Talk:Old Man of the Mountain

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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