Talk:Appalachian Trail/Archive 1

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

Hazards

The article states that 9 murders have occured on the trail, it then goes on to state, "However, the chances for getting struck by lightning while on the trail are better than for getting murdered." Can someone cite the ten or more lightening deaths on the trail, or was this conjecture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.66.70 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

External links control

Started discussion on External Links content control. Please add your comments to the section below so we can hopefully find a reasonable standard for this wikipedia entry. --M factor 14:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

State mileage

8/4/05 I have added sections detailing certain states' mileage of the AT (in particular, the ones I've hiked). I added them after the Maine subheading, going geographically N to S (though the state descriptions travel S to N, the direction of most thru-hikers). I've tried to include as many relevant links as possible, without getting over-detailed. Eventually there should be a subheading for each state, IMO.

I added 2 more notable books about hiking the AT in the "Literature" section as well. - Moose Boy 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Trail blazes

7/16/05 The Trail Blazes image should be removed. 3 of the 6 images are not used on the AT at all. (End of Trail, Start of Trail, Spur Trail.) The most common blaze after the single 2x6 white blaze is a double blaze, one over the other, used to mark a turn that might be missed, and is not included in the image. I also just changed 'Conference' to 'Conservancy' as the ATC has changed its name in 2005. TJ aka Teej

Surely there are trails that start or end at the AT and use the End of Trail and Start of Trail blazes when they do so? The blazes don't have to be actual AT blazes to be relevant to hikers on the AT. And I've seen AT Turn Signal blazes that are stepped right or left, though it is true that they frequently aren't stepped. I'll grant you, I've never seen the Spur Trail blaze; maybe its a western thing? -- Mwanner 18:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading once that the 12 miles or so east from Maine Junction in Vermont to the road were once blazed in blue, not white. The Long_Trail, as the older trail, has precedence, relegating the AT to a side trail for this stretch. When I hiked through Maine Junction in 1999, both trails where blazed in white. If this were ever true, it isn't anymore. Does anybody know the truth of the matter? And is it worth adding to the main article as trivia? Mlwilson 06:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Sources: One paragraph of this page is drawn verbatim from the National Parks Service page (the one including the words "99 percent"). The history is based on the ATC history from their site.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachshund (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 September 2002 (UTC)

Thru-hiker

This is very good. I just want to say that I think the almost universal spelling of 'through-hiker' is 'thru-hiker,' at least among the hikers themselves. I have seen this spelling uniformily in logs and also on mile-by-mile guide books for such hikers. So we might consider changing that, or at least indicating the abbreviation. Also, adding a bit about how shelter and water is provided in many places would be good, as this makes extended hiking feasible. Also, a bit about the culture (logs, trail names, dogs, etc) would be cool.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.45.56 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2003 (UTC)

Pictures

Pictures-- we need pictures! At least one. The ATC has some fantastic ones, but they're all copyrighted by volunteers. Anyone who has good pictures and is willing to release one or two under the FDL, please do so!! Dachshund

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachshund (talk • contribs) 05:15, 1 August 2003 (UTC)

Eminent domain

quote--In the 1960s, the ATC made real progress toward protecting the trail from development thanks to a number of sympathetic politicians and officials. The "National Trails System Act" of 1968, paved the way for a series of national scenic trails within the national park and national forest systems. Trail volunteers worked with the National Park Service to map a permanent route for the trail, and by 1971 a permanent route had been marked (though minor changes continue to this day). By the close of the 20th century, the Parks Service had completed the purchase of all but a few miles of the trail's span. Completion of all purchases is currently scheduled to occur in 2004

NPOV requires documentation of the ugly truth of eminent domain being used to seize land for the greenway. Don't get me wrong, I love the trail, but I feel eminent domain has been abused along the way towards creation. 66.173.192.96 18:29, 11 September 2004 (UTC)

History Paragraph 4

The Boy Scout section is sandwiched between "man-made setbacks" and "damage to the trail." It is not clear what this damage is, and thus it appears that the Boy Scouts are the damagers of the trail. That doesn't seem likely.

