Talk:Carrizo Plain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Protected Areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected areas worldwide. It may include the protected area infobox.

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Pictures

Do we really need all these pictures? It doesn't seem to add anything to the article. Synergism 04:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The original Overabundance of 3 pictures were "Vastly" an improved version of what is now here. One of the original three was the landscape type of appropriate size. And there was a nice view of a Prong horn. ......////.. 1-pic is not the minimum. it is simply an article with a picture. 2 is simply "1" above the ground zero minimum,.... so 3 certainly was inappropriate to "Complain" about. [ 10, 20, or 30 might be too much (or 7), but three pics cannot be used with the same word "overabundance". It doesn't compute.] and [the overabundance of 3 is now turned into 'a lower quality presentation' of 3 ]

I almost commented previously, but thought what the heck. Now that the poorness of the page, in picture quality presents itself, I am pretty much forced to offer an opinion I had earlier. It is "too bad" how the pictures degrade what looked pretty nice.////(Just increasing the size of the first two gallery pics may be the answer).//Mmcannis 03:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I preferred it the former way as well, but then I'm not unbiased because I took the original two of the pictures that were on the page. At any rate something should be up top and alongside the text. Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless I hear an objection I will change it back to the way it was. Antandrus (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Soda Lake

The link associated with Soda Lake is incorrect. There are at least 4 saline flats or lakes in California (San Luis Obispo Co. (this feature), Shasta Co., Santa Cruz Co., and San Bernardino Co.). The Soda Lake connected to the link is the one in San Bernardino Co., not the lake that is the sink for drainage in the Carrizo Plain. Sodalake 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disambiguated it to Soda Lake (San Luis Obispo County). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures in a gallery

How is it an improvement to put the pictures in a gallery, in which they do not even show? The first three are dead links, and the fourth only appears in my browser. It's that way on IE on a PC and in Firefox on a Mac. Antandrus (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem seeing them with IE using a PC. --Ebyabe 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The original picture format when I came to this article has been missing for some time. It was a nice looking article. If "People" think that a 'Standardized Monument Format Box' somehow allows people to only go in one direction, I Disagree. For one thing, I put the Carrizo Plain in the National Grasslands category, kinda for obvious reasons, ... even if it is a local, and California-only grassland. I'm sure it qualifies, and I personally hope to drive to the Carrizo Plain one day.

Any, again, ..any article in wikipedia has the potential of informing, and also looking nice. The gallery format, of whosever idea it was, lowers the standard of what this article is capable of. (from the SonoranDesert, extreme SWesternArizona).. -Mmcannis 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree to a point. Nice pictures can improve an article greatly. But if the article itself isn't that long, then too many pictures can overwhelm it.

How many is too many? That can be, admittedly, somewhat subjective. I'm not sure there's an official policy about it, though you'd think there would be. My criterion is to imagine that I'm reading the article in ye olde fashioned paper-type encyclopedia, and how would it look there. There should be significantly more space taken up by the text than the pictures. IMHO, the text is the important part. Yeah, obvious, I know. A good example of an article with a number of pictures that, I think, works is St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York. The pictures supplement and enhance the text. So if this article was longer, more pictures could be strategically added and it would be a good thing.

Understand, I'm a bit of a photo nut, and there's lots of pictures I've taken I'd love to add to articles I've done and others have done. But I haven't, precisely for the reasons stated above. I put the WikiCommons notification on the page, add a gallery with a few pictures, and go on to the next thing. As they say, amongst other things, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Mind you, there is WikiTravel, which, in fact, is a travel guide. It may be more amenable to the kind of article you're thinking of. Just my dos pesos, for what it's worth... -Ebyabe 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)