Jump to content

Talk:Glacier National Park (U.S.)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title change

Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Changing article titles from XXXXX (US) to XXXXX (United States). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Rethinking this decision is 5-1 in favor of using (US) for disambiguation, could we move this article back to Glacier National Park (US) ? Thanks! -- hike395 05:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Images in the Commons

I've uploaded some images to the Commons, in commons:Category:Glacier National Park. I also took the liberty of tagging the existing images there with the category, so they can be found and used more easily. --Elkman - (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very pleased you did that...I was going to do just as you did over the weekend...you even found some images I hadn't seen before. We need an image of a mountain goat...one from the main article on the animal is fine...it's the Park symbol animal...and maybe one more image f wildlife. I'm not sure we should have agallery of images at the bottom of the article...we can't use these without permission, but you may want to examine the ones from summitpost...they are pretty good...[1]--MONGO 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Climatic changes heavily studied in Glacier

Have a look at this gif and let me know if it is useful in this article...I think it may be within the public domain but it is based on a few hypothesises that would need to be adequately clarified. gif is midpage: [2]--MONGO 01:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure it's in the public domain, because the animation was the result of work done for a research paper that appeared in the journal BioScience, and copyright is assigned to the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Also, the image is pretty large (more than a megabyte), which would take a long time for a dialup user to load. There might be a way to resize it or take out some of the predictions after 2010, but that doesn't really alleviate the licensing concerns. It's an interesting topic, though, and the GIF really makes the problem of climate change evident. Maybe there's a way to illustrate it using still images that aren't part of the BioScience article. --Elkman - (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw that it's not from the USGS website and hadn't takne into account the size...the associated website may be useful I guess for reference.--MONGO 02:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Also, how do you feel about the map I uploaded...one must click the map and then open the full resolution version to actually see details...maybe this can be corrected? Also, shoule the map be moved and maybe put an image up higher in the article...lastly, I think the images in the gallery should be incorporated into the text or better even if they are left in the commons gallery. I haven't seen a lot of FA's with galleries, but maybe they exist more frequently than I am aware of.--MONGO 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The map poses a dilemma, I think. At the full resolution, it shows all of the detail of the park, but as you mentioned, you have to open the full resolution version to see everything. I have the DeLorme TopoUSA software, which allows display of maps at various resolutions, and lets you add notes to them. I have a sample map at [3] that shows what a map at intermediate resolution would look like. It doesn't display nearly as much place detail as the current map does, but there's a compromise to be made there. Also, it's showing the Flathead National Forest west of the park in the same shading as Glacier National Park, which doesn't really explain the whole story. If you think it's decent resolution or appearance, let me know and I can play with it some more. --Elkman - (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and it doesn't display Waterton Lakes National Park at all. That's the disadvantage of a program named "TopoUSA", I guess. --Elkman - (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, even though this article is concentrating on Glacier NP...any map should show Waterton as well. In fact, well, I am wondering if more discussion of Waterton isn't warrented. Anyway, your map is nice in that it demostrates the mountains better, but lacks some details and does blend into Flathead NF too much...is there a way to take our existing map and resize it somehow so that it can be used? I simply am not very good at imagery or dealing with this kind of problem.--MONGO 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I took the original map and scaled it to 70%. Here's the result. I don't know what the maximum image size is that MediaWiki will display, without viewing the high resolution version, but this is about as small as I can make it without making all of the original text unreadable.
Also, here's another idea: Maybe we can have higher-resolution maps (like sections of the full-size map) within sub-articles for the popular sections that are hiking trailheads, like Two Medicine, St. Mary Lake, Many Glacier, Lake McDonald, and Goat Haunt. Come to think of it, Two Medicine, Many Glacier, and Goat Haunt still need articles, or at least stubs. --Elkman - (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not bad...I looked over Yellowstone National Park...it has a map similar to your Topousa one and another very basic map and that is all. Bryce Canyon National Park has the same set up this article has...a large file map and one must open the high resolution version to see the details, and it doesn't seem all that bad there. Carlsbad Caverns National Park has no map at all. Lastly, Zion National Park has a map courtesy of the USGS that is both descriptive and shows physical relief. These four parks are the National Parks in the U.S. that have become featured in case you wonder why I mentioned them. I guess the way we have it isn't bad, but as it sits on the page now, the placenames look like a lot of smears on the map and they can't be read at all. I am not sure how to proceed so I will trust your judgement. I'll work on those stubs later on tonight and get a few of them done.--MONGO 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look at them, and I'll see if I can find the featured article reviews tomorrow to see if anyone commented on maps. Of the ones you mentioned, I think the map for Zion National Park looks the best as a thumbnail -- it shows the major areas of the park in the thumbnail, without being overly complex or overly vague. I'll see if USGS or NPS have any maps that would work in a thumbnail resolution. (But not tonight -- I should get some sleep.) --Elkman - (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I added some additional links but none of them seem to be working so I may delete them in a day or two if they don't fix themselves.--MONGO 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they seem to be fine now.--MONGO 10:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To-do list