I agree that the proper spelling is thru-hiker, based mostly on Appalachian Mountain Club publications and AMC Hut logbooks. Ubermonkey 20:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the text you're referring to is supposed to indicate that the boy scouts fixed things, but it it so badly written that I'm not at all clear what it means. I am going to delete it:
It is said that a group of Boy Scouts from the New York metropolitan area, with exceptional support such as trucked-in supplies, covered the whole trail (at least among them) some time in this period. It may not be clear whether any individual covered the whole route, nor whether contemporaneous records exist, and it appears any surviving participants are not pursuing credit.
It's been there since October 12, 2003, entered by User:Schlafriesen whose only edits are to this article. If anyone can figure out what it's trying to say, or knows the story better, by all means... -- Mwanner 20:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
That's great, thanks for the story and links. I'll re-add it to the History section. -- Mwanner 20:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maine

Mahoosuc notch

For some reason, the mention of Mahoosuc Notch is hotlinked, which would give a reader the impression that extra information about this trail section can be obtained by clicking on the link.

In fact, the link just forwards back to this same article. I didn't change it because I thought somebody might have a reason for this. But I think either a separate article about the Notch should be added, or the hotlinking removed.

ACW 20:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably just a matter of someone linking to the Notch in another article, finding it red, and setting up the redirect instead of a stub. Unless you're convinced MN ME could be more than a stub (i doubt it), unlinking would be a good move. If you do think it can, best move would be to prove it by writing more than a stub: if you create a stub, i'll give it a read, and probably VfD it unless your stub is suggestive enough to change my view that there's too little to say. --Jerzy (t) 21:44, 1 Apr & 22:07, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
If there were something fruther to say, it would probably be about the geology that produces it. And a sentence about the survival of ice in hidden areas year round, producing pronounced cool spots that summer hikers enjoy.

--Jerzy·t 22:07, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Kennebec River

The phrase "requires a boat crossing" was in conflict with a misinterpretation that is invited earlier, i.e., that "includes a 70-yard-wide crossing" is intended to suggest wading. Reworded for that reason, in the process of moving the Maine section.
--Jerzy·t 22:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Conn

I've added the largest state section, for one of the most AT-under-endowed of the states. IMO, much of it would better go out into something like The Appalachian Trail in Connecticut. But IMO the fleshing out of other sections will make it clearer no only how state-limited articles should be titled, but how much of CT's current text belongs in which article. (IMO, the confusion about the "second NY portion" is more pertintent here than any of the CT material that i found or the rest that i added.)
--Jerzy·t 22:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links content control

I think the external links needs some paring down. If we start including individuals' web sites, we could open up a whole can of worms. Then again, I could always add my own web site to the mix, too.  ;-) Also, I think links such as the CT AT link don't work. For uniformity's sake, we should either include links to all of the ATC's state pages, or none of them. As it is, even without the CT page link, there are already three other links to the ATC web site (top level, history, and newsletters). Perhaps they can be combined with more descriptive text leading to the subtopics. Also, with a link to the Maine AT Club, we're opening the external links section to links to all of the different maintaining clubs along the trail.

On the other hand, if the point is to put in as much information as possible, we will need to better organize (categorize?) the external links section.

I am willing to make these changes myself but as I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia editing, I was hoping for some confirming discussion (as simple as a "sounds good" comment from someone else will work) as these may be seen as more than minor changes and I don't want to feel like I'm stepping on someone's toes.
--M factor 14:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Crime

I've heard about crime on the trail and concerns about safety issues. Some information on this would be nice. --Scott W 208.22.45.147 19:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Category?

Should this article have its own Category:Appalachian Trail? If you think so, would anyone out there be willing to populate it with places on the trail, and with people etc. associated with the trail? — Eoghanacht talk 19:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

AT locations could be in a subcategory, since there are so many of them, but they'd be listed alphabetically. In a list they could be sorted by latitude or distance from one end. --Snarius 02:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

I think this article is in contigency to be a good article. Any ideas that could get it there?--Esprit15d 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    • The path section might need to be split off into a new article.
    • The article needs a lot more references. Mostly all the references that currently exist are from teh official website. Also, many statistics are unreferenced.
      —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Locations of Interest

I think that there should be a locations of interest with pictures. See Pacific Crest Trail locations of interest--roger6106 18:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is already long, you could probably add that in the Appalachian Trail by state article, which expands on the features in each individual state.--Esprit15d 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Items needed

What about costs, time to complete(sections), and other stuff valuable to someone wanting to attempt the AT (like lists of items and things you should have for different sections?

