Talk:La Brea Tar Pits

message: The list of specimaes from the pits includes a stickleback. Has anyone suggested a mechanism by which a freshwater fish could get stuck in a tar pit? (I can think of a few but has any scientist addressed the issue?) 165.91.64.114 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite simple: water from stream runoff covers tarpit; sticklebacks and other freshwater animals swim in from the stream; water dries up, and sticklebacks get stuck in tar.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: a fish?!

message: Is it the Columbian Mammoth, or the Imperial Mammoth that's found in La Brea?  My sources say that it's the Imperial Mammoth.--Mr Fink 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.tarpits.org/research/mamtooth.html says its a Columbian mammoth. Coradon 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammoth Problem 

message: Someone who's good at this should add this link:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070510_tar_bacteria.html
--Crid 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Useful 

message: There's this section "La Brea in fiction"; because it is worded that way, it's inappropriate for
a mention of the La Brea Tar Pits as the cover illustration for the seminal book on software engineering
"The Mythical Man-Month".  If no one objects, I'll change the name to "La Brea in literature" or "La Brea in culture" or some such, and add the reference to TMM-M.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.95.226.224 (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fiction" vs "Culture" 

message: "La Brea may be the only excavation site in the world where the predators found outnumber prey." It this in number of individuals or number of specimens?  In either case, the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry probably also fits; I don't know about non-dinosaurs, but there are at least 46 Allosaurus individuals and another 7 individuals of other carnivorous genera there, out of at least 73 total dinosaurs (so 53 of 73 are carnivores). J. Spencer (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On predator/prey ratio 

message: Multiple species of animal are listed with a "†" symbol, but there is no disclaimer stating what the "†" refers to. This really needs to be repaired. --Schmendrick (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was posted by an IP address on March 14. My guess is that it means "extinct", except the user forgot to indicate that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed the same thing, except the llama is linked with a †, as well as a couple of other living species.  So either this user made a whoopsie with those particular links, or the crosses mean something else.  I'm willing to check all the links and make the † into extinct animals, if nobody objects.  I'll be sure to place a legend should I edit. Besseme (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe it refers to animals/plants/etc that are no longer native to the area (via extinction, or migration)? But I am also a bit puzzled over this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.185.110 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The symbol always means extinct except in genealogies, where it means "died". The llama species represented at La Brea is extinct.--Wetman (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder it went extinct, if it was too dumb to stay away from tar pits. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: In taxonomic lists, it's considered to be a dagger, not a cross. (I don't know about genealogies.) The species of llama from the pits could be extinct although other species of llama have carried on. I believe that it means "extinct" not "extirpated" so if the beastie were only found on a remote island elsewhere it wouldn't be entitled to a dagger. —Monado (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: †?

message: This article still has a trivial cruft list of evewy passing mention of La Brea. This needs to be whittled down and turned into prose text.--Wetman (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus rendering it unreadable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I prefer bulleted lists, which are easier to read and take fewer "filler" words.--Monado (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The cruft list

message: According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, a tar pit would trap a sizable animal only about once per 100 years, or perhaps every 1000 years if a trapped victim attracted several predators or scavengers that also became trapped. However, I don't have a reference to any estimates. Anyone else? —Monado (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Brea was an inefficient trap 

message: Socks blocked, socks were only ones in support of material, consensus is obviously against them.  Time to archive this?  If you agree, please let me do the archiving, I have a specific resolved label in mind.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May as well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, just reverted anon sock attacks. Vsmith (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to close 

message: The May 28 issue of the LA Weekly has an article about the only human remains recovered out of the tarpits -- a 9000 year old specimin. This probably has enough information to spin off a separate article riffic (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: online version here - http://www.laweekly.com/2010-05-27/news/sticky-situation-at-the-tar-pits appears to be identical to the printed version I read earlier today. riffic (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Brea Woman 

message: Hello. I have formatted a couple of citations, and updated the url for one from 2009, when it was a headline url, to what it is now, an archive url. A quick look at another url said page not found. It's also from 2009, so likely exists but with a changed url. I may or may not have time to update the url, but it's usually easy enough to do. 
I found this article by the way, courtesy of a Gary Larson Far Side cartoon. It shows a couple of people sinking into a carpet in a lounge room, with the caption: "And down they went: Bob and Francine - two more victims of the La Brea Carpets". I'd never heard of La Brea anything before, but I realised Larson must be alluding to something. I assumed perhaps some famous or infamous deep pile carpet. A quick Google search led me to this article, which was not only enlightening, but of course immediately added to my enjoyment of Larson's cartoon and word-play. While I was here, I thought I'd format a couple of citations. There's more to do. Don't tag them. Just amend them. And thanks to those who created the article. See if you can find Larson's cartoon for yourselves. You'll love it. Wotnow (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some citation urls need updating

message: The remains found at La Brea are considered fossils. Fossils are not simply bones that are mineralized... they are evidence of ancient life. Ref: Fossil:
"Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago." 
Thus, I have removed the "La Brea remains are not considered "true fossils" statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.198.242 (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossils 

message: This page occasionally is edited to say that the tar formed pits, with water accumulating over it, and that animals "fell in," became trapped, and "sunk" into the tar.  This picture is not particularly accurate, or complete.  The ancient tar pits were on fairly level ground, and were probably only a few inches deep.  They could be covered by water, or by leaves and dust, as they often are today.  Entrapment would occur when an animal stood still on them long enough for their feet to become stuck.  There would rarely, if ever be an animal that fell into tar.  "sinking in" to the tar pits would usually occur only to very small animals, or only after the animal had died, and was separated into pieces of bone small enough to sink into a thin layer of tar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.49.215 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Entrapment method

message: The museum web sites seem to consistently use the name "Page Museum" rather than "George C. Page Museum". I assume that "George C." was dropped from the name at some point. I haven't found a reference for this though. Nurg (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This picture shows the full name, "George C. Page Museum", and although the official site just calls it the "Page Museum" for short, their own photo of the building likewise shows "George C. Page Museum". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "George C. Page Museum" or just "Page Museum" 

message: The article could use a rough map or an aerial view or something. I came here because I was wondering how extensive the pits are, over what geographic area. Not at all clear to me if there it is essentially one localized thing or an extensive series of things spread across an area. 71.190.70.163 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The map on their official website indicates one large tar lake and a number of small pits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a Map? 

message: Does it disturb anyone else that "La Brea Tar Pits" translates directly to "The Tar Tar Pits"?
Canadafreakazoid (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who is "disturbed" by that funny little oddity is way too easily disturbed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also keep in mind that the name of the place was "Rancho la Brea", or "Tar Ranch". "La Brea Tar Pits" is a later invention. This is similar to the baseball team "The Los Angeles Angels", which translates as "The The Angels Angels". Or the Phillies, whose full name is essentially the Philadelphia Philadelphias. Or the now-extinct minor league baseball team in Montreal called the Royals, hence "Mount Royal Royals". All members of the Society of Redundancy Society. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

text: On the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Brea links to the English Pitch (resin), perhaps it should be mentionned in the article. Noliscient (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title name 

message: