Talk:Flathead Lake: Difference between revisions
{{WikiProject Montana|class=Start}} |
rating |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{lake project}} |
{{lake project|class=start}} |
||
{{WikiProject Montana|class=Start}} |
{{WikiProject Montana|class=Start}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 23:16, 21 August 2007
Lakes Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Montana Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Flathead name
I read somewhere that the name of the Flathead lake came from the fact that it has a flat head, as in the head of the lake, being a filled in marsh, is amazingly flat. I don't remember what book this was in however (but it is in the Kalispell or Columbia Falls library). Jrincayc 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd always assumed it came from the Flathead Indians.
misinformation
Flathead Lake is not the largest natural freshwater lake in the western united states. That would be Lake Iliamna in Alaska, a natural lake that covers 1000 square miles and is 900 feet deep. I'm not sure that Flathead Lake is even in the top four. I know that Becharof and Lake Clark are also larger.
- Lake Tahoe is also larger, by a hair, according to the data on its page. BlongerBros 04:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Remove cleanup tag?
I feel that we could probably remove the cleanup tag from this article. It reads fairly well, and I didn't see any glaring errors in spelling, syntax or grammar. But, this is the first I've seen it, so I didn't want to be presumptious. CharacterZero | Speak 17:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the cleanup tag (after adding an infobox). I don't know what the rationale was for a cleanup in the first place. Unless the reasons for cleanup are obvious (poor grammar, missing information, and so on), someone putting a cleanup tag on an article should explain why on the talk page. Otherwise, it makes it difficult for future editors to figure out what needs to be added or changed. --Elkman - (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Flathead Lake Monster
I reverted an edit that claimed there was rumors of a lake monster in Flathead Lake...well, it's probably good for tourism, but not much facuality to this aside from mentioning it's rumoured. I suppose we could put that back in, but we need to cite it and all I could find was this that was of much use.--MONGO 07:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)