Talk:Arbuthnot Lake

Untitled

Article title #1 Is this the one named "Arbuthnet Lake" at U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Arbuthnet Lake  ? -- User:Docu

Yes. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like their coordinates are a bit off. I found a reference for the other spelling. -- User:Docu

Yes Docu, it is "Arbuthnet Lake" not "Arbuthnot Lake" - however Kittybrewter is from the "Arbuthnot" family and tries to promote the name wherever and whenever he can!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the survey published 1973 uses "Arbuthnot Lake", one could write to GNIS and ask them to add it to the entry while correcting the coordinates. -- User:Docu

Article title #2

This lake is known as Arbuthnet Lake not Arbuthnot Lake. A quick Google search shows that the vast majority of quality sources highlight that the name of the lake is Arbuthnet Lake not Arbuthnot. Therefore per common name I propose to change the name back to Arbuthnet Lake.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Google searches are not definitive. Arbuthnot is correct and is the spelling of the name after whom the lake was named. Your editing is disruptive. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct google search is not the be all and end all, but its a good start and per common name I am changing it back to Arbuthnet Lake unless you can come up with an argument which is compelling enough not to. Mannerly and polite discussions are now disruptive are they?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the sources used confirm it is Arbuthnot. Why would you be set upon changing it? Do you not understand the reasons you were topic banned? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be simply obstructive and wanting to drag up the past (your record isnt exactly clean!) so I have opened a discussion on the article talk page. Hopefully see you there.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am addressing the relevant issues. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, knock it off. It's been what, two years now? All the sources for both spellings seem to be a mess of blogs and Wikipedia mirrors; the only thing remotely approaching a reliable source seems to be the one currently used in the article, which uses the "Arbuthnot" spelling but is quite old and it's entirely possible that the spelling has changed. How about you post a request at WikiProject Washington for someone who lives nearby to take a photo of whatever the sign on the thing says? – iridescent 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless we find specific references, I think we should leave the article at its current title. -- User:Docu

The close I can see to a reliable source is http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/wsb/pdfs/WSB_14a_Book_Part16.pdf#page=23

VK points to http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:1869433194786008::NO::P3_FID:1528559 ... but where there's a conflict i'd initially be more inclined to favour the local state govt than a federal agency.

There may be other reliable sources which would tilt the balance, but so far the evidence marginally favours "Arbuthnot" with an "O". The thing is, though, that it appears to be a fairly remote mountain lake, so the name may not be very standardised. If the postal service isn't delivering somewhere and there aren't title deeds and other administrative issues to sort out, standardisation tends not to happen.

The suggestion of a request at WikiProject Washington sounds like the best idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) ~

I have in fact been in touch with local WA libraries, but I don't want to veer off into WP:OR. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The photographer spelled it Arbuthnot. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Info removed

source Charles F. Easton's "Mt. Baker: Stories, Legends and Explorations". was removed. why? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio according to the edit summary if you care to take a look.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Change the name for Heaven's Sake already!

'Kittybrewster, quit makin a fool of yourself by acting like a complete tool. EVERYONE knows it is Arbuthnet not Arbuthnot! Your only looking like a complete fool for trying to argue a point that EVERYONE knows is wrong. Any map or anything that mentions the lake calls it Arbuthnet. PLZ, someone just change the name cuz everyone knows that Arbuthnot is totally incorrect! AndrewEnns (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you provide specific references? If you look at the three references in the article, two use "Arbuthnot". -- User:Docu 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just going to randomly pop in, The Washington State Department of Tourism begs to differ [1] and The USGS maps [2]--Gold Man60 Talk 06:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many sites reusing GNIS. I'm not sure if there is a difference between gnis using "Arbuthnet" and these two sources. Molvar just lists "Arbuthnet" in an enumeration while Moore has a 5-page description of "Arbuthnot lake". -- User:Docu 08:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is not what the name of the lake is officially but what source is actually conclusive, County (Arbuthnot), State (Arbuthnet/Arbuthnot), Federal (Arbuthnet), or the books (Arbuthnet/Arbuthnot). Is there some policy somewhere that has a procedure for this kind of thing, like take federal data over state data or vise-versa? The issue we seem to have is there is more or less an equal amount of citations for the use of both names and all of them are from different reputable sources. Maybe we need a new policy "Wikipedia:When you can't conclusively prove either side of the debate because they are both right". maybe we can name the thing "Arbuthnet Lake/Arbuthnot Lake" and just redirect Arbuthnet and Arbuthnot, but that probably breaks some sort of naming convention. --Gold Man60 Talk 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What if this were all just some typo in the data there have to be typos in all documents, that would make me laugh --Gold Man60 Talk 18:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If everybody uses it, it's no longer a typo ;)

The page currently mentions both spellings and can be found with either name. Unless there are more convincing uses of "Arbuthnet", the article shouldn't be renamed. (General convention is WP:Naming conventions (geographic names))

BTW I cleaned up the citation template (google shouldn't be linked) and removed two of the links, as they don't add anything in addition to the GNIS link. -- User:Docu 07:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add the source of the name, namely Charles F. Easton's "Mt. Baker: Stories, Legends and Explorations". Kittybrewster ☎ 08:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if you re-add it yourself. If you'd use {{citation}} that would be great. BTW if the removed text was yours, it's not really a copyvio. -- User:Docu

I suggest we comply with the USGS, as they are usually more accurate than a website like Google Maps or another random site.Shannon1^{talk contribs} 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the citations above here is something helpful:

Shannon1^{talk contribs} 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful to point out the USGS data is newer than that county water report, and why did the spell Whatcom, Whatcomb? anyone? I would try to fix that but it looks like a template pulling info from somewhere else --Gold Man60 Talk 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling of "Whatcom" in the template. BTW that publication is part of an inventory of all lakes in the state of Washington [3]. Moore's article on the lake was published in 2005. I'm not sure if the others Goldman60 added cover the lake in any depth. In general, I agree with Shannon1's comment, but in this case, looking at the various references, it doesn't really apply, e.g. google doesn't name the lake. -- User:Docu

Correction: it was 2007, not 2005. -- User:Docu at 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Still haven't gotten it through your thick heads already?

Alright you guys, let's stop being such idiots & change the name already. Everyone knows it is Arbuthnet & people who look at this page probably go "wtf, it is Arbuthnet, not Arbuthnot." Kittybrewster, quit being such a snob, I know you can't get it through your (big) head but the name has changed, like it or not. I'm sure it was once Arbuthnot but it has now changed. I can't lay it out any better than that.

By the way, I do find it rather amusing that Kittybrewster says other people's editing is disrupstive yet he's the disruptive one here. We are trying to point an obvious mistake he made yet he refuses to listen. Then he goes off & tells us we are obstructive. That's a new one! LOL! Go Figure! AndrewEnns (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would go with the GNIS spelling, Arbuthnet, make Arbuthnot a redirect and explain that both spellings are common. I've never heard of this lake, but it reminds me of the "Soleduck" and "Sol Duc" River spellings. "Soleduck" is still common, but it was easy to find a source explaining when and who changed it to "Sol Duc" (WA Board on Geographic Names). A similar search on Arbuthnet/Arbuthnot did not turn up info like this. The USGS GNIS is not able to enforce its decisions on the public, but it is the most "official" source I know of. So I would go with its spelling, pending further info on the spelling difference. Pfly (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL and avoid labeling people at Wikipedia and GNIS. -- User:Docu at 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Docu, I can see you really enjoy finding flaws in every single think I do. As for labeling people, I'm done labeling Kittybrewster (I've shown him up enough for his obstructive ways) but as for people in GNIS, I will say whatever I want about them. They are not on Wikipedia & therefore I will say what I want about them. I should note that I never labeled anyone in GNIS but I think Docu is just looking to find another flaw in my ways, not that he hasn't attempted to do that many times before.

