Talk:Yosemite National Park

Image map (painting by Heinrich Berann)

I have created an image map of Heinrich C. Berann's painting of Yosemite. It already has a bunch of links to various features of the park, and hopefully, people will add more. I am adding it to the popular features subheading of the geography section for starters, but if someone thinks it could be better located, no problem. The template is set to 1000 pixels, which I think is the minimum necessary considering the detail and the links.

To add to the image map go to Template:Yosemite ImageMap.ArcticBartek (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Neat idea, but 1000px is way too wide. Perwikipedia:Image use policy, "...larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors." Please resize map to that. The article generally has a bit of image glut. Some need to be taken out and others need to alternate left to right. --mav (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - I also moved the image up up. --mav (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That image TOTALLY needs to be sized down. Either that or replaced with an actual photo with a good vantage point. I realize you might want to put your own image up there but even the caption that says to scroll over and click on an area in the photo doesn't work for me. I say we go with a normal photo. Fatrb38 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the Berann map to the bottom of the geography section so that it would not cover the TOC in my browser. I think it is a cool idea, but wonder if a subarticle, Yellowstone National Park geography, might show it, some of the current photos and additional photos to an advantage. I think that the 550 px limit could be adjusted, but 1000 (or even 800) does seem too large, particularly in a major article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. Ratagonia (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support moving to new article. For parallel structure, can I suggest Geography of the Yosemite area (parallel to Geology of the Yosemite area and History of the Yosemite area) hike395 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Geography of the Yosemite area is better. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mummy found in the 1880s?

I've read on a few different websites that a mummy was found in a cave in Yosemite in the 1880s. It was a cave that had been sealed off with boulders, i.e. some kind of special tomb. It would have dated from neandarthal times, or something comparable. An especially odd aspect to the story is the mummy's height, which was something like 7'5". Anybody else ever read about this? I think it would be a neat thing to add to the article. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and WP:NOT. If your sources and content satisfy the relevant guidelines and policies, please add it to the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This item, often called the Martindale Mummy, is a cheap 19th century carnival sideshow hoax. The websites that state or imply it is genuine are unreliable sources of the "bigfoot is real!" variety. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

World Heritage Stie infobox vs. Protected area infobox

I see that there was discussion back in 2007 about there being 2 infoboxes in the article. I don't think there should be two. I came to the Talk page, anyhow, to suggest changing the infobox from one indicating "IUCN Category Ib (Wilderness Area)" to one indicating this as a World Heritage Site. I don't think many readers have heard of IUCN Category Ib, what the Protected areas infobox proclaims, while it seems more notable to me that this is a World Heritage Site. I am a member of both corresponding wikiprojects, wp:WHS and wp:PAREAS, by the way.

It is more significant and rare that Yosemite is a World Heritage Site. It is the only one in California, while there are many places in california listed on the IUCN's database. Would it be okay if I switched it over? doncram (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yosemite Airpark?

There seems to be a unreferenced fact that there is an airpark in Yosemite. I just recently went to Yosemite, and I have never heard of an airpark, and Wikipedia is the only website that says there is one. I was going to remove it, but I'm not sure if it is really false or not. —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@May/20/09 01:06

It is Pine Mountain Lake Airport located near Groveland, CA, about 26 miles from the Yosemite N. P. boundaries. So, it is NEAR Yosemite but not IN Yosemite. Cullen328 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hotels and concessioners

This subsection needs to be cited before being put back in the article. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See also: Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.

In the early years of the park hello, different companies ran multiple hotels and resorts. These resorts included the Wawona Hotel, the Yosemite Park Lodge, and Camp Curry, a tent cabin site in Yosemite Valley. The Yosemite Park & Curry Company was formed in 1925 to consolidate those often-competing concessions. The Park Service granted the newly formed company exclusive right to operate hotels, restaurants and most stores in Yosemite. Two years later, the new company was headquartered on the mezzanine level of its new property, the Ahwahnee Hotel. The Yosemite Park & Curry Company ran the concessions in the park for over 50 years, until the company was sold in the late 1970s to United States Natural Resources, and a couple of years later to MCA Inc.. During those ownership changes, the Curry Company name continued.