As far as I can tell, the following articles still need to be written (according to the list you had on your user page and the redlinks in the current article):

(We can just strike these out or delete them as the links go blue.) Anything else that should be created?

Also, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to create a Glacier National Park (US) category for the articles related to Glacier National Park. What do you think? --Elkman - (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have a ways to go...we need to ensure they are all linked into article space too. I see some further expansion is still need in the article regarding a mention of air quality and few other areas and I'll get to those tonight. I also do not think we should have the gallery at the end...it looks unencyclopedic...I contacted a few of those that uploaded the images and hope we can get them to commons and simply have them there. We also need to make sure all related images are in commons...from the daughter articles and from this main page. Maybe another week of fine tuning and finishing up these stubs and off to peer review this goes.--MONGO 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the gallery is unencyclopedic, necessarily, but it does look a little bit out of place -- like it's hanging there, unexplained. I think we could probably move the pictures to the appropriate sub-articles, and save the best (most explanatory) pictures for the main article. --Elkman - (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Acres to hectares or square kilometers

My understanding is that while acres is more commonly used in the U.S., hectares is actually only used by a relative few in those areas that use the metric system. Usually, those who use the metric system use square kilometers for larger areas. I can see why some would want to have square miles convert to square kilomters and acres to hectares, but it isn't that simple is it....in the U.S., few people I know identify area as square miles and most prefer the term acreage since they have a better concept of how big an acre is...you know, 40 acres and a mule, etc...they didn't say 4 square miles and a mule. My understanding of those peple who use the metric system is that hectares isn't widely used...comments?--MONGO 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The standard I have tried to keep for all National Park articles is sq. mi. and sq. km in the text and acres and hectares in the infobox. This allows us to use all four formats which are used by various park authorities. They wouldn't have said 4 square miles and a mule unless they had really high expectations (that's 2560 acres). Rmhermen 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I know you've been around since Wikipedia was a baby, so I just wanted the clarification. I have been using acres and square kilometers when comparing the two measurements as I always thought that most folks in the metric speaking world had a better grasp of square kilometers than they did of hectares. I persoanlly do not comprehend the measurement of square miles, and understand acres better, being much more familiar with that measurement. Appropirately, it is best to compare acres-hectares and sq. miles to sq. kilometers...but as I surf around U.S. government websites, they rarely use square miles when discussing their protected areas. For non U.S. websites, what is the standard?--MONGO 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Both hectares and kilometers are used by parks bodies. Rmhermen 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bird Woman Falls

We have bird woman falls listed as "perhaps the tallest waterfall" in the park. "Perhaps" seems odd phrasing--one would think it either would be or wouldn't be the tallest. The reference just gives a height, and [4] would seem to indicate that it may not in fact be the tallest. Unless I'm missing something here, we should probably remove the claim. --RobthTalk 01:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find a listing of tallest waterfalls for the park. I'll change it if it hasn't been done so already.--MONGO 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Status

