Talk:Bear Lake (Idaho-Utah)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Bear Lake (Idaho-Utah): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Review Utah Division of Water Quality report and add its information to the article.
  • Create an Ecosystem section, with an Endemism subsection (more information [1], [2][3]).
  • Create a Geography section.
  • Create a Hydrology section, including info on the Bear River diversion and the Lifton Pump station (more information).
  • Expand History section.
  • Expand info on the "sea monster", perhaps in the history section?
  • Add information on the scout camps[4] on the lake.
Completed or in-process
  • Incorporate basic endemic species info into lead section.
  • Name major inlets. added several from the Bathymetric chart, but there could be more.
  • Add a map. Bathymetric chart is fine for now.
  • Create a History section (more information[5][6]). Created, needs expanding.
  • Expand info on raspberries (more information).
Priority 5  

Well...I can't confirm some of this information myself...so, if anyone could confirm the information that I just posted that would be great.

We should proably make mention of the endemic species of Bear Lake, the Bonneville whitefish, Bear Lake whitefish, Bear Lake cutthroat trout, the Bear Lake sculpin, and the Bonneville cisco.

Contents

[edit] Page move

I think the page should be moved to Bear Lake (Idaho-Utah), as a slash signifies an either/or situation. Also, the page says "Idaho-Utah border." I realize this isn't the most heavily traveled talk page, so I may just go and do it myself if I don't get any replies. But for now, let's hear what you have to say. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if this even needs to be disambiguated. It could just be at Bear Lake. None of the other Bear Lakes mentioned on the disambiguation page even have articles, except for the cities mentioned, and they would have to remain "Bear Lake Township, state" or whatever, and of all of the Bear Lakes in the world, this is probably the largest and most well-known (considering, again, that it's the only one that has an article). bob rulz 22:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
But those titles will probably eventually get articles of their own. Also, I've decided to just go ahead with the page move. This page and the disambig both refer to it as the Idaho-Utah border, not the Idaho/Utah border, so for the sake of consistency, I'm renaming it. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bob, let's move this to Bear Lake and move that to Bear Lake (disambiguation). This is the most notable Bear Lake other than Great Bear Lake perhaps, but that has a Great in front of it which prevents confusion. We just need a disambiguation message at the top of this page and it'll be fine. Only four articles link to the disambig page so redirecting those is a simple matter. --Lethargy 20:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Update: performing a Google search shows that this is the bear lake most sites are linking to. MSN and Ask.com show the same thing. Yahoo! is the only notable exception, where Bear Lake is the second on the list and Big Bear comes first, but that also has a Big in front of it. Great Bear Lake didn't turn out so well... --Lethargy 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move (again)

Also see my comments above about the search engines.