  • Wikipedia articles are not really meant to be how-to guides, if you're actually going to be doing the trail you really should consult the various books/guides/FAQs listed in the external links. Some of this information is already there, like time to complete, I suppose some summaries of what experts say about cost and equipment would be a good idea. --W.marsh 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reguardless though, the reason the points of interest section that is present for the Pacific Crest trail page is not present for the Appalachian trail page, is that no one has contributed media that is of the relevance that the pacific crst trail pictures are. If you have good pictures, please contribute, they will make it into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.255.131 (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is NOT a guide for how to hike it. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide - that's one of its central tenants - and the original query was about lists of things "you should have", which does not belong here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Bill Bryson's book

Polls of the readers of Trailplace.com, WhiteBlaze.net, the AT email list aka the at-l, and of hikers at ALDHA Gatherings and Traildays have never found a single hiker or service provider who met Bryson or Katz on the Appalachian Trail, or even found anyone who has ever heard of anyone who met Bryson or Katz on the AT. Bryson was booked to hold a question and answer talk at an ALDHA Gathering at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH after his book became a bestseller. Bryson, a Hanover resident living just a 15 minute walk from the hall, canceled only after the hall filled with members of the hiker community. The use of "alleged" concerning his AT "hike" is a proper Wiki use here. MajorRogers 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the reason Bryson canceled is because he's aware of how hostile much of the hiker community is towards him. All of the supposed evidence you mention is original research and therefore impermissible here. Find a reliable source that makes the case that Bryson might not have actually hiked the trail, and then we can consider putting in the word "alleged."
Also, it's silly to say that the book is "considered by some to be" a humorous view of the trail from a less-than-fit person's perspective. I assume by this you mean that not everyone finds the book funny. Well, not everyone finds Jerry Seinfeld or George Carlin funny, but there's no need to say that they are "considered by some to be" comedians. Bryson's book is a humor book; whether or not you found it funny is irrelevant.
I'll hold off on reverting your edits until we are done with this discussion. Dce7 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't bother to get into a silly revert war with someone from outside the AT community over this. It's an AT thing Dce7, you wouldn't understand. MajorRogers 01:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have any refutation to what I said above, I am reverting your edit. You shouldn't assume that I'm outside the AT community. Dce7 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Dce7 is in the right here. This is Wikipedia, not an AT Forum. We present things from a neutral point of view and draw from reliable sources, not message board posts. --W.marsh 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
W.Marsh, please cite a reliable source saying Bryson actually hiked any of the Appalachian Trail. MajorRogers 02:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Bryson's book is a reliable source. And news stories about it, of which there are a few. --W.marsh 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Dce7 02:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So, W.Marsh, it's your POV that his novel is a "reliable source"? And what "news stories"? About him actually being on the Trail? Or about him having written a book claiming to have done so with his fictional sidekick? Remember, we at Wikipedia work hard at having our encyclopedic content verifiable, so please cite your source(s) for his novel being a "reliable source." MajorRogers 02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not his POV that the novel is a reliable source. Please read WP:RS, which states: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Bryson's book meets this standard: it was published through a reliable publication process, and its author is generally regarded as trustworthy (though you obviously disagree). Dce7 02:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that there are published books and articles that claim he walked the trail. There are forum posts that claim he didn't. There are forum posts that claim George W. Bush is a space alien... we have a reliable sourcing polices to address this general kind of problem. If you have published articles saying Bryson didn't hike the trail, great, we can use those. --W.marsh 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
W.Marsh, there is only one book that claims he hiked parts of the AT. There may be many "published books and articles" that comment on his book and the claims he makes in it. There is no known seperate source varifying any of his claims. No photos, no Katz, no mention in any hiker journals or hostel records. If you, or anyone, know of any published books or articles saying Bryson hiked the trail, let's see them. Bryson's hike is still only an alleged one. MajorRogers 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Forget the other articles. The book itself is a reliable source — look at what I wrote above. Dce7 03:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
He was barely on the trail. He himself admits he didn't even walk a tenth of it. And the population on the trail is sparse, its not like he was on Cananl St. in Manhattan. The fact that no one HAS WRITTEN A MEDIA ARTICLE about him being there actually means exactly nothing. The people who would have testified to this probably were fellow walkers who walked some (or the whole thing) then went home, never to be heard from again. Just because you don't know anyone who saw him hardly means he didn't walk it. Above all else, the book is certainly notable and meets all standards of reliability and Wikipedia inclusion runs on simple rules: notablity and attribution. As soon as your theory meets those same standards, it goes in the article.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The contributions of these three AT-disconnected Wikipedians is a good illustration of the weakness of Wiki. Anyone with a keyboard becomes an "expert," ala Bill Bryson. I certainly won't waste anymore time on this issue with these people - outsiders have one opinion of Bryson's book, members of the AT community have another. MajorRogers 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Your attitude is unfortunate. Instead of attempting to engage with our points, you insult us as uninformed outsiders, even though you know nothing about us. I assure you that I personally have spent far more time on and am more familiar with the AT than you ever would guess. I would also remind you that this dispute is not about "opinions of Bryson's book" but rather the application of clearly stated Wikipedia guidelines. I hope in the future you will avoid disparaging other editors when they voice valid criticisms. Dce7 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest Deletion of Extraneous Phrase

