Talk:Glacial erratic boulders of King County, Washington

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

Rocks with social media presence[edit]

As noted in the Sno County draft, the Everett erratic has a twitter account, @EverettBoulder, though it hasn't been very chatty lately. Fourmile Rock in this draft also has a Google+ page [1]. Might be worth a DYK hook or something. — Brianhe (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourmile Rock lighthouse has lots of references going back a century, mostly in reference to navigation hazards and shipwrecks. I also observed that they changed it from cable-powered to solar. The Parentmap blog noted that a huge erratic on the Highline Community College campus withstood attempts to remove it with heavy equipment, so it was incorporated into the landscaping. That might make a good hook too -- presumably they found this in the local Des Moines newspaper? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to this, Sammamish considered the name "Bigger Rock Park" to one-up Duvall. — Brianhe (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bainbridge Island's Frog Rock has a Google+ page: [2] It is supposed to have a Facebook page, too. But it might have gotten confused for another Frog Rock in Connecticut. Brianhe (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wedgwood Rock on Yelp [3] Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resource with American named erratics[edit]

Named erratics are cataloged in this map, found in

  • Hutton, Jane (2013), "Distributed Evidence — Mapping Named Erratics", in Ellsworth, Elizabeth Ann; Kruse, Jamie (eds.), Making the Geologic Now: Responses to Material Conditions of Contemporary Life, pp. 99–103, ISBN 9780615766362
  • http://geologicnow.com/14_Hutton.php (same text, online)

Lead image[edit]

I was thinking that this article could use a good map — and then it was! (I must be good, eh?) However, I think that location inset is rather overkill, and even not necessary. And precludes locating anything in southern King County. Is there any chance of having this image without the inset? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm going to revise it because it's missing a couple new ones anyway, and I can at least make the inset smaller. If any future erratics are discovered in that corner of the map, it will have to be revised anyway.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the location inset even needed? As non-locals that don't know the location probably don't know anything else about the county, so it seems more suitable to wikilink them to the county's article.
You might also extend the map eastward to North Bend, which should be sufficient for all future purposes. With a stable base map it might be worthwhile adding the code for a clickable imagamp. The pop-up captions could serve in lieu of having labels in the map. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Tableau workbook I use to build this map is here at Tableau Public. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Talus Rocks"[edit]

The "Talus Rocks on Tiger Mtn." likely refers to the well-known "Talus Caves". There should be some fact-checking on whether those are actually glacial erratics. If they are basalt (it's been a long time since I was up there) they could very be locally sourced, and thus not "erratic" at all. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources confirmed that they are caves (including the USGS "Fall City, WA" quad), some other source I haven't included yet says they have bat caves. Sources (60 Hikes and Outside Magazine's Urban Adventure: Seattle specifically) also say they are erratics, so unless something conflicts with that, it should stand. Oh, there's a photo set here [4] that seems to show a bat in front of a granitic rock! — Brianhe (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That "everyone says" is hardly reliable, let alone verifiable. And most of the hike guides are just repeating what someone else said, good luck finding the original source. Being granitic would be strong argument for being an erratic, but if they are basaltic -- well, they are on a talus slope below some basaltic outcropping, which would strongly suggest a local source. And while I (or, for that matter, you) could go out and examine them to my (or your) personal statisfaction, I don't think we should be the ones determining this. (OR, lacking a verfiable source.) In this case I think we need to be certain of an expert source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will find no objections to better sources from me, the experter the better. I was just saying that changes to the status quo should wait for such. — Brianhe (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any policy that says status quo overrides verifiability. And in this case, where is a strong possibility that these boulders are merely talus, not erratics, there is a greater duty to find reliable sourcing on this, rather than just repeating what has been repeated. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The verifiability policy says the editor who adds a fact to an article must provide sources which state that fact. Brian has done that. You have given an argument for why those sources might be mistaken, but you have not cited any sources which say anything, in favor or opposed. You've merely stated your opinion. So please cite your sources which have something to say about these rocks. It seems to meet our minimum standards for now, and if at some point anybody shows sources that say otherwise, we should change it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those three hiking guides are good for showing how to get to the rocks. They are not reliable sources as to these being actual glacial erratics. In that respect we have zero sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had a geologist to cite, that would trump a hiking guide. But if the guide is all we have then it's adequate. The reliable sources noticeboard will most likely see it that way too. You should find a better source; then this whole discussion would be moot. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burke Museum erratic[edit]

The Burke Museum has this erratic on display, found in Issaquah. It's not like the others we've seen, in that the top is highly polished. The back looks similar to the other granite boulders in the area. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The smooth surface would indicate that it was under the glacier, isn't that right? I wonder how it got transported. —Brianhe (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. You can read the plaque if you zoom in on File:Burke Museum glacial erratic, side.JPG. If the museum had been open I'd have asked for more documentation on it. I'll be going back there soon. We can also check with the North Seattle Gem Club to see if they know if anything has been published on it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional candidates[edit]

Just northwest of Round Lake, on the Lake Tradition Plateau (Tiger Mountain). approx. 48.52836, -122.01512. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glacial erratic boulders of King County, Washington. 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) 23:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glacial erratic boulders of King County, Washington. 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) 05:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glacial erratic boulders of King County, Washington. 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) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glacial_erratic_boulders_of_King_County,_Washington&oldid=1202306389"