Article is at 40kb...and shouldn't get a lot bigger unless we dicide to expand some areas. Been doing some fact checking and found a few misleading facts and have been working on correcting them. We still have the stubbies above and some wordplay here and there, but I think the article is close to being able to get it over to Peer Review in about a week or less. Any thoughts?--MONGO 08:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's looking really good. I hope that the Peer Review / FAC process makes it better (as opposed to simply different). One (minor) thing: I think that Glaciers are part of Geology, should that be a subsection? In fact, usually when we write geology sections, they're in chronological order, so that glaciers would come last. Although, they are what the park was named after, so I can see wanting to put them first.
Overall -- I think you've done a great job shepherding this article! -- hike395 12:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point...I'll subsection glaciers under geology and maybe recreate geology as a geography and geology section..thanks for the input!--MONGO 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the organization of the article is looking good at this point, and the information is basically complete. I don't see any glaring omissions or anything like that. Of course, I've been working with this article (and the series of sub-articles) long enough that it's hard for me to spot anything missing. A fresh set of eyes looking at it through peer review might come up with any additions or changes needed, but probably nothing too serious. --Elkman - (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a new reference that is good for the glaciers with repeat photography. It does not contain any real new information on the glaciers just nice paired photographs [[5]]Peltoms 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job sir....the images of Grinnell Glacier taken that are newer than the 1981 shot, namely from 1998 and 2005 are dramatic...I may use this over at Retreat of glaciers since 1850 as well...good show.--MONGO 08:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Your retreat rates are too high where did they come from. If you multiply them out you end up with an unrealistically long glacier to start with.Peltoms 12:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked over the information, and what I had was accurate according to the source which is here [6], but I agree with you, there is no way that the galciers could have lost that amount of ice...they would have disappeared conpletely years ago, so I took out the numbers and left only the periods and the area lost which seems more realistic.--MONGO 16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing ref

The article has been missing a ref since this edit of March 22, when the glaciers gone by 2030 statement was sourced to a named ref "retreat", but there is no named ref "retreat". Was there supposed to be a different ref named "retreat", or should the original source be restored? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Duh...I finally fixed it. I'll try and watch this better...thanks for pointing it out.--MONGO 05:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Move

This page should be moved to Glacier National Park (United States). "US" is not very encyclopedic and should generally be avoided if possible. Funnyhat 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose we make sure this article is as good as it can be so we can try to get it on the main page on May 11, the 99th anniversary of the park. Jonathunder (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Better wait one more year. This would be the perfect article of the day for May 11 2010. But the article could be updated anyway. The visitor count for the years 2002 through 2007 was recently discovered to be 5 % too high, the centennial program has already started and will of course culminate in 2010. The discussion over shelling the southern park border range to protect the railroad from avalanches might be mentioned, even though the proposal was denied last year. New interpretation of the glacier retreat data allows a projection that the last glacier in the park will melt in 2020, not in 2030 as previously thought. --h-stt !? 19:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Please take a look at the image category on commons, I uploaded lots of really nice new images and two NPS video podcasts that fit in nicely. And even if you don't speak the language you might take a look at the German language article on the park, I expanded that recently and hope to get it promoted to featured status there.
I don't know the language, but it appears the German version has a whole section on Native Americans, while this language has one paragraph. Maybe someone could translate that material. I also see the German has lots of lovely photos.
I spent one summer in college working in the park, an experience I will always treasure. Jonathunder (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As featured articles are shorter here, I can't translate all German language text on prehistoric and historic Native Americans in and around today's park. But I will add two sentences or so on the treaty of 1895 and the dispute over the designation. Regarding images: I put all newly uploaded images in the corresponding categoty on commons, just browse there and use whatever you like. --h-stt !? 07:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this article will need to be updated in force leading up to the 100th anniversary of the park's creation in 1910. Incorporation of some of the Native American issues would be a great idea. I'd prefer to not see radical updates until we get closer to late 2009 or early 2010...but any updates are fine so long as we keep uniformity in the references etc.--MONGO 20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

References

It looks like there's a lot of unsourced claims in here; most featured articles appear to have one reference per sentence or two. Silver Penguin (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Working to FA status

