Talk:Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve

message: Added image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oregon_Caves_p1080458_1024.jpg
Author: David Monniaux
Photo taken in 2006
96.41.164.58 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image attribution per the GNU Free Documentation License

message: A good source that could be used to clean up this article is Appendix C of the document Klamath Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan published by the National Park Service. The entire document is available for download here. It was completed in 2007 and should be fairly up to date. –droll [chat] 04:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good source for reliable information 

message: I am nominating this article for Good status on behalf of User:Finetooth, who did a fine expansion job. FT believes the article may even be eligible for Featured status, but does not wish to guide it through formal review processes at this time. I had no part in conducting research for, or expanding, this article but I am happy to address concerns that may arise during the review process. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear! I will also try to watch this page and address any concerns that arise. It's always a pleasure to dig into one of Finetooth's articles. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fantastic -- thanks, Pete! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination

message: I don't know this term, but (obviously) neither does Wikipedia, as this is a red link. I'm no geologist, but it seems likely that solutional cave is the same thing. Can anybody confirm, and if it is, can we make a link and/or a redirect? -Pete (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's the same thing. "Dissolution cave" sounds like a party cave, which the Oregon Caves main cave was at times. However, "solutional cave" seems better, and I changed it to that just now and added a link. Thanks, Pete. Finetooth (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent, thanks! I read most of the article today, planning to come back before it gets reviewed. Considering picking up the GA review myself, but mindful of the time required…at any rate, it looks great so far. -Pete (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you like it, and thanks for the edits. I added a few more details today about the Historic District within the monument and the recent (early 2012) expansion of the district to include some trail segments. Meanwhile, a helpful geologist improved the sentence about subduction and the accreted terrane. Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  My pleasure :) -Pete (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail: [[dissolution cave]] 

message: The climate chart is about the city of Cave Junction -- i.e., the home of the offsite visitor center. There's no chart for the climate of the main site itself. But I think the natural assumption for the reader is that if there's a climate chart, it would be for the main site.
Since the Cave Junction, Oregon article already has a (more complete) climate chart, and is only a click away, I think it would be best to just remove it from this article. (Just the chart, not the accompanying text.) Any objections? -Pete (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It does make more sense to have the climate chart on the Cave Junction article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. Readers will assume these stats are for the main part of the monument. I don't remember why I used the Cave Junction chart, but I see that the Weather Channel has stats for the main monument location. They are not identical to the stats for Cave Junction. See the display here. I have another source I'd like to consult, but I won't be able to do that for a few more hours, in all likelihood. My thinking at this point is that the chart is useful but should be more accurate. Does that make sense, or does the chart still seem unnecessary even if tweaked? Finetooth (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking only from personal preference, I'm not a huge fan of the climate boxes -- seems to me that a link to an external source is typically more what I would expect from an encyclopedia. But that's not a policy-based point, that's just WP:DONTLIKE. A climate box that puts appropriate emphasis on the main site would be fine if you think it improves the article. -Pete (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would consider stats for the main monument location relevant. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My other source turned out to have no useful information about the monument, and, without checking again here first, I decided the text made everything clear and that the climate box was probably overkill. I could put it back with the revised data if you like, but I'm fine with it being gone. Just to clarify: empty climate boxes are Wikipedia creations in the same sense that empty infoboxes are Wikipedia creations. The data in the boxes comes from external sources, but they are (or should be) acknowledged with inline citations. Since the climate boxes don't violate the "no direct link to other sites from within the main text" guideline, I think they are OK in general (in that particular way) even if overkill in this article. They are, however, garish and seem to yell at the reader. I like the way they present a lot of complex data in a small space, but I wish they weren't so intensely colored. Finetooth (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate and [[wp:weight|weight]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. 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/20150514195114/http://www.pbs.org/opb/greatlodges/nationalparks/pacific/caves.html to https://www.pbs.org/opb/greatlodges/nationalparks/pacific/caves.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified