# Talk:Lake Cahuilla

Hey, Jo-Jo Eumerus – can you clarify this sentence for me? I'm having trouble parsing through it. I've looked at the NAD article and I still am unsure of the meaning of this sentence in the Geography section:
Major shorelines are the 12 metres (39 ft) above North American Datum (NAD) shoreline and other 20–50 metres (66–164 ft) above NAD.
The NAD article says that there are two NAD in use, do we need to specify which one is being referred to? Maybe it is assumed to be the more recent? Also, should the second "shoreline" come out, the NAD doesn't refer specifically to the shoreline, right?
Here's what I propose, unless it mangles the meaning of course!
Major shorelines existed at 12 metres (39 ft) above North American Datum (NAD) shoreline and at 20–50 metres (66–164 ft) above NAD.
Thanks for your patience in explaining geological concepts–learning new things is one of the reasons I love being a Wikipedian! – gwendy (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gwendy: Proposed rewrite seems OK to me. Source does not appear to explain which NAD is used, but it refers to findings made before 1967 if that helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks! If the source doesn't specify the NAD, I don't think we want to assume. If the reader is interested in that level of detail, they can view the source and make the assumption themselves. I am enjoying working through this article (& am learning) a lot! It is still a bit dense from me and it's taking a while–I hope that's okay! – gwendy (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's another one, @Jo-Jo Eumerus: :
On Lake Cahuilla's eastern shore, the nature of the shoreline ranges from 7.6 metres (25 ft) high wavecut cliffs beneath the Mecca Hills over baymouth bars farther south, one of which reaches a length of 5.6 kilometres (3.5 mi) at the Orocopia Mountains.
The "ranges from" leads me to believe there should be a "to" in there somewhere to separate the high and low but I'm not sure where it should go. Should it be in place of "over" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwendy (talk • contribs) 

@Gwendy: Just a note, pings don't work if you don't sign a post. Anyhow, I think the "to" needs to connect to the next sentence. Not sure how to rewrite that so that it doesn't give a "seasnake" sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: – Okay, I went with this: The nature of the shoreline varies; to the east it includes 7.6 metres (25 ft) high wavecut cliffs beneath the Mecca Hill ... Feel free to change it if it doesn't work! – gwendy (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
A note about wikilinks, @Jo-Jo Eumerus: You may have noticed, I removed a LOT of them. The article felt cluttered to me, bordering on difficult to read. The guideline is only the first mention, but I tried to leave some where they were directly related to the topic of the section. For example, I left Holocene & Pleistocene links in the Chronology section. Obviously, feel free to add them back in places you deem necessary . – gwendy (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gwendy:. The overlinking is a bad habit I have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lake Cahuilla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Commencing GA review for Lake Cahuilla. I'll read through the article and begin reviewing later today. Codyorb (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
REVIEW:
Sorry for the delay! Here's the review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Article is somewhat long, although it's very readable and informative.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
All facts verified with citations
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images are licensed for usage
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Passes. Great work on a great article!

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lake Cahuilla. 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/20170305120303/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Trough-to-trough-The-Colorado-River-and-the-Salton-Reynolds-Jefferson/88af68bf408e078b367d5939ad46b0f3fbd47a44 to https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Trough-to-trough-The-Colorado-River-and-the-Salton-Reynolds-Jefferson/88af68bf408e078b367d5939ad46b0f3fbd47a44
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 19:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that needed an extra fix... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to link California and Mexico? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel like it was a positive addition; since the lake was in modern-day California and Mexico and there was no link to those pages from the article, they should be linked. Why is it better not to link them? Yoleaux (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK, basically. Mexico is a major sovereign country and California arguably one of the best known US states. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The words paul and paulnevolent appear to be using a non-standard, English-influenced orthography. The source cited doesn't provide a source for the words. Pál is the Cahuillan word for water, but the sources I've found don't mention any similarly-named beings involved in the creation myth. Based on similar words I've seen (especially in ), I suspect the "correct" statement involves one of the nukatem like the "water demon" Palpukawil, but I can't find enough information to be sure. I know it's a small thing, but it stood out to me as odd, especially on a good article.

 Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Hrmm. Unfortunately, my knowledge about proper Cahuilla orthography could fit on a postage stamp with lots of room left, so I can't fix it myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link. The sentences about it were removed from the article with the summary The Coronado Expedition went nowhere near Lake Cahuilla or what is now present day Southern California at any point. I find it dubious that any source would use them as a reference point for the existence of the lake. The sauce says Wilke [1978] has interpreted transverses made during the Coronado Expedition in 1540 to indicate that Lake Cahuilla was not then at its high stand, but this historic evidence is inconclusive as to whether the time of the last high stand of the lake was before or after 1540. The geologic evidence discussed here permits this stand to have been later than 1540. Wilke 1978 is a thesis that includes the following 1540--Hernando de Alarc6n sailed from Colima to the head of the Gulf of California as part of the expedition of Francisco de Coronado. He ascended the Colorado River in ship's boats probably to just below the junction with the Gila (Hammond and Rey 1940:124-155), possibly as far as present Parker, Arizona, and found the river flowing directly into the gulf.1540--Melchior Dfaz led an overland expedition from Corazones, Sorona, to the Colorado, also in connection with the Coronado expedition. He found messages left for him on the Colorado by Alarcon, ascended the river an unknown distance (possibly as far as present Blythe), crossed it, and descended it on the west (California) side. He almost certainly reached the mud volcanoes near Cerro Prieto (the site of the outlet channel of Lake Cahuilla, which was not seen), and was fatally wounded in an accident in the western part of the delta (Hammond and Rey 1940:231-232). I note that Cerro Prieto is not a mud volcano, but it might have looked like one - either way, that sounds like a plausible pathway for information about Lake Cahuilla to relate to an expedition quite some distance away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying other Spanish exploration parties did not go by that area, but it was not the Coronado expedition, led by Coronado. Wikipedia's own entry on Alarcon makes it clear he is on a separate Expedition.  Yes an auxiliary force of the Expedition did find the letters and probably saw the sea.  I suggest we edit to reflect this. 2601:206:8780:27D0:45F7:63FA:B237:E99E (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Started with a minimal edit. Are there sources other than theses discussing where the expedition went? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
There has to be. I will look at the articles that mention Alarcon and Diaz and check if there are references that are applicable.  However, it will be a couple days until I can get to that.  Thanks for your patience. Seantpainter (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)