Will be working on trying to get this article to Featured Article level. The core of the article is excellent. I see major weak areas being a discussion of the glaciers themselves and how this park has had a lot of research done over a long period of time which clearly demostrates that the glaciers are retreating rapidly and may all disappear in a few decades. Expansion of the history, Native American issues of the park, flora and fauna, as well as recreation is in order as well...hope to target the article at less than 45 kb, but I am currently working on supporting stubs that can be simply linked from the main article within the text. I have stated accumulating existing and needed stubs here as follows:

--MONGO 20:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There's also Granite Park Chalet, the other remaining chalet from the Great Northern Railway days. I'm not sure if it needs a stub or not. Actually, I don't think there's much mention of the lodges (like the Lake McDonald Lodge, Many Glacier Hotel, and the Glacier Park Lodge) or inns (Village Inn, Rising Sun, and Swiftcurrent). The lodges are historic, in keeping with the era in which they were built. There's more on the park concessions at glacierparkinc.com, but I'm not sure yet how much of this needs to be in the article. --Elkman - (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a brief mention is warrented...I read that the park has 6 structures listed that are on the national register of historic structures, or somehting along those lines. Probably best to expand on them in the recreation section....?--MONGO 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The main Glacier National Park page says that there are 350 structures on the National Register of Historic Places, and six National Historic Landmarks. Here's what I've found for National Historic Landmarks:
Great Northern Railway Buildings - covers Many Glacier Hotel, Sperry and Granite Park Chalets, and Two Medicine Store
Lake McDonald Lodge
Going-to-the-Sun Road
A query of the National Register database for Flathead County, MT lists several other structures, like the Harrison Lake Patrol Cabin, Huckleberry Fire Overlook, Kintla Lake Ranger Station, and others. I don't think a list of all 350 of these structures is necessary, but the National Historic Landmarks are worth covering. --Elkman - (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoa...place is historic...350 though, that surprises me...I agree that those that are National Historic Landmarks should be mentioned, maybe even stubbed. Thanks for the links too...also take a look at the cited references format...is this the style you think is best or do you think it is better with ref|note style. This style the reference is embedded in article text as shown if you click edit this page....in ref|note, there is just a small link and then the reference is as usual in the bottom of the article...it's a non template versus template deal...I used ref|note in Shoshone National Forest and it worked fine there...but thought I would try this style here, and see how it works.--MONGO 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the cited references format, as opposed to the ref/note style. It's convenient to be able to put the reference right into the text where you're working, instead of having to add a {{ref}} in one place and then match it up with the {{note}} later. It's a little less error prone, as well -- there's less risk of forgetting to put in the corresponding note later on. --Elkman - (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Found this article (list actually)....List of Registered Historic Places in Montana but it may be incomplete. Have a look at the manner in which I did the first three references...I comnpletely eliminated the template and it seems to render fine...but should I instead be using the cite web, etc template in article text...I just think it takes up too much room in the editing window...thoughts? Also, just stubbed Kintla Peak and Granite Park Chalet as well as Lewis Range and Livingston Range.--MONGO 06:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm not overly concerned about using the {{Cite web}} template -- I'm not going to force it on anyone. If someone reviews the article later and insists on it, the template can be added later. The important part is just getting the reference in there in the first place. --Elkman - (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as far as List of Registered Historic Places in Montana goes: That certainly is a long list, isn't it? It may actually be a complete list; I'm not sure. I've barely scratched the surface of List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota, my home state. --Elkman - (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Great work by everyone who did this - I especially love the beautiful photographs! Princess Caraboo (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Canada Lynx Status

The Canadian Lynx is mentioned in this article as one of two threatened species in Glacier NP. However, following the link shows the Canada Lynx (the correct name) is classified as Least Concern. I'm not an expert on threatened species, but I'm more inclined to believe the Lynx article than the Glacier article, so should this be changed? Boegiboe (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

LC is true on a global scale, in the lower 48 of the US the Lynx is listed as threatened by the FWS. Please scroll to the very last paragraph of the lynx article. --h-stt !? 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To Do