I move for the deletion or movement of the following phrase because I feel it is extraneous, as it fails to fit in the section's theme of discussing the historical development of the trail. Perhaps it would be better suited in a famous persons/references section. "On April 23, 1998, President Bill Clinton with Vice President Al Gore planted phlox and patched a stone wall along the AT in Harpers Ferry National Historical Park in support of environmental initiatives." Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Props!

I found this page highly informative. The wife and I just took a trip up to the mountains, and this info was just what we were looking for. Thanks to the author, and all the other great editors who have made this article's encyclopedic quality worthy of being Wiki'd. --InvisibleDiplomat666 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Antietam??

Why does it say the trail traverses the Antietam battlefield? It doesn't. It goes through the area for the Battle of South Mountain, which was right before and a little east of Antietam, but that isn't Antietam. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "virginia" :
    • [http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.774885/k.E219/_Virginia.htm "Explore the Trail: Virginia"] AppalachianTrail.org (accessed September 11, 2006).
    • [http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.774885/k.E219/_Virginia.htm "Explore the Trail: Virginia"] AppalachianTrail.org (accessed September 1, 2007).

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs

Thanks, DavidWBrooks, for removing the personal judgment stuff about which parts of the trail have lots of bugs; I agree that it wasn't really necessary. If anyone has a recent guide from the ATC, though, it might have more specific information on bugs that could be useful in the article (instead of just individual editors saying X place is "really bad" when it comes to mosquitos). I don't have a recent guide, but if anyone else out there does, could you take a look? —Politizer talk/contribs 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) Even if it's not specific numbers and stuff, just being able to say "X book says X state is infamous for its mosquitos" or something like that, would be preferable to just flat-out saying "X state has the worst mosquitos." —Politizer talk/contribs 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But this article, like all of Wikipedia, is not a howto guide (that's in the "what Wikipedia is not" stylesheet somewhere); people shouldn't be looking here to decide whether they need, say, to carry more DEET in New Hampshire than in Pennsylvania. It's a judgment call, of course, but I don't think we need to use any more space at all on the topic of AT buginess; we should stick to objectively verifiable information, of which this article is chock-full, happily. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. Maybe specific critique of individual areas (whether in terms of bugginess or anything else) would be better placed in Appalachian Trail by state. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Elevation Change

