is an award, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50-miler_award  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredthegnarbrah (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreational Activities 

message: 48°0′N 88°55′W is not inclusive enough.  wht are the extremes in all directions? Kdammers (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates

message: Elk have been reintroduced into other places in Michigan, so the section on elk needs to be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.179.8 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Elk

message: Hello all,
In the section for populated places, it mentions a "Conglomerate Bay", but when one views its article, it says that it "was" an unincorporated place, implying that it no longer has any (significant) population. I felt inclined to edit the section for clarification, adding Rock Harbor and/or Windigo (as those are the closest things to a true "populated place" on the island), and possibly removing Conglomerate Bay altogether. Thoughts anyone?
Sparkyb10123 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populated places 

message: After reviewing the source for the climate table, and reading the NOAA site http://www.glisaclimate.org/projects/671/page/917, I decided to remove the table.  I suggest rewriting the section with information from the NOAA site, as most information online appears to be unreliable. --Asher196 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.   There's nothing that says that interpolated is wrong or unsuitable. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate