Talk:Old Man of the Mountain

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Old Man of the Mountain article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

United States: New Hampshire / New Hampshire Mountains Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains (assessed as Mid-importance).

Timeline - is that necessary?

What do people think about killing the timeline, and incorporating the material into next as necessary? Much of its material is already mentioned in the article - it seems clumsy and duplicative (if that's a word). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. Better to just have a single chronology, using standard paragraphs. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally happen to like the timeline as it is a great snapshot of the full history that is easily readable. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to the talk page to see if anyone had said this - I agree wholeheartedly. It seems both congested and unnecessary. I recommend that it's removed, and the information is simply reintegrated to the article. BakedintheHole (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a normal photo?

I have two proposals, we should choose one: (1) all around wikipedia, if anybody is deceased, we should display a composite image that shows them as a semi transparent ghost so nobody mistakenly will think that they are alive (2) leave the rest of wikipedia alone, and restore a picture of actual Old Man of the Mountain to this page, and let people know in text that it no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.224.172 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the image used depicts the article topic very well. No need for change. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it's an unusual composite but it's informative and useful. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]