This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Um? No. I was referring to the term "majesty", the rest of my edits were for consistency. Maybe you didn't see the edit because the spacing got changed too.
Katr6721:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'm all about gender-neutral language (hmm, does that make it a "peahen term"?), but neutering the "Old Man" would just be silly. :) Happy editing!
Katr6721:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Originality
The sources are cited, but reasonably large lengths of text are often copied word-for-word. Needs to be rewritten to avoid deletion due to copyright violation?
Jefromi (
talk)
17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Dating?
The only date seems to be from the earliest observation. Out of curiosity, has any technical dating method (e.g. carbon dating) been applied? --
Securiger (
talk)
07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
A bobbing tree in a lake, no matter how old, does not merit a separate article. Considering the humble size of the article, this should really be joined with
Crater Lake.
If there was enough encyclopedic information about this tree to merit a separate article, then why is it still lingering at less than 5k with plenty of rather trivial information? What seems most relevant here is the tree's relation to the lake, not tourism or its relatively short history (compare with thousand year old cedars and various
Petrified Forests). There seems to be nothing about the tree that isn't directly associated with Crater Lake, which has an article at a mere 12k. We're talking about a biological curiosity that does nothing but drift around a lake without generating any significant cultural impact.
5K is "big" enough for GA class. Usually only subs are merged due to length, not a Start class article. As to lingering, um, Wikipedia doesn't write itself, so many articles linger at a smaller size than what they may eventually become, again not a reason for a
merge.
Aboutmovies (
talk)
11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
How is this topic in any way independent of the lake article? What is the benefit of keeping two articles with less than 20k of info between them separate when one is quite obviously a dependent of the other? If there's no reason for a merge, then what exactly was the point of separating them in the first place?
And Crater Lake would be dependent on say
Cascade Range, which could be considered dependent on the
United States. Actually lets just merge everything into
Universe? Pretty much everything can be upmerged into something else. But getting a separate article is based on
notability, which this article's subject appears to pass. There are about 10 Crater Lake related articles (see its cat), combining them all would make for a large and unwieldy article.
Aboutmovies (
talk)
21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
This is not The Battle against the Mergists Part XXIV. Please don't turn this into an argumentation absurdly polarized principles. The Crater Lake category includes topics that are related to various degrees with the lake, but with at least the barest minimum of independence of it. This particular article stands out like a sore thumb. It's neither a building, road, person, geological formation or national park. It's not considered holy, or of any particular cultural significance. It's not especially old or large or, indeed, even alive. It seems relevant only within the context of in Crater Lake.
it is too a geological formation, or at least it will become one eventually, when enough minerals deposit by evaporation to sink it. Or whenever that threatens to happen, does the next rain lower the mineral levels enough to dissolve the minerals from the sunk parts and up it goes again? If you threw another big log in there, would it do the same thing or would it lose buoyancy and sink? Was it dropped by an early logger, or has it been there for thousands, not hundreds of years? All these unanswered questions. Insect life? Woodpeckers? Were the branches below the water line cut off with an identifiable make of dragsaw? Was it a victim of a landslide? Does it periodically sink and get replaced in a secret ceremony involving removal of branches by a team of Sasquatches and local Eagle scouts, supervised by Klamath elders? So many questions. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.87.138.107 (
talk)
22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Old Man of the Lake. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.
It seems sensationalized by Mark Buktenica for the CBS News in reference 7. Wording such as "superstition got the best of the scientists" looks jarring. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.66.70.59 (
talk)
16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Proposed change:
In 1988, submarine explorations were conducted in the lake, and the scientists decided to tie the Old Man off the eastern side of Wizard Island to neutralize the navigational hazard until their research work was complete. Upon immobilizing the log, the weather went from clear to stormy. After it started snowing in August, scientists released the Old Man for likely superstitions reasons. Soon after, the weather cleared up, reinforcing the belief.