In 1993, Matsushita Electric Works acquired MCA. United States Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, Jr. objected to a Japanese firm operating concessions in a U.S. national park. To avoid delay of federal approval of the acquisition, Matsushita sold the concessions company, transferred ownership of the concession properties to the U.S. government, and the Yosemite Park & Curry Company name was retired.

The park concessions are now operated by DNC Parks and Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., part of the Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts division.

There was also a hotel called the Mountain House Hotel. It is mentioned in Ken Burns' "The National Parks - America's Best Idea". --24.20.129.18 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest removing the redirect that brings "Yosemite Park & Curry Company" here until this subsection is put back into the article. The article as it stands doesn't even reference Yosemite Park & Curry Company. Jim (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Article getting crowded with photos

Another editor mentioned to me that this article was getting too crowded with photos. I have to agree. I will send some of them to the corresponding commons gallery, so that they will still be accessible. If you disagree, revert my edit and we can discuss here. —hike395 (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In the end, I dropped 6 photos, added 2, and rearranged some of the others. Most of the dropped photos were from the Geography section. I think it looks better now: comments and feedback welcome. —hike395 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It does look nicer... it's hard to get rid of pics from such a beautiful place!

Redwood National and State Parks designation REMOVED

"Redwood National and State Parks" is a VERY specific name for only REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK and the three state parks (Prarie Creek, Del Norte Coast, and Jedediah Smith) that are located adjacent to (actually touching) Redwood National Park. This category is in error listing any parks beyond those three State parks in addition to RNP and will confuse readers. No other parks are included in the historic management compact that exists in between only the three listed state parks and Redwood National Park. Disagree? Call/Check sources related to Redwood National Park Headquarters in Crescent City, CA...Norcalal (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Yosemite is in a completely different part of the state. --mav (reviews needed) 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Double Rainbow

Do you think Double Rainbow should be mentioned?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.217.206 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There's already an article about it: Double Rainbow (viral video), I don't think we need to mention it here. —hike395 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. Just saw the video for the first time. It has little to do with Yosemite per se. Cullen328 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need mentioning. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

somebody fix this please: January averages 37.7 °C (99.9 °F)

"January averages 37.7 °C (99.9 °F), while July averages 72.7 °F (22.6 °C), though in summer the nights are much cooler than the hot days" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.99.190 (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding information about I-120 and the two trails

How about adding some information about I-120 and adjacent places where tourists can stay? It would be good to put some information about the two major road trails in the park. (TomPaul67 (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

120 is not an interstate, and in Yosemite is referred to as the Tioga Road. Roads are not really significant in this article.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Average 6-7 deaths per year - should have its own section.

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2011/07/national-park-deaths-random-or-reckless/178043/1 and http://news.yahoo.com/600-foot-fall-marks-14th-yosemite-death-232529077.html Would be a public service to keep people coming to wikipedia informed of the number of fatalities each year in each park imho. Pär Larsson (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - 1861 photos - Carleton Watkins

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/dec/30/yosemite-photographs-carleton-watkins-in-pictures#/?picture=383573763&index=0 shows some 18 picturs from 1861 reports that the J Paul Getty museum is publishing a book on the 150 anniversary of the photos first being displayed in New York. Gnangarra 12:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hantavirus