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support --Lethargy 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This doesn't even require a vote. If I recall my Wikipedia guidelines correctly, voting is only needed when there is a major disagreement. Either way I support. There is no Bear Lake article; this is the only one. bob rulz 13:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I started the vote purely because I cannot move the article to a page that already exists. The Requsted moves page stated that a vote was required, but this might be an exception, I'm not sure. --Lethargy 21:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It's easy; move the current Bear Lake to Bear Lake (disambiguation) and then move this article to Bear Lake. bob rulz 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I tried, but it didn't work. Somehow it doesn't matter if the article is empty: I even removed the redirect that was placed automatically. --Lethargy 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's why we have this process. You can't "move" this article to Bear Lake; you can only copy the contents, and then the edit history gets left behind here. Non-controversial moves can be done by an administrator without discussion, but all others need discussion. --Usgnus
  • Support --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The Bear Lake in Idaho-Utah is clearly more notable than any other Bear Lake: lake, town, village, etc. --Usgnus 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Given the number of Bear Lakes in use, how can anyone know that a significant number of users would not first arrive at the wrong article if this change is made. That is against guidelines. I remember Bear Lake, Pennsylvania which we called Bear Lake and never heard of Bear Lake in Idaho and Utah. The current page at Bear Lake seems to be the correct one for any number of reasons. Lack of articles is not a move justification. Vegaswikian 20:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • The reasoning that this is the only actual lake with an article of that name and therefore automatically deserves primary topic status is faulty. A lake (or any other geographic term) does not automatically have precedence over other uses of the term. If there were a city that was extremely well known as simply "Bear Lake", that use might have better claim to primary topic than any actual lake. However, regarding the specifics of this, I'm not familiar with any of the instances, so as far as I'm concerned, equal disambiguation is appropriate. But, like I say, I'm not familiar with any of them, so if there is a strong consensus about primary topic status, that's just OK by me. (BTW, there is also Bear Lake State Park about the Idaho park which is not linked to in this article--I'm not sure, but I think there is a state park in Utah with the same name). older ≠ wiser 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I support simply for the fact that there is no other Bear Lake mentioned in the disambig page that actually has an article that's just named Bear Lake. This is the only one, therefore, there's no need for a disambiguation. Also, the one in Utah is called Bear Lake State Park (therefore it will probably need a disambiguation soon). bob rulz 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point too much, but, Bear Lake, Michigan, Bear Lake, Pennsylvania, Bear Lake, Wisconsin, and Bear Lake, British Columbia are all commonly known as simply "Bear Lake". The part after the comma in each case is disambiguation, in the same way that "(Idaho-Utah)" is a disambiguating phrase for this article. Only the form is different to help distinguish between communities and geographic entities. By requesting to move this article to Bear Lake, it needs to be clear that this is overwhelmingly the most common thing known by that name. older ≠ wiser 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident that this is more common than any of those. Even Chicago has Illinois after it in the official article name, which is Chicago, Illinois. It has less to do with disambiguation than it does with defining what state it is in. In fact, the only U.S. city that doesn't have the state it's in as part of the actual article name is New York City, despite how many other cities or towns go by whatever the city or town's name is. For example, there is no other city that is called Salt Lake City, yet the actual name of the article is still Salt Lake City, Utah. bob rulz 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree in this specfic case that this lake probably does merit primary topic disambiguation. But my point is that it is irrelevant that this is the only lake article or that the other articles are in the form "Bear Lake, State". Speaking hypothetically, if one of the towns were extremely well-known, then Bear Lake would be a redirect to that town, just as Chicago redirects to Chicago, Illinois. This has from time to time been the subject of considerable debate, as many find the state disambiguation unnecessary in cases like Chicago, where one is by far more notable than any others, or in cases where there are no other entities with the same name. But the city, state convention has stuck in the U.S. for the sake of consistency. But, everything after the comma is nonetheless a disambiguating phrase. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
To repeat my previous statement:

performing a Google search shows that this is the bear lake most sites are linking to. MSN and Ask.com show the same thing. Yahoo! is the only notable exception, where Bear Lake is the second on the list and Big Bear comes first, but that also has a Big in front of it. Great Bear Lake didn't turn out so well... --Lethargy 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. It would be helpful to put a note on the Talk:Bear Lake page about the page move proposal. --Usgnus 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result

I am not going to move the page, Bear Lake is an huge disambig page, and although at the actual lake level, this might be the most important one, there is no reason to exclude the towns from the discussion. So, despite the consensus, this is a bad idea. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify (after a question on my talk page), I indeed mean that a notification at the town pages would have been nice. Maybe there is a town with much more exposure, or at least that there would be editors who feel that the towns should be disamgihed on the page as is now. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rock flour

From rock flour:

Rock flour, or glacial flour, consists of clay-sized particles of rock, generated by glacial erosion or by artificial grinding to a similar size. Because the material is very small, it is suspended in river water making the water appear cloudy. If the river flows into a glacial lake, the lake may appear turqoise in color as a result.

From Lake Louise, Alberta"

The unique emerald colour of the lake comes from Rock Flour carried into the lake by melt-water from the glaciers that overlook the lake.

From Moraine Lake:

However, when it is full, it is a beautiful shade of blue. The lake gets its color from the Refraction of light off the Rock flour deposited in the lake on a continual basis.

Lastly, from this article:

It is frequently noted for its unique turqoise-blue color, the result of suspended limestone deposits in the water.

It appears to me that what the article is referring to is, in fact, rock flour. Unfortunately I can't find it mentioned by that name in any sources, so I'm not sure what to do. Could we state that it is rock flour, or would we need a source that categorically states that? --Lethargy 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rock flour is usually meant to be of glacial origin. The sediments and deposits that give Bear Lake its color are not of glacial origin; to use the phrase "rock flour" here is misleading. --Geologyguy 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... this page states that "it is a relatively deep marl lake in a glaciated drainage". However, since I am lacking any sources that state it is rock flour (which I think you know more about than me, considering I only discovered it a few months back :)) I haven't added anything other than the see also, which was unnecessary. Thanks for the input, BTW.--Lethargy 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bear Lake Photography

An interactive tour of the Bear Lake area with thousands of images can be found at:

http://www.UntraveledRoad.com/Categories/Lakes/BearLake.htm