  • There is WP:OVERLINKing, and many of the citations have chanaged since the article was written-- all of the info needs to be verified versus the new pages, and citations should include date and author when avaiable. We can't just update the URL and change the accessdate-- text has to be verified. On the NPS Glacier site, there are two new pages of proposed changes to Fishing, for example. All of the NPS Glac citations need dates, and authors when given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this is fine as it is. "Clark's nutcracker" is named for William Clark and "Steller's jay" is named for Georg Steller, which is why those words are capitalized. And "Great" is the first word of the sentence!  ; ) MeegsC | Talk 02:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The current map by the NPS is available on Commons at: File:Map of Glacier National Park.png. It shows the terrain by shading. The yellow and red version is outdated. --h-stt !? 22:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter McClintock Lantern Slides

Many of the historic photographs at Commons at Category:Walter_McClintock_Lantern_Slides appear to be from the Glacier National Park area. Someone familiar with the park could probably identify the mountains and lakes. The photos are described both as Blackfeet and Siksika Nation, from Montana. Someone familiar with the tribal history could probably determine how to categorize them correctly. If all this land was Blackfoot or Siksika Nation land at the time, should all the photos get those tags, even if they are only landscapes ? Djembayz (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Map error

The location indicated on the map is the location of Yellowstone National Park. Wavelength 18:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please post here when this is fixed. David Spector (user/talk) 01:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't need fixing...the location map coordinates are correct and the dot on the map clearly is in the correct location.--MONGO 13:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn Armbrust The Homunculus 07:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Glacier National Park (U.S.) → Glacier National Park (United States) – I believe that the use of the full country name as the disambiguator is preferred, and the short form/abbreviation is discouraged. The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As of this moment, I greatly prefer the abbreviated U.S. instead of the country spelled out. I'd have to think about this.--MONGO 05:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe MOS calls for it to be spelled out. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm searching MOS now...there was a lot of chatter in 2005-2006 about whether these titled articles should be United States, US or U.S.. See first discussion at top of this page. Glacier National Park (US) was redirected to this current title in 2007 here...Glacier National Park (United States) was moved to the (US) abbreviated form prior to that in 2006...[7]--MONGO 06:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Rename proposal withdrawn. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms as disambiguators says the abbreviation is preferred. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glacier National Park (U.S.). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glacier National Park (U.S.). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Glacier National Park (U.S.). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Glacier National Park (U.S.). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glacier National Park (U.S.). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

Time for a new lead image maybe? Current one has many visible marks (dust spots from scanning a 35mm slide or negative maybe) and overexposed hairs along edges of the goat, and it's not very sharp and/or has shallow depth of field, while showing practically nothing of the mountainous terrain or glaciers. This image here, however, is clearer, sharper, with a balanced exposure, and includes mountains, glaciers, meadows, trees, a lake, and a mountain goat. OK, the goat's facing away from the article, and you can't see the eye detail, but otherwise it's a much better image for the infobox. It was uploaded about 2 months ago. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That would be fine but can we swap the direction the goat is looking...have the goat looking to left and not to right. Silly I know but its preferred to have critters such as humans and maybe even goats look at the article rather than away from it. Like was done [8] for infobox placement or right hand alignment.--MONGO (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I am just kidding actually. I recognize the mountains would then be incorrect unless we said it was a mirror image.--MONGO (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, changing image, but w/o mirroring it. Somehow you avoided the strictest of the wiki-cops w/that Raynolds mirroring job. ;) Brian W. Schaller (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Pop culture section

How are a documentary, a travelogue & a Cosmo article considered pop culture refs? I've mostly only seen feature films, TV shows, pop music, etc. style stuff in such sections. Shouldn't these three just be ext links, or maybe "Further reading" for the latter two? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to move these items, & remove the section, as there's been no comment after several days. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Update needed