Very well, an editor has requested that this be discussed here. I have also requested an admin to review this. There seems to be opposition to mentioning this statement in the U.S. National Park Service subsection of the History section of this article: "In August 2012, Yosemite experienced an outbreak of hantavirus, a rodent-borne virus which killed at least two people, and according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, placed about 10,000 more at risk.". The fact that I'm "just" an IP address shouldn't have any bearing on the fact that a major public health risk involving 10,000 is notable and should be mentioned. An editor mentions that there have been over a thousand deaths at Yosemite - even if so, those have virtually all been attributed to falls off cliffs and other accidental or traumatic causes. Hantavirus is different, actually an infectious cause and apparently putting 10,000 people at risk, according to an authority no less than the CDC. It would be remiss to simply ignore such a major issue as if it never existed. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but it's also dangerous to try to get precision out of the somewhat sensational reporting going on right now. I would describe the "10,000 at risk" claim as part of the sensationalism. I would prefer to wait until the sensation fades from the reporting. Of course if news develops rapidly, with more deaths (let's hope not) then maybe something would be needed in the article quickly. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"At risk" simply means that - at risk. And this is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) making this assessment here, so I doubt it's sensationalism. The statement is also well-cited and simply states that the CDC has stated that 10,000 are at risk, not that I myself am declaring that 10,000 are at risk. Hopefully there are no more deaths, but that will never change the fact that an exceedingly unusual event has occurred at Yosemite with major potential consequence, and this is what cannot be ignored or dismissed as having never existed. And since when does Wikipedia wait for news to "ripen" before being recorded? 173.63.176.93 (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a long way away in Australia. My local "reliable source" is reporting this. But I'm still concerned that it stands out just because it's at a well known place rather than elsewhere. My reliable source tells me "Since the disease was first identified in 1993, there have been some 60 cases in California". Six more cases in California would not really be huge news. It's just that they happened somewhere famous. As for waiting for news to ripen, while I wouldn't have used those words, we do have Wikipedia:Recentism. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you're located in Australia, perhaps you may not appreciate the weight of a U.S. CDC declaration such as this one - this is significant, no matter how one tries to spin it. The source I cited indicates that at least five of the cases were associated with tent cabins at Yosemite's Curry Village - therefore, this becomes a very pertinent issue from specifically a Yosemite standpoint as well as from a public health standpoint. Again, the statement is simply indicating a highly unusual event as documented by no less august an institution than the CDC - it is not expressing an individual opinion or sensationalism, but a relevant statement from a reliable source. It's late here in the U.S., I will have to read your response and continue this discussion afterward, thank you. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand the Yosemite perspective. I just wonder what we do if we add content to the article now, and this is the last we hear of it in mainstream media? HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that will be a problematic issue. Look at the line before where this would go, in that same subsection - it's about something less consequential, namely about roads being closed. ("Roads have been closed in California before (even in Yosemite) - this just happened in a famous place." - just being facetious!) Another line could always be added on eventually that fortunately there ended up being no futher significant casualty count. However, please look at the Wikipedia traffic statistics for the past several days - there's obviously been a tremendous viewership spike during this story. To not capture the reason for that would represent terrible journalistic standards. So it sounds like you are open to having it in and modifying it as necessary - therefore, I will place it back, and you or I or anyone else can further add to it or modify in whatever way the story develops over time, thank you. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

How about WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is simply put, two more deaths in literally thousands. Making them out to be more notable than they are is giving them undue weight. And for the record, I'm in California, so theres no problem with my perspective. This is not an "epidemic" or "pandemic". Its a few people who caught a rare decease that has also claimed lives outside of the park, so no reason to make a special note of it when it happens in Yosemite. And as far as the CDC is concerned, this is the same organization that actually and officially sent out a Zombie Warning a few years ago, so you can't claim that they don't sensationalize.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but JOJ ^Hutton appears to be missing the main points:

