Talk:Mono Lake

message: I believe that the article is getting overcrowded with images, and we are starting to see sandwiching of text between images in the Ecology section. There are several redundant images of the tufa towers.
I moved two images out of the article and into the Commons gallery, but was reverted without explanation by User:BattleBorn89. I'd like to see if we can come to consensus about how to relieve the excess of images. What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I can understand the removal of excess tufa images.  The close up image of the kutzavi however I find to be pertinent and important to the page.  Also, I thought I provided an explanation.  Must have just thought it out and forgot to type it.  My apologies. BattleBorn89 (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that by kutzavi you mean the microscope image of Artemia monica. I kept that, although I think that the ecology section is still too crowded with images. —hike395 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the brine shrimp.  And I don't disagree.  Perhaps we can add information to that section or utilize the pictures elsewhere? BattleBorn89 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess images 

message: Hi Mono Lake enthusiasts, 
I am currently reviewing literature regarding the isotope geochemistry of Mono Lake for my research. I am planning to add a section on Mono Lake isotope geochemistry for my stable isotope biogeochemistry class. It will be a full on science section that people can skip if they aren't interested in it. However, many geochemists study Mono Lake and will probably find such a section useful. It will mainly focus on how carbonate rocks in Mono Lake may reflect climate changes and lake level changes during the Ice Age.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evalinghan (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections on Lake Level History and Paleoclimate added by  last year are overlapping and don't seem entirely consistent. I'm planning on rewriting the material, when I have some spare time. Other editors are welcome to attempt to clean it up. —hike395 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I noticed the confusion on the sections on Lake Level History and Paleoclimate added by . I added some text which hopefully clarifies why isotopes would be used and that the paleoclimate reconstruction section is building from the previous section in a new but related topic. I think it's ready to remove the {confusing} tag, but I agree that if I were writing this as a paper, I'd combine the two climate proxy sections. I'm a water resources MSCE student, but I don't feel comfortable erasing the work either of you have contributed, both sections are nice, but hopefully I added language to help smooth things over. —19:36, 04 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding isotope geochemistry section 

message: I am 99% sure the video for the song Unholy love by Doro was shot at Mono Lake. This could be added to the article.
ICE77 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unholy love video by Doro 

message: :6.5 - 5.9 ka: Rising lake level. An increase in δ18O and δ13C correlated with a decrease in lake level. The lake level drop continued until the Holocene Low Stand at 5.9 ka
"Rising" does not correlate with the "decrease" in the description. Pls fix. --Ghettobuoy (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong epoch titles 

message: We have a major jargon problem here; the Mono Lake entry has apparently been hijacked by scientists, to the detriment of the general public. Most of the middle section is entirely unparsible by civilians. 
I'm not disputing the accuracy, or even the utility, of the data provided. But Wikipedia is a general-interest source, not a scientific journal. Anyone surfing in for a good overview of this subject is going to drown in all that creole.
This is a common problem on WP, of course. Our articles are edited by well-informed enthusiasts, and that means that entries on highly-technical topics tend to get, well... highly technical. (Medical subjects are the worst offenders. Fortunately, if you visit the talk pages of those articles, you'll often find the page editors themselves crossing swords over the issue.) 
I'd suggest that the technical sections in this entry be trimmed by about 2/3, chiefly by summarising their content in plain English and sending curious readers to more detailed and technical sources via citations. What limnological jargon is judged necessary for lay comprehension should be briefly explained in-text and hot-linked to relevant WP entries. Laodah 21:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- I moved all of the technical material to Talk:Mono Lake/chemistry, leaving 2 paragraphs behind. — hike395 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: This article isn't encyclopedic

message: : I was hoping to find a replacement reference for the text which was removed today, but John Hart's "Storm Over Mono" (a solid reference) explicitly states "What the Kuzedika called Mono Lake itself their descendants do not remember." Finney1234 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. — hike395 (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Kuzedika name for Mono Lake