I'd like to thank the guy (I forget what his name is) that was arguing with Kittybrewster for being the first person to bring up an intelligent idea: Changing the name to its proper spelling! I'd also like to thank GoldMan60 for coming up with that great idea I tried. It was a great idea & it's too bad everyone rudely changed it without seeing it's benefits. AndrewEnns (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm goin' with Gold Man60's idea on this one

Shannon1 & I just discussed the issue a bit more on my talk page & Shannon1 made a good point: If you type in Arbuthnet Lake on Google, it says: "Did you mean: Arbuthnot Lake". Can't really argue with that point (not that I want to)!

Here is the thing: This lake was originally named Arbuthnot Lake after James Arbuthnot (miner), as it states in the article. However, whether this is USGS's bad or not, someone misspelled the name (probably just a typo like Gold Man60 said) & well... caused this. As a result, the lake is now commonly being referred to as Arbuthnet Lake. There is lots of proof of this; Any map I look of the Mount Baker area has it spelled Arbuthnet & Bryan Swan's entry for the falls at the lake's outlet (not going to go with either spelling here to avoid being biased) has it (the falls & the lake) spelled Arbuthnet. This is worth noting: When you type in Arbuthnet Lake in Google it says: "Did you mean: Arbuhtnot Lake" but there are more results for the lake itself when spelled Arbuthnet. If you type in Arbuthnot Lake, no Did you mean thing pops up but most of the results, especially on the pages beyond the first & second, are for advertising companies & stuff like that that are called Arbuthnot or have that word in their website somewhere. Have a look; only the first few results are for the lake itself. I guess that shows how modernized the Arbuthnet spelling has become!

Like the title of this section says, I'm going to go with Gold Man60's idea. I'm going to re-name the page Arbuthnot Lake/Arbuthnet Lake, with the official name first. Like I said in the previous paragraph, the true (official) name is Arbuthnot but the modern, more commonly used name is Arbuthnet. Take your pics; I don't see any reason to believe that this is a bad idea. Regards AndrewEnns (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We generally don't title articles with several known variants. It should be moved back to its initial name. -- User:Docu at 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC), edited 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This name is not good at all. Pick one name or the other, but don't use both.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it back for now. -- User:Docu at 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I have to agree with the others that "Arbuthnet Lake/Arbuthnot Lake" is not a good choice for the article's name. It's awkward and confusing, and.. well plain weird. Personally I don't care which spelling is used for the page name, but please use just one, not both! In a way it doesn't matter which spelling is used for the page name so long as the other spelling is a redirect and the article makes it clear from the start that both spellings are common and accepted. There could, I suppose, even be a comment about how the spelling used for the Wikipedia article is by no means meant to promote that spelling and is essentially an arbitrary choice. Anyway, just adding my opinion: please not "Arbuthnet Lake/Arbuthnot Lake"! (also, your edit summary "Wow you ppl are stuck up bout this I'm trying to fix this & ur acting stupid bout it" struck me as unnecessarily rude) Pfly (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GNIS entry update

You might have noticed, but GNIS updated the coordinates and the lake's name in their database. They even added the reference Wikipedia provided! -- User:Docu at 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm? [4] Shannon1^{talk contribs} 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Back in April, the GNIS entry had the coordinates a bit off and mentioned only one name (now it has three). Thus my initial question on this talk page. -- 签名 _sig at 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Before you jump down my throat...

Okay, okay, I will change it back. Now I need to explain 2 things here:

First off, why is everyone out to get me here? Seriously, I am trying to simply end a naming controversy & you guys act like I'm trying to bite your heads off. The reason I just stated is the exact reason I wrote that summary. Pfly, thank you for the advice; at least you're being reasonable about this, not just flying off the handle every time something isn't done your way. If you guys think I was trying to be polite with that summary, think again. I'm just sick & tired of people being so willing bash me for every last thing. Why don't you bash Kittybrewster for starting this entire thing; he started it, not me. None of us would be here if he did not start it. Seriously, does Docu have a vendetta against me or something? All he does is point out my mistakes. Please, before you start trying to jump down my throat, be a little considerate & try to understand my intentions are good. Lastly, am I not allowed to have my opinions on things? I believe(d) that the name Arbuthnet Lake/Arbuthnot Lake could(would) put an end to this controversy. Obviously, judging by the way everyone jumped down my throat, that wasn't the case. Go figure.