1) It's not the number of deaths that matter here, it's the cause which is different. 2) It's also not the number of deaths but the number of people stated to be at risk by the CDC, which is one of the most reputable and authoritative U.S. national public health organizations of record, no matter how one tries to spin it. 3) It's stating a relevant, current, and well cited fact that is certainly more consequential than the statements before it about roads being temporarily rendered unusable - now THAT is undue weight. So if those statements remain, this should remain. 4) For now, given my good-faith understanding of the apparent OK of the reviewer of this article with the caveat that the coming days and weeks need to be monitored and the statement modified as necessary, I feel comfortable re-instating this statement. In the meantime, I have also sent this for admin review, so please do not engage in another edit conflict before he has a chance to review it. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring over this trivial issue. You have no right per WP:BRD to feel comfortable to re-add information that two separate editors have removed. This is not a notable event, no matter how you wish to spin it. It's not an epidemic, it's not something that has only happened at Yosemite, and its not something that is going to have a lasting effect on the park. And did you "add" my signature to the text of your comment?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT edit warring - see my talk page. If anything, it appears that you are the one engaging as such. You are the only editor who has had a sustained objection to this "trivial" issue - even the reviewer of this article appears to agree with me. And as far as your "signature" goes, how else would/should someone state your Username if that's how you characterize it yourself? - please enlighten, your question sounds bizarre. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is this "reviewer and where is it that says they agree with this trivial inclusion?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop it with the games already and let it go to the admin - there's nothing more to say unless you have some vested interest in not including a pertinent and noteworthy while perhaps unpleasant fact. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can't provide any evidence or a diff of anyone else agreeing for this inclusion, then it shouldn't be included. Its trivial, undue weight, not notable, and too recent to be included. There is no notability in these two deaths than in any of the others. And the CDC claiming that 10,000 people are at risk, is another example of the CDC sensationalizing a situation. They have done it before. Unless this becomes an epidemic in the park, its hardly notable enough to mention.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this discussion, HiLo48 (talk) above has given his conditional OK, and his edit summary in the edit history states, "Understand". You, on the other hand, are in apparently bad faith attempting to subvert release of pertinent and properly and reliably cited information validated by the highly authoritative CDC. And please look up WP:CRYSTALBALL - what may or may not materialize is irrelevant. I really feel uncomfortable continuing with this conversation any longer - please let the admin sort this out. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that you may have misinterpreted the "understood" comment as some sort of agreement with inclusion. There is nothing in any of the above comments that would lead me to believe that HiLO was agreeing with you. I'm only following Wikipedia Guidelines and policies, which I am very very familiar with and am able to easily spot problems with content that seems to violate these policies.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed as undue wt and notnews. Also took out the spring 2011 storm bit for the same reason. Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the storm on my radar as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, a little too much was read into my earlier comment. My point was that although I'm Australian, I have been to the Curry Village at Yosemite (hence this being on my watchlist), and can see the immediate issue from the Yosemite perspective. But I'm still concerned that this is hopefully and quite likely going to be the last we will here of this story in mainstream media. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/06/health/yosemite-campers-hantavirus/index.html?iref=allsearch ..and then please check this out: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/zombie-alert-issued-homeland-security-article-1.1154245 (the Zombie alert was just a humorous tactic to alert the public of threats far more important - it wasn't meant to be taken for real - even I could tell. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Hantavirus story has been sensationalized a lot in recent global media, but I don't think excluding it from this article is going to help anyone. I don't understand why we don't have a section acknowledging the situation, showing evidence and explaining the normal dangers of the disease, and linking to Curry_Village,_California#2012_Hantavirus_outbreak. I've seen this implemented in other Wikipedia articles in the past while looking up more information about hoax-like or questionable news or events online. If anything, I think this would would deter further "vandalism" from unknowing Wikipedia Users who think we're overlooking or purposefully hiding this entire issue at hand. Airelor (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Because we don't add every single death that occurs in the park. That logic would open the flood gates for adding other deaths. This isn't a epidemic or something catastrophic.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read my last comment more carefully... I'm not trying to suggest writing about the Hantavirus risk as a large epidemic or serious "zombie" attack like some news outlet might. Three days ago I didn't even know this or any other Wikipedia Talk Page existed in this way. I tried to make an edit about the Hantavirus risk on this page without knowing other people had tried to this before and had my action reverted also by you. If you already had a section already referring to Hantavirus disease, you might actually be making your job easier. I'm going to try to appeal this to another administrator. I hope you realize that I'm not trying to antagonize you, the National Park, or the reputation of Wikipedia by doing this. Airelor (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of Wikipedia. It's not the mission of the project to make places look good or bad. These articles are not fan sites, nor are they a repository for every single snippet of information that has ever been written about them. With so many deaths in the park during its existance, its best not to give too much weight in the article for just a few recent ones.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

My local media has stopped reporting this (which reinforces my original concern of Wikipedia:Recentism), so I ask those geographically closer, have there been any more deaths this month? If not, this does not go into the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Three have died [1], which matches the death toll on a single day last year when three hikers were swept over Vernal Fall at the same time. Coincidently, I was actually in the park last year when that happened. My family and I were hiking up to Upper Yosemite Falls when the deaths occurred. We had actually been at the lip of Vernal Fall two days previous, so the deaths of those three hikers kind of hit me hard. But I still didn't think it notable enough to add to the article, because it's undue weight.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Rim fire

I started a stub at 2013 Yosemite fire since the event seems to meet notabillty criteria for events per WP:GEOSCOPE. --DarTar (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Vernal Fall

This old photograph of "Vernal Fall" might interest someone. Is it the same sight as the one pictured in the article? This angle isn't quite as dramatic. Also, the area looks more cleared out in recent photographs? Park service? Fire? Just the angle?

