Talk:Sugarloaf Mountain (Franklin County, Massachusetts)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sugarloaf Mountain (Franklin County, Massachusetts) is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard. For more information on this project or to get involved see the WikiProject Massachusetts project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale for WikiProject Mountains. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
[edit] article split
Hello folks, it seems that the original article Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation has generated a lot of strong feelings, so I wanted to take the time to explain why I split the information into Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation and Sugarloaf Mountain (Franklin County, Massachusetts).
First, the content of the original article seemed more inclined to informing the reader about the mountain vs. the state reservation (for instance, a "mountain" info box was used).
Second, those searching for the mountain would not necessarily know to look it up via the name of the reservation.
Third, I had a significant amount of new content ready to be posted about Sugarloaf Mountain and a number of other mountains in the Connecticut River Valley. The information I had didn't seem to fit under an article simply about the reservation, therefore I split the content.
Fourth, I decided not to simply redirect from Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation to the new page and bundle them together, under the new title, because (as it was pointed out to me by another user), continuity of article history is lost. Furthermore, along these lines, it's true that the reservation differs significantly from the mountain (the reservation has river frontage AND mountain peaks; the reservation has a history of its own; the reservation article could one day include details about reservation operation and management).
Finally, I used the original images for both articles, as seemed most appropriate for the new formatting. (It would be great if someone had an actual shot of the mountain itself from the bottom).
Let me know what you think. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
