Talk:Appalachian Mountain Club

United States: New Hampshire / New Hampshire Mountains Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains (assessed as Top-importance).

Backpacking (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Backpacking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BackpackingWikipedia:WikiProject BackpackingTemplate:WikiProject BackpackingBackpacking

Appalachia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Split?

The High Huts section is getting pretty long, and has huge possibilities for expansion (system's history as a whole, images, maybe bios on important figures like Joe Dodge, etc...). Maybe it could be split to its own page (High Huts of the White Mountains? Appalachian Mountain Club Huts?), becuase right now the TOC looks kind of shabby what with two sections but 8 or 9 subheadings in the High Huts section. There's a chance it will look better with more material added (I plan to put in some stuff about the visitors centers, whatever else i can find), and maybe it just doesn't warrant a split. But that's how i feel on the issue. The page itself isn't too long, per se, but it just seems to be dominated by the High Huts material. Thoughts?jfg284 17:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's plenty of other stuff to talk about with the AMC, aside from the huts. I like High Huts of the White Mountains as a category. - DavidWBrooks 23:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing with the existing separate pages for each hut - I assume we should redirect them to High Huts of the White Mountains. Note, however, that I will have one screw-up of mine to fix ... I made it Madison Springs Hut (plural)! I'll need to make sure nothing still points there. - DavidWBrooks 16:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

after overhauling those pages to this one, i called for a deletion of one of them (mizpah, i think?) with a redirect here as a test to see if it went through. i think a redirect across the board is a good idea, but now there's another problem: what high huts material should be kept here? we cant ignore it on this page, but obviously not all of it should be deleted. I took out the table (it's not that pertinent to the AMC as an organization, but what should be kept on this page about the high huts?jfg284 18:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this issue has sort of been forgotten (he said, nine months later). I think I'll cut come hut material from this page and see what happens. - DavidWBrooks 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Amc solo logo.svg, found on Appalachian Mountain Club, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is ridiculous

The infobox on this article is currently an example of what they should not be - it's a enormous grab-bag of anything editors could find that may or may not be relevant to readers, full of unnecessary tidbits (Tax ID number?!?!) and material that's not in the article, like revenue from four years ago. WP:infobox says: "The purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

It needs to be slashed, with some material moved into the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]