Talk:Camel's Hump

Should not this article be renamed to ...
Camels Hump (Vermont) without the apostrophe? I don't see any outside references have the apostrophe, and the article content is not even consistent with the apostrophe. Because I'm just an IP, I can't create nor rename articles. 96.252.13.17 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just checked the Vermont State Parks lit. It appears that it is correctly titled with the apostrophe.  So no article needs be created or renamed and I made the content of the article consistent with the title and ostensibly the official usage. 96.252.13.17 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Droll moved this page to Camels Hump (Vermont), but I'd argue it should be at Camel's Hump per common usage and the link provided above. Besides, "Camels Hump" sounds terribly weird -- as if we need explanation for the carnal actions of dromedaries. --David Iberri (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have moved the page from Camels Hump (Vermont) back to Camel's Hump after reading the USGS FAQ. WP:COMMONNAMES takes precedence over the asinine suggestions therein: namely 1) that the USGS "has discouraged the use of the possessive form", but that 2) "the possessive form using an “s” is allowed, but the apostrophe is almost always removed." First, the USGS can discourage the use all it wants, but common usage (at least in Vermont) is still "Camel's Hump" with the apostrophe. And second, the possessive form of a proper noun requires an apostrophe in the English language -- the apostrophe cannot be made optional by some arbitrary USGS policy.
 * In the broader context, us Wikipedians need to smarten up (myself included) about applying guidelines to our articles. I've been in a couple of other related discussions in which we're blindly using others' guidelines to determine our content. The beauty of a globally editable encyclopedia is that we can achieve our own consensus and not purely rely on the work of others. Admittedly I'm not familiar with the geo groups on Wikipedia; perhaps there is already a consensus. I certainly couldn't find any mention of it over at WP:GEOG. --David Iberri (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's always properly been "Camel's Hump." "Camels" is plural. Two or more camels would have two or more humps. It's hump in the name, so it should be one "Camel's Hump." The USGS guidelines are just that. Guidelines. Not hard fast rules. Even in everyday grammar there are thousands of exceptions to every supposed rule. Bottom line is that the Camel's Hump State Park's own website spells it "Camel's Hump." That should suffice as the authoritative end of this debate. SentientParadox (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Main photo should be changed
Sorry but that main photo is gawdawfully taken from a horrible angle that just does not show the distinctive and well known profile of this unique landmark. I'm not that versed in moving a photo from one place to another but there is a FAR better one lower on the page that should be the featured photo. Anyone? SentientParadox (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections and no one else has changed it I figured out how and went ahead with it. I believe the former image was taken from a much closer range that isn't as well known a profile as what can be seen as far from the west side as Vermont route 7, and seen in reverse profile from Interstate 89. The photo now in the info box shows what the vast majority of people who have seen Camel's Hump would recognize. SentientParadox (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Camel's Hump State Park
It seems this article is ripe for splitting into two articles, one for Camel's Hump (the mountain) and one for Camel's Hump State Park. This would require some content currently contained in the former to be moved to the latter. Before I go down this path, are there any comments one way or the other? TIA Tom Scavo (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * An initial version of Camel's Hump State Park has been drafted. Expect some churn as the two articles reach equilibrium. Contributions welcome. Tom Scavo (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)