The elevation change along the length of the trail is reported in the table on the upper right of the first page. It states that the total change in elevation is 6,643 ft., the exact elevation of Clingmans' Dome, the highest peak along the trail. So, does the trail ever hit the beach? I don't think so, so this needs to be corrected. I personally don't know what the true change in elevation is but is probably not as difficult to estimate as is the total length of the trail, but it is undoubtedly an inaccuracy. Someone should check it out and make the correction. Also, while we're at it, why not include change in Latitude and Longitude? That would provide additional geospatial information. Barryclinton (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the appropriate information either, but I agree that fixing the elevation information would be good. I'm not sure if the change in latitude and longtitude is necessary. —Politizer talk/contribs 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I have changed it to the figure from this site: [1] - it says 124 feet is lowest, 6,625 feet is highest (presumably it doesn't quite go over the peak of Clingmans Dome). I don't know how to put a ref in an infobox, though; it weirded out on me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I don't know why it's doing that. I'm taking a stab at it now and having the same problems; will play with it a little more. —Politizer talk/contribs 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem was with the parameter in the infobox; according to the documentation at Template:Infobox Hiking trail, the parameter should be ElevChange, not ElevChange_ft. I don't know what the code behind the template is, but something in the ElevChange_ft parameter didn't like the markup in the ref. I changed the parameter back to ElevChange (and just wrote out the feet-meters conversion manually), and now it seems to be working fine. Success! —Politizer talk/contribs 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Politizer, you are the man!(woman?). I still think change in latitude and longitude would be interesting. It could be a standard description, along with elevation change, of hiking trails all over.72.71.119.18BarryClinton (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be pretty uninteresting/misleading for east-west hiking trails, or squiggly ones that doubled back on themselves, however; it just happens that the three biggies in the US go north-south. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand David. You're exactly right - the trails do meander a bit east then a bit west, but in the end there is a net change from, for the AT, the southern terminus to the northern terminus. Latitude and longitude would simply be additional descripters of the trail that could be compared to other trails if this descripter were a standard, or example. That's all. I may have to just come up with it myself. I think I'll do it but don't look for it tomorrow. BarryClinton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.119.18 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Barry, it's an interesting idea and I encourage you to look into it, but at the same time it's not something we can put on Wikipedia articles unless it's a measurement that appears and is widely used in reliable, notable sources; otherwise it's just us putting up some arbitrary measurement that we like, and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, no matter how interesting it is (see the Wikipedia policy on original research, which this measurement would be comparable to).
For a vulgar and possibly offensive comparison (but the only comparison I can think of right now), consider this. When I was in high school some male friends of mine thought it would be a good idea to evaluate girls' attractiveness based on a measurement from the back of their butt to the front of their breasts (a higher number was better, I guess). Some people might find that a good way to rate how attractive some people are, but you don't see anyone fighting to get it put into Wikipedia articles on female celebrities—some people might think it's a useful measurement for comparing between items, but unless it is widely used by important people/publications then it shouldn't really be added to an article.
That being said, I do think your measurement in lat/long change would be interesting to look into. I just don't think it should go into any articles unless you find real books, sites, etc., that actually use that measurement for something. —Politizer talk/contribs 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Politizer, here it is, interesting to you or not. Change in Latitude from Springer Mountain in Georgia to Mt. Katahdin in Maine is 11.277 degrees North, and change in Longitude is 15.271 degrees East. There you have it although I must admit that conducting a beauty contest in the manner you described not only sounds more interesting but a lot more fun. BarryClinton 12-01-2008

I think the question on lat/long change boils down to "why include it?" Measurements, in general, are intended to show relationships between values on some sort of interval scale that can then be translated into some sort of nominal or ordinal understanding (hot vs cold; dry vs wet; tropical/temperate/cold, etc.) So, in plain English, what is the relationship that you intend on demonstrating with this data that justifies its inclusion (beyond just an interesting numeric difference)? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll concede that the numbers are rather generic and uninteresting by themselves. They would be more useful if the information were added as descriptors for other hiking trails for comparison. Moreover, Wikipedia is replete with interesting as well as marginally interesting snipits of information. So, what's the difference, and where does it say in Wikipedia that some information is allowed and some isn't no matter how accurate or inaccurate they may be. Hey, at the very least it fueled a mild debate on the subject, and debates can be sometimes fruitful. Enjoyed it. BarryClinton 12/5/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.4.168.111 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Sanford and Appalachian Trail

While i am no fan of Sanford not support his work, do we need that 2 line section on euphemism? If all wife cheaters' excuses get converted to euphemisms, i am sure that there will be thousands of them.

