Talk:Mount Monadnock

message: An editor summarized the removal of red-font markup by a question abt Monadnock's death and injury rate per year. 
 
=== Casualty Rate ===
There won't of course be any record of injury rate, since the term is ill-defined, and i don't have any annual death- or rescue-rate figures.  However:
On busy summer days, at the summit, a uniformed on-duty ranger sits, apparently enjoying the view. "It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it", right? In fact, a similar question has been asked without irony:  "It looks like you've got light duty today; is that a matter of seniority, or does every one get a turn at it?"
The answer is that only one person does that duty, bcz no other ranger assigned to M'k is able to climb from the ranger station at the main entrance to the summit several times in the same day, and that is how often, on the high-volume summer days that build the estimates that say M'k is a highly climbed mtn, the ranger at the top is notified that someone (presumably nearly always somewhere down the mtn a ways, on any of a variety of trails) is in trouble. I presume that some of them are already injured, that others have decided they shouldn't continue either up or down and are waiting to be told what to do about it, and that others have lost enuf of their judgement to dehydration and/or low blood sugar that they can't see what is obvious to the person notifying the ranger: they are the scene of a race among discouragement, stubbornness, and the ranger, whose outcome determines where they fit into the statistics.
So IMO the question should not focus on the injuries and deaths, but on
* the effort invested in routine rescues
* the effort and risk invested in major rescues and
* the value of people who have no idea what they are getting into on M'k knowing more, and 
* the value of people who get a major part of their knowledge of M'k, or of their interest in it, from WP, getting NPOV, rather than the PoV from which it is easy to infer the invitation "everybody and their cousin climbs M'k, what's keeping you away?"
=== Red Type ===
As to the red type, i am restoring some of it pending further discussion, in the belief that the removing editor either
* intended to implicitly state a criterion for use of red type, which the section above IMO meets, or
* acted in the mistaken belief that "we don't use colored type in WP", whereas the fact is that at least red is used, in a practice dating from at least over a year ago, routinely in highlighting safety information, as with florine, and no doubt many other chemical elements.  (I haven't checked compounds and categories, e.g., nitric acid, strong acid, trichlorethylene, and hydrofloric acid (HF).) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 November 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Red-font markup

message: As to the red type, i am restoring some of it pending further discussion, in the belief that the removing editor either
* intended to implicitly state a criterion for use of red type, which the section above IMO meets, or
* acted in the mistaken belief that "we don't use colored type in WP", whereas the fact is that at least red is used, in a practice dating from at least over a year ago, routinely in highlighting safety information, as with florine, and no doubt many other chemical elements.  (I haven't checked compounds and categories, e.g., nitric acid, strong acid, trichlorethylene, and hydrofloric acid (HF).) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 November 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Type 

message: I've climbed Monadnock maybe 100 times in my life, mostly without much meandering off the trails. I've heard locals talk about a large cave on the mountain. Many people have told me it's in such and such a place or such and such another place but I never seem to be able to find it.
Is it just some local folklore or is there actually a significantly sized cave on the mountain? And would anyone care to describe where it is for us discussion page lurkers? Perhaps a photo? Glippy00 11:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New Hampshire has very little in the way of caves because of our geology. All that igneous rock, you know - cave-rich areas tend to be made of limestone, a softer rock that wears away from moisture. So my guess would be no, although that's far from certain. - DavidWBrooks 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In New Hampshire, "cave" often means a man-sized gap left behind when a block of granite has slipped, or the gap beneath two or more large boulders jumbled together. (example: http://www.polarcaves.com/areas/caves.html)  I don't recall seeing one on Monadnock (or ever hearing of one), but it wouldn't surprise me if one existed, especially off-trail.  "Significantly sized"?  That'd surprise me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.45.242.3 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a small man-made cave on the mountain. It has a manmade (metal? wood?) roof and it used to have a door (now gone, as I understand it. My neighbor's son's scout troop has hiked to it. It is off of Cascade Link near the junction with Pumpelly Trail and not easy to find. My understanding is that it is easier to locate from Cascade Link Trail moving upwards. No idea if it's on the left or the right. It is not visible from the trail. It is apparently near some ledges. I've seen photographs of the cave taken by my neighbor's son. There is a story (perhaps a "rural" legend) that the cave, which faces east, was used during World War I as a beacon location for a german spy to signal ships off the New England coast. I have my doubts whether the story is true, but the cave is in fact there. DHLister 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cave 