Grinnell Glacier a Jackson Glacier did grow (about 25% growth) from the year 2010. The article does not reflect that at all. Same for the consequent articles... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/07/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs/ --Dee (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source.--MONGO (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Using various IP addresses to POV push this hogwash will result in me reverting them as vandalism and/or asking for semi-protection.--MONGO (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
An IP has twice inserted a claim that glaciers in Glacier are growing. This was sourced to Science Global News, which appears to be an aggregator, which picked up the content from strangesounds.org, which is pretty definitively not a reliable source. Even the content that was scraped acknowledges that there has been no reporting about this in mainstream sources of the kind that Wikipedia relies upon, and the latter part of the quoted article amounts to a rant about an impending ice age. The material is not usable here. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The signage about glaciers possibly disappearing by 2020 may have been removed, but there is zero evidence in any scientific journals to show that any glaciers are advancing in the park.--MONGO (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Some glaciers may continue to exist till 2050 or longer, but the overall trend over the past 150 plus years is significant retreat. [9].--MONGO (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The IP added the same source back, along with a report of a rumor, probably from the same source, that was reported on a call-in show. Those are still not acceptable sources. They also added a more nuanced source that describes the signage business and short-term trends in park glaciers [10]. I suspect that this series of edits is an attempt to try to impose some sort of gotcha, ignoring a 150-year trend and confusing weather with climate. Given that Glacier's glaciers have been a sort of poster child for climate change, this is likely to continue. The article needs to strictly hew to scholarship, such as the source MONGO mentions. At most, assuming there is scholarship out there that supports the National Parks Traveler discussion, we can mention that decline is not steady (snowy winters can happen, and weather pattern changes in a warming climate can produce locally-heavier precipitation), but the long-term trend is clear. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

FA sweeps

I reviewed this article as it is one of the oldest unreviewed featured articles. I noticed that it has accumulated some unsourced statements, and flagged them. I am not a specialist in this area so there may well be other issues that I didn't notice. (t · c) buidhe 06:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The article had a major update in 2010 and while that is still a decade ago, it is a few years after ti went to FAC. The reason for the update was to prepare it for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the park in 1910.--MONGO (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I really don't get why people like yourself can find the time to slap cite needed tags on articles (asking in many cases for a citation for what is hardly a controversial issue that needs a citation!) and not the time to do a tiny bit of reference searching on their own. It looks like shit to be frank. [11] are cites really needed for obvious details like where route 2 goes or about whether dogs are allowed on trails or that guide and shuttle services are available?? Also if you're going to festoon FAs with such pollution, add a date to the tags would you?[12]--MONGO (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to mark this as satisfactory with note. There are two sentences that need updating in my opinion, and I can't get the climate template to expand per default for the manual of style. @MONGO, if you agree with me, you're also invited to mark your own featured article(s) as satisfactory at Wikipedia:URFA/2020. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@MONGO and Femkemilene: this is the sort of thing that needs to be reviewed and updated throughout:[13]. The article is still largely cited to very old pages, which have been updated, and as of dates should be provided. This is a sample only (which I saw as I was adjusting images); please ping me when done, so I can mark “Satisfactory” at WP:URFA/2020.

MONGO, re your comment above, we have 4,000 very old featured articles to go through and most of us are working ‘round the clock on those; it’s not possible for reviewers to get to all of the work ourselves, even for articles like this (my favorite place on Earth), no matter how much we want to :). There is no pressure, but we can’t do it all, and have to keep checking back as to which articles we can check off. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This is another example of the kind of thing that needs to be checked throughout. MONGO, few FAs endure long enough to need this sort of change, and I’m glad this one has :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @MONGO, Femkemilene, SandyGeorgia, and Atsme: There are still some failed verification tags in this article. Is anyone interested in adding new sources for these tags? If not, can someone bring this to WP:FAR, so interested editors may discover this article there and make improvements? Unfortunately, I am at my 5 article limit at FAR (and Sandy probably is, too) so I would not be able to nominate this for a while. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I'll get started on it tomorrow. Atsme 💬 📧 06:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: Why are you at a limit on FAR nominations?--MONGO (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
This article will be updated in 2022.--MONGO (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@MONGO: editors at FAR are limited to five nominations at a time, and can only nominate one per week. This is because nominators are expected to provide regular reviews of articles they nominate (if someone is willing to work on them) and to prevent the FAR system from being overwhelmed. I am happy that Atsme is going to work on this, and I saw your message at WT:URFA/2020 stating that you are working on various FAs, too. Please ping me if this article is ready for another review. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)/Archive_1&oldid=1250454765"