Talk:Carrizo Plain

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Manager suicide

I think the manager suicide section is inappropriate. There is not much connection to the Carrizo Plain other than saying she was "making great strides in protecting native species", and it seems odd to have such a thing in an encyclopedia article about a landform. I removed a link in the section to the Workplace Bullying Institute because it is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines and it has a link to another page on the site with anonymous negative comments about Huntsinger, not that the non-anonymous comments are okay. The link to the report is a sufficient source for saying that she committed suicide, which is how the link to the bullying site was used. -- Kjkolb 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a long article about this in (I think) the LA Times a couple of years ago. While I think it could be worthy of a writeup or at least a mention, this article isn't the place to do it. Perhaps an article on Marlene Braun, with careful adherence to sourcing guidelines. You're right--this is an article on a landform; it seems like the section belongs elsewhere. Antandrus (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does not seem to belong here. Basar 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrizo Plain vs. Carrizo Plain National Monument

The article should make itself clear whether it is about the Carrizo Plain or the Carrizo Plain National Monument. While the two things obviously overlap a great deal, they are not exactly the same. For example, parts of the Carrizo Plain are not inside the monument. The infobox is the most prominent example of how they are used interchangeably. -- Kjkolb 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should have two articles? Basar 19:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Management section

I dont see why the management section last seen here--http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrizo_Plain&oldid=192395710 was deleted. This is important information that anyone interested in the place should know about. I recommend that it be restored.

Rudolph2007 (talk) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

march 2 draft

Fauna belongs before management

What about Flora?

Where are your references? This wont pass without footnotes to the relevant sources for each piece of information

beds lay 475 and 400 --look up and learn to use lie and lay correctly

shortly afterwards about 11,000 years ago.--delete unnecessary words

that had been offset --verb tense

most widely known, and best studied.--already stated

February 2008 (UTC)--what's this doing here?

The Parent materials --capitalization?

Thus making is the largest concentration of endangered species in California.--proofread

he Le Conte's Thrasher of the Southwestern United States has a disjunct north range in the Carrizo Plain because of its hotter climate and ecology.--needs explaining or clearer terms

2001, President William J. Clinton approved a bill to make Carrizo Plain a National Monument. Since then, the area of protected land has increased to 250,000 acres.

[edit] Carrizo Plain National Monument

The CPNM management partners in 1996 created a joint plan called the Carrizo Plain Natural Area Plan. The goal of this plan was to “a. [establish] long-term mission and vision statements that reflect the long-term objectives of the CPNA--confusing. what's relation between Area and Monument? CPNA and CPNM? Chronology in this section moves backwards.

Current Developments and Future Developments are vague headings

Success with the wells at Russell Ranch and Morales Canyon Oil fields have been unsuccessful for the past 10 years--read this

Opposition of this nomination voiced many concerns on--proofread

Access information belongs with Geography

Oil drilling section needs to be brought up to date with the article I sent from today's paper.

Good information here, but this remains rough throughout in organization and expression. The absence of references lowers the grade to D.

Rudolph2007 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

infobox update needed

NRHP infobox not appropriate, as this NM is not NRHP-listed. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#Cleanup to use Geobox rather than NRHP infobox for many U.S. National Monument articles. doncram (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Carrizo Plain Archeological District was designated a National Historic Landmark on March 2, 2012, so an NRHP infobox is now appropriate. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 01:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has a {{geobox}} now which is sort of generic. I thought about using {{infobox protected area}} but I think that the article is too general to use that infobox. You might start a section about The Carrizo Plain Archeological District and put the NRHP box in that section. The geobox fans can get upset if you change it but you might think about {{infobox historic site}} which can have data on National Monument as well as NRHP. –droll [chat] 01:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I switched infoboxes. It might work. –droll [chat] 02:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Energy Section Outdated

The information in the solar energy heading is outdated, referring to 2008 plans. At least one major solar energy development is complete: California Valley Solar Ranch

Gerald H -oldeststudent2004- (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carrizo Plain. 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:

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

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) 07:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrizo Plain. 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/20081004022056/http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q3_2008/080814.shtml to http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q3_2008/080814.shtml

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) 13:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]