message: I believe that the story about the wolfs and setting fires etc, is a myth, if there is a source for this please cite it or move this subject out of history and into folklore. thanks, Strangealibi 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty well regarded as true. I put in a reference as an external link. And here's another: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:ehf20CiFNxkJ:www.nhstateparks.org/ParksPages/Monadnock/MMP040103/monadnockmasterplancvrFinal.pdf+monadnock+fire+wolves&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us  - DavidWBrooks 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most park staff will tell you otherwise, especially the Park Manager who is something of a Monadnock Scholar. As for a citable source, according to Craig Brandon's 2007 book Monadnock: More than a Mountain, "The wolves, however, were exterminated some years before that[1820], so it seems unlikely that the 1820 fire was deliberately set." TerminalSaint (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fire / Wolf Myth

message: The infobox needs a good photo of the mountain. For a mountain that is reportedly the second most climbed in the world, hard to believe we don't have any good photos. RedWolf 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox photo 

message: Added a bunch of material, reorganized the article under more comprehensive sections, and made other edits. Let me know what you think. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new edits 

message: I'm thinking that it might be best to move this article to either Mount Monadnock (Jaffrey, New Hampshire) or Grand Monadnock. The reason: there are other mountains with the same or similar names; per Wiki general policy, that would indicate the need for a general dab page to which are linked specific article pages with unambiguous titles. Granted, Mount Monadnock is by far more widely known. . .and I feel a certain resistance to altering it. ..but it would conform to policy better. Someone living in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont might well be more familiar with the mountain by the same name up there. What do you the rest of you think?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having been through about 20 of these, my first reaction is "don't move it unless there's compelling evidence of confusion." My second reaction is that this Mount Monadnock is so much better known that any other that it should remain the default article (however, I live fairly near it, so my viewpoint may be skewed). But my third reaction is that wikipedia's vast reach has made following naming policy more important; if this article was being created today, it would probably start as a disambig. So I guess I'd agree that Mount Monadnock should become a disambiguation page. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to maintain the fact that this Mount Monadnock is by far -- more "by far" than in most cases -- the most well-known mountain.  Before we go and move the article, let's start with a "hat note" (I've been hanging out with the disambiguation people) at the top that will direct people to a disambiguation page.  I'll be happy to create the note and the page.  I suspect that in this case, that is all that would be needed. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I went a step further and created a general Monadnock (disambiguation)--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much obliged.  That solves the issue nicely.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  move  article and dab? 

message: Something that resembles an advertisement for a dance (including an external URL) continues to be inputted on the article.  Another user has also editted this down. Jrclark (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising?

message: Shouldn't that be first European Descent? I find it hard to believe no Natives climbed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.30.197 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in fact says "Earliest recorded ascent", so there is nothing misleading about it. Of course we can all presume the local Abenaki climbed it now and then, but there is no record of it. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not: many American Indian cultures deliberately did not climb their local high peaks out of spiritual tradition and culture. It's impossible to say for Monadnock, of course, and it seems unlikely that nobody would ever have made it to the top in the pre-European era, when it was still forested - if for no other reason than as part of hunting game. But "recorded" covers the facts nicely. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I moved the above comment here from the "Infobox photo" section above. The comment is already answered by the discussion above. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: First Ascent