Photograph from 1858 by Carleton Watkins

Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Website links in infobox

Currently, the infobox contains three links. Even assuming they all belong in the EL section, I believe the Infobox should only contain the URL to the official http://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm per the usage guidance at Template:Infobox protected area as well as per WP:ELOFFICIAL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% and have removed the websites of Yosemite Conservancy (which I support financially myself) and Delaware North (whose facilities I have patronized many times). I have no problem including them as external links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yosemite as part of Northern California

To avoid the issue of edit-warring, let's discuss this debate here. As our own article on Northern California notes, the counties encompassing Yosemite National Park are commonly referred to as being part of Northern California, and the park is commonly referred to in external publications as being in Northern California. For example, "Wild Northern California," a guidebook to designated wilderness in the region, includes and describes the Yosemite Wilderness. [2]. This is likely because while Yosemite may be closer to the "geographic center" than the northern extremity, in common practice California is roughly geographically divided in half rather than in thirds. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Controlled use of fire by Ahwahneechee Native American Indians in Yosemite

I think somewhere this view should be mentioned, that the Ahwahneechee before they were killed or driven from the park would manage it with controlled fires and that many of the problems with wild fires are due to this absence of the resident humans who used to be part of the ecosystem there. Perhaps a short summary of this article could be a starting point for it?

Fire Over Ahwahnee: John Muir and the Decline of Yosemite

Robert Walker (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Confusing redirects

The Yosemite Park and Curry Company redirect is targeted at this page, whereas the effectively identical Yosemite Park & Curry Company is redirected to the Ahwahnee Hotel. Could someone who knows about this sort out that mess? (I'm posting an identical note in the talk section of the latter page, too.) MrRedwood (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, Curry Company doesn't even have a page, and isn't a redirect to anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRedwood (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Yosemite National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521032840/http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/153 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/308
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521032840/http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/153 to http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=cent;cc=cent;rgn=full%20text;idno=cent0040-5;didno=cent0040-5;view=image;seq=0666;node=cent0040-5%3A2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521032840/http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/153 to http://www.nps.gov/yose/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521032840/http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/153 to http://www.campingatyosemite.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120204021630/http://projectyose.com/ to http://projectyose.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem reported. — Gorthian (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yosemite National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100915100743/http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/transportation/electric.html to http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/transportation/electric.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yosemite National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116010746/http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/013_statutes_at_large.pdf to http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/013_statutes_at_large.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

History: "first to tour the area"

"In 1855, entrepreneur James Mason Hutchings, artist Thomas Ayres and two others were the first to tour the area." This needs clarification, because indigenous people clearly "tour[ed] the area" long before any Europeans entered N America. Acwilson9 (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily.

• If the reader doesn't know that, besides parts of the polar regions, there aren't many places on the planet that hadn't seen a human by 1855 (and most of them remote islands), the preceding section begins: "Yosemite Valley has been inhabited for nearly 3,000 years, although humans may have first visited the area as long as 8,000 to 10,000 years ago."
• Nobody would say that Native Americans "toured the area". They didn't "tour" anything.
• How best to clarify? "First Europeans"? Hutchings had apparently been an American citizen since 1848, and Ayres was born in New Jersey. "First people of European descent"? "First white people"? "First non-natives"? In any case, strict adherence to WP:V would require source support, and the cited source, being a book, is not easily accessible. So you'd have to go find a copy of the book or another reliable source that says what you want the article to say.

There is such a thing as "over-accuracy" – i.e., accuracy that is unnecessary and tends to hinder reading comprehension. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Superintendent

Any interest in a having a sentence mention the national park's superintendent? Cindy Muldoon was named yesterday as the park's new superintendent, becoming just the second woman to hold the position. I think it's worthy of inclusion, and I'm happy to post it if there's consensus. https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Yosemite-gets-new-superintendent-in-bid-for-15678961.php Pistongrinder (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

FA criteria

There is significant unsourced content in the article, including no less than 27 {{citation needed}} tags. The article will need better referencing in order to remain a featured article. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)