Second, if you guys think the double name idea sucked as much as you guys acted as though it did, why bash me for it? I was simply taking the advice from Goldman60. I noticed in the section where he posted that he thought that idea might work nobody said it was a bad idea. So what's with hitting me in the head over it? If you have huge issues with the idea, tell that to Goldman. I was simply doing what he said. Is it because you don't have a vendetta against Goldman that you went down my throats for the name change, not his? By the way, I'm not trying to promote the idea of "jumping down someone's throat" but that is how I feel at the moment. I liked Goldman's idea so I thought I'd try it. Experiment failed.

I can almost guarantee tomorrow I’m going to wake up & find a message from either Docu or Pfly on my talk page saying the exact same stuff already said here. Do me a favor: Before you take the rulebook & blast me with rules, take into account the fact that I was just trying to HELP the situation. Goldman suggested the idea & I tried it. I was just trying to end all this, not bring on more. I just get going sometimes in situations like this. Regards AndrewEnns (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never attacked anyone over this, which would be inappropriate. But it's also inappropriate to make a contentious page move without further discussion so I've moved it back. Please follow the guideline for handling such moves, to be found at WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Basically, you add an entry there and start a fresh discussion here. After a period of time an uninvolved admin will review the discussion and make the decision. It may seem complicated by page moves can be disruptive so it's extra important to get consensus.   Will Beback  talk  07:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the reply now why Arbuthnot? Read the section where I talked about using Goldman60's idea; I explain very clearly that there are more lake results when you use Arbuthnet as the spelling. Abutnet Lake is the common name of this lake... someone change it or I will. AndrewEnns (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Use the procedure I outlined above, and then argue for your preferred version.   Will Beback  talk  17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So why do I have to go through some long, tedious procedure & you just have a free pass to move the page without doing anything? AndrewEnns (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All I did was move it back to what it was before you moved it to the double name. Before you make any more page moves please establish a consensus for one name or the other. I really don't care which. Just not both, because that is entirely contrary to Wikipedia naming conventions.   Will Beback  talk  18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

Mazama Lake from the top of Table Mountain.

Hayes Lake (bottom) & Arbuthnet Lake (top) from the top of Table Mountain.

Hey guys, lets argue about this! :P

Just kidding. Here are 2 pics I took from the top of Table Mountain on August 12th of 2009. I hope you like them. My plan is to join this page with another one about the other 3 Chain Lakes & call it Chain Lakes (Mount Baker). These images, along with the one on the current page, will be included.

That will surely end this "Arbuthnet" vs "Arbuthnot" crap. :) AndrewEnns (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is arguing? Don't we deal with such proposals by starting a fresh article and then suggesting a merge? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, the reason I'm doing this is NOT to shortcut the naming crap that has gone on here, it is to be more logical. Arbuthnet Lake is one of the 4 Chain Lakes up there, so why is there only an article on Arbuthnet but not the others (especially since Arbuthnet is one of the less significant of the 4)? It makes no sense. That's why I'm proposing this. The fact I've got these 2 pictures from when I was up there only makes it better. AndrewEnns (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, would happily accept that an article could be written on each of the lakes. By all means carry on. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a non-notable body of water, and that an article on the Chain Lakes could do a fine job of incorporating this information.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll get started with the "new" article. :) AndrewEnns (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, was there a sign with the name of the lake on it? One John Moore might have missed? -- 签名 _sig at 16:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By sign, what do you mean? A trail sign? Maybe I can answer your question if you specify that. :D AndrewEnns (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, something like this. Obviously, any other local sign would be of interest too. -- 签名 _sig at 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Natatorium Lake

“Arbuthnot was suggested 1906 as an appropriate name for the fourth lake, after James Arbuthnot, of Arbuthnot and Davis the two miners who tunneled through the ridge between it and Natatorium Lake..."

Where is Natatorium Lake? Is it an old name for one of the other 3 Chain Lakes? It's mentioned in the actual article so I figure it's pretty important to know. Can someone clarify? AndrewEnns (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)