message: A picture was recently removed, supposedly because it adds nothing to the article.  I would agree that the picture is not essential, but it surely adds something.  Since the mountain is climbed so frequently, an example of the sort of detail that brings people back many times (in my case, 73 times) seems completely appropriate.  It also is relevant that the trails often double as streams or intermittent drainage.  Perhaps this fact can be mentioned as part of the caption?Witnessforpeace (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the photo, which showed a small cascade of water falling on a trail. Speaking as somebody who has climbed Monadnock many times as well as many similar small mountains in the region, it could easily have been taken in 100 different places hereabouts. Many, probably most, New England mountain have trails that often double as streams. (As a volunteer trail worker, lots of what we do on trail days is built "water bars" to limit this happening.) This a situation is not specific to Monadock at all - virtually the same photo could be attached to almost any article about a New England mountain with trails. That's why I removed it; there needs to be  a higher bar for pictures to do added to articles about popular sites, or else they turn into tourist photo galleries. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture removed 

message: I was wondering if we could select a new photo for the infobox? I have two concerns with the current one: The first being that most Wikipedia articles on mountains have a very clear view of the summit and some of their surroundings. Where as the current one is a shot of the north-western ridge line (Dublin/Marlborough Trail). The photo is also a little blurry for one taken mid-day.
I uploaded some photos to Wikimedia awhile ago and would love to use one of them for the photo but I wanted to see what others thought first. The photos can be seen here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mount_Monadnock#/media/File:Mt._Monadnock_Summit.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mount_Monadnock#/media/File:Mt._Monadnock.jpg
I also have an extremely high resolution stitched-photo that could be used on my site: (warning 8MBs) http://blarney.me/projects/imgGallery/photos/2013-12-07_Monadnock/2013-12-07-Panorama02.jpg
If I don't hear any objections I will probably change the photo in a few weeks and see how it is received.
Additionally the current panorama is very blurry and has some exposure issues. I don't have any suitable photos but if there is any interest I could take a good one. Probably once the warmer weather roles in since I think a warm season photo better represents the mountain.
Jonwmcinenrey (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not go ahead and replace it now? Either of the first two in your set would provide better context than the current photo. The second one shows the full height of the mountain (and is quite striking), but the first one fills the photo area better, so it's your call. Thanks for offering! --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the go-ahead. I went through my photos and found a photo that was a little more "plain" which I felt was more appropriate for Wikipedia. It's a clear shot of the summit, during mid-day. I wish I had a photo that better showed the scale of the mountain versus the surrounding area but maybe down the road. Jonwmcinenrey (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox Photo 

message: I am a fan of LiDAR data, and I recently noted that the summit elevation for Monadnock seems to vary by source. Google lists 3166', this page 3165', and Peakbagger lists NAVD88 of 3149' but allows a range from 960-966 meters (3149' to 3169'). NH GRANIT http://granit.sr.unh.edu/ has LiDAR data for the mountain, and from what I can gather, lists the peak at a few inches over 3170' (with an error of less than a foot). Is it policy here to reflect the "official" elevation? I've contacted the NH Division of Parks and Rec. about this. Markstock (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitive (?) Elevation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Mount Monadnock. 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/20120731233111/http://www.monadnockmountain.com/10%20fun%20facts.htm to http://www.monadnockmountain.com/10%20fun%20facts.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201084314/http://www.americanprofile.com/article/997.html to http://www.americanprofile.com/article/997.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730234054/http://www.monadnockmountain.com/ to http://www.monadnockmountain.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723102207/http://www.chesterfieldoutdoors.com/plands/nugentDaniels0501.html to http://www.chesterfieldoutdoors.com/plands/nugentDaniels0501.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008120916/http://www.mmmtrail.org/ to http://www.mmmtrail.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731233145/http://www.monadnockmountain.com/poetry.htm to http://www.monadnockmountain.com/poetry.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119065516/http://www.mount-monadnock.com/ to http://www.mount-monadnock.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)