I think that small section needs to go. it can be in Sanford's page but not in this page. --192.8.222.82 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a judgment call whether to mention it here; it's borderline. I previously returned the mention to this article when somebody removed it because it seemed to me prominent enough to be worth a quick mention, but perhaps consensus disagrees with that assessment. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Right now, I think it needs more references to merit inclusion. I did a quick search but couldn't find any. Not sure if more exist. Unless more refs are found with coverage of the "term", I agree that it should be removed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't care either way, but I will point out that Language Log is a good source for this kind of stuff. I reverted this stuff when it was first added a while back, but when I saw it discussed on Language Log several days later I re-added it with a reference. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How to

Regarding how-to material within the "Hiking the trails" section, some examples:

  • "Being thoroughly covered and wearing DEET can greatly reduce the chances of getting infected."
  • "Flare-ups can be treated with calamine lotion or lidocaine."
  • "Drinking untreated surface water can cause diarrhea. Springs are less risky. The various methods of water treatment are filtering, chemical disinfectants, a portable ultraviolet light device, and pasteurization (boiling)."
  • "Under such conditions, hydration is imperative. Light clothing and sunscreens are a must at high elevations and areas without foliage, even in relatively cool weather."

There are other areas where this is an issue as well. This information has nothing to do with the trail, which is what this article is about, rather, these are tips with how to deal with various things one my encounter on the trail. The article as a whole may not be a step-by-step instruction manual, but in tone, phrasing, and info, there are several issues that would be indiscriminately considered how-to material.

Thank you DWBrooks for coming to my talk page to ask for clarification. I would have appreciated, Rjanag, if you had given me more than three minutes to address this issue before removing the tag. I'm not a drive-by tagger or newbie. I'm an established editor who's been here for years. I didn't put it there for no reason. I won't re-add the tag and, honestly, I don't feel very comfortable editing the article at this point anyway so I'm just going to bow out now. Do with the article what you will. --132 17:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate tags, personally, but you have made some excellent suggestions of material that shouldn't be in this article. I've trimmed a couple of them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
13, this is how WP:BRD works. I have given you a chance to address the issue, that is what the discussion section is for. If we decide through discussion that there should be a tag, I will put it back up. There's no need to get touchy over an everyday disagreement.
And, for what it's worth, I still do not agree that a tag over the entire article. Sure, there may be some individual statements which were problematic, but the correct way to address them is as you have done here: list the individual things that need fixing, and/or fix them yourself. The vast majority of the article (and even the "Hiking" section) is not how-to, and there's no point adding a tag to the entire article when there are only a few isolated concerns. This is the same reason we don't put an {{unreferenced}} tag on an article that has a single unreferenced statement. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

I removed that Maine's miles are particularly difficult--it is not a fact--it is an opinion-hope you agree.Us441 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • That's not really an opinion, since trail difficulty is something that can be established based on things like elevation, change in terrain and other very quantifiable criteria. Walking on, say, a beach trail is going to be exponentially easier than mountain climbing.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's best to rely on third party reliable sources for this. Case in point, I would say a beach trail would be more difficult because of the lack of shade, boring landscape, would rather walk on soil than sand, etc. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - difficulty is in the eye/shoe/calfmuscles of the beholder. It's a loaded, vague term that we should avoid. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am all for citations. I just wanted to mention that trail difficulty can be established somewhat in some places in this article (WITH 3rd PARTY SOURCES!!) since there are difficulty criteria in the trail community, and sometimes this is a lot less opinion oriented that someone might think (some parts have very steep grades, or very little access to water, or severe heat, while some other areas enjoy moderate weather, are near campsites and have well-maintained paths that are virtually flat). Even the infobox has a place for trail difficulty. I would favor finding references over flat-out deletion as the article is tightened up. But I think we are all essentially on the same page.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read your feedback, and we should put just the facts about the section--not that opinion. Us441 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Which I have done. Us441 (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

References

The references in this article are not sufficient for the amount of information here, and much of it comes from AppalachianTrail.org, with is a conflict of interests. So, I will be adding refereces from third-party, reputable sources in coming days and weeks and I invite others to do the same. Hopefull, we can make this a great article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just now noticed that this article is a good article nominee. I seriously doubt it will be passed in its current state, but maybe if it goes unreviewed for a while (since GAN is seriosly backlogged right now), we can get it up to speed in time for it to be passed :) --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the nominator. A couple of weeks ago now. Us441 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello all. Not to be overly technical,but, isn't the trail officially SoBo? It is, or was designed as a Me to Ga trail. The Article is NoBo-centric.Omar (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard that. It's usually done south-to-north or in sections, and I haven't heard that there was an "official" direction either way (S-N is just a preference, I've never heard it called "official"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review passed

Talk:Appalachian Trail/GA1 - Keep improving and hopefully this makes the main page someday :) Triona (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

This section, great for three- or four-day trips, is easy by AT standards, and is a good place for hikers to find out if they are ready for more rugged parts of the trail. I believe that excerpt is Original Research. Do you agree? Us441(talk) (contribs) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On a second look, yeah. removed it, put it back if it can be attributed as a quote. Triona (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

checl the mileage in the box to the right - looks like a typo ````Ben Haygood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhaygood (talk • contribs) 01:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

IP

An IP edited the page a number of times recently, and I can't tell whether or not they are vandalism. Us441(talk)(contribs) 21:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this the series of changes you're talking about? I suggest you have a look at WP:What vandalism is not; if something doesn't look like vandalism, it probably isn't. IPs are human too! rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Geocoordinates

This article has been tagged by a bot as needing geocoordinates; I agree with the bot's assessment. I think that adding them to the start and endpoints in the infobox would be excellent. Unfortunately, I have neither the guidebooks nor the local knowledge to figure out the exact endpoints of the trail. If anyone could add these coordinates, that would be most excellent. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Captions

The image captions in this article need help per WP:Captions. It is not immediately clear to me what several of the pictures represent with respect to the trail. Are these views FROM the trail or OF the trail (or both)? Please take a moment to expand the captions about areas with which you are familiar to clarify their relevance. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I reverted this edit because the links provided are not reliable sources. The material in question needs to be cited in a vetted publication.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Accommodation

Could somebody write some more about this topic? In particular, what sort of costs are involved? I walked the Camino de Santiago and accommodation could be between $5 and $10. I'm sure I'm not the only person reading this and wondering how much it would cost to walk it. Thanks a million. 89.101.41.216 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Modality of travel

The article for the Pacific Crest Trail indicates that equestrian travel is allowed. Is that so for the A.T.? Apparently cycling is not allowed. What about adult stollers? Such can be used to take a person with limited mobility over a moderately rough trail. Travel modality should be mentioned. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Appalachian Trail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Copper not Brass Marker

The original markers were copper, not brass. I'll change the caption to the graphics; can someone take care of any Wikimedia database entry changes needed? I read about copper here, and a close look at photo confirms it: New York Walk Book, R.H. Torrey, F.Place, and R.L. Dickenson. New York: American Geographical Society, 3rd edn, 1951, 336pp + maps. "CONCEPTION & CONSTRUCTION The idea of a skyline trail was originated in 1921 by Benton Mackaye, a member of the Regional Planning Association of America. Although possible links in the suggested trail were to some extent already in existence, the first official section of the AT was laid out in 1923 under the leadership of W.A. Welch, for years General Manager and Chief Engineer of the Palisades Interstate Park. He designed the original AT copper marker which was the standard type for many years This marker has given way to the white paint blaze so familiar to all of us." pp. 395-396. Jerry-VA (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A request at the Help desk

I'm copying below a request that an editor put up at the Help desk. Thanks. Lourdes 11:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Appalachian Trail

On the Wikipedia article about the Appalachian Trail, you might wish to add a Book citation under Non-Fiction Print - "The Spirit of the Appalachian Trail" - by Susan Power Bratton - subtitled "Community, Environment, and Belief on a Long Distance Hiking Path" - 284 pages - Copyright 2012 by The University of Tennessee Press / Knoxville - ISBN 13:978-1-62190-191-4

Thanks .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.45.217 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Hiking the Appalachian Trail"

Why is there no mention here, of the most well known thing about the Appalachian Trail? I.e. the fact that "Hiking the Appalachian Trail" is now a euphemism for going of to perform adulterous acts, since a certain event.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

While it is a true event and has had recent wide currency, it's not a significant fact about the Trail. As you note, it's appropriately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not a significant fact about the trail? Well, not about the trail, in the sense of the physical trail, but... It is a significantly know fact about the trail ...and a lot of people looking up "Appalachian Trail", are quite likely to be doing so, due to wondering about the phrase, rather than the actual trail. Probably more so, than want to know about the trail, actually.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
For decades, Philadelphia has been the butt of a lot of well-known jokes, but you won't find those jokes discussed in the article about the city because they aren't encyclopedic content related to the city. Similarly, the fact that a philandering politician used the Appalachian Trail as an excuse may have been the first time that many viewers of The Daily Show and Colbert Report ever heard of the trail, but that does not make his reference to the trail a relevant topic for this encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not find your argument to be, in any way, convincing. If what you say is true, why are there so many "Trivia", "In popular culture", "Cultural references" or "In fiction" sections, in Wikipedia articles? Admittedly "Trivia" sections are discouraged, but the trivia itself isn't (well it can be. It depends on the trivia). Not encyclopaedic? Please note that Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopaedia. It can, does and should, include more things than a normal encyclopaedia would.
Also, surely an event that greatly effected how well known the trail is, should be noted?
As to your comment about Philadelphia... In an argument about what can or should be done on a Wikipedia article, arguing about what is the case in a different Wikipedia article, is not a valid argument. Also, I see that as a flaw in the Philadelphia article, rather than anything else. Aren't related to the city? How can jokes are about the city, not be related to the city? How can they not be related to the very subject that they are about? Granted, they may not be significant enough to be worth mention, but it cannot be reasonably argued that they aren't related to the city.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It was in the article at one point but removed after some discussion. If you feel strongly about this, add it back in and see how others react - that's the wikipedia way! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That is one way of doing things on wikipedia. I.e. edit, see if people respond and then discuss (aka WP:BRD). It is a method that I have used before, and will use again. Another way is to discuss it before editing, which is the way I have chosen to use, this time. Especially as I, myself, am unsure how/where it should be added.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Appalachian Trail. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appalachian Trail. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appalachian Trail. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way you'd talk about it?

This article covers almost all aspects of the Appalachian Trail. I would get rid of the important intersections and also talk about the wildlife and scenery in greater detail. Wattersac (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd do pretty much the opposite: this is an article about a trail so we should emphasize trail-relevant aspects, not an article about the environment that surrounds the trail. I find the wildlife details, in particular, unnecessary for this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Kirk Speed?

Section §5.6 "Speed Records" includes "Matthew Kirk (2013)" under the self-supported hike records but does not actually state the completion time or nature of his hike. This information is directly relevant to this section and so I have updated the article to now read "Matthew Kirk held a previous self-supported speed record after completing the hike southbound in 58 days, 9 hours and 40 minutes, back in 2013." This information is contained in the cited source that was already in the article.

My personal opinion is that hikes that are no longer the record should be placed under a "Previously held speed records" subheading, allowing the current records to be more clearly presented. However, I will refrain from doing this since I am a newcomer to this specific article. PhysicsSean (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed a previous record listing; current records are fine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Image locations

I propose to move the tall trail map that is now along the left-hand side of "Route" section to the right-hand side of "Major intersection" section and move the route-segment-pertinent images upwards into the "Route" section. This would better comport with MOS:IMAGELOCATION and still provide the trail map the prominence that it deserves, preventing the route-relevant images from spilling downwards. Anyone else with thoughts on this? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done I boldly did the above. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I have removed the list of "hazards" from the infobox, which had grown to well over a dozen items (somebody just added "loneliness"!). Infoboxes aren't exhaustive guides and that wasn't necessary; the issue is discussed in the article. I also removed the rather silly infobox heading of "sights" which said only Appalachian Mountains. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Appalachian_Trail/Archive_1&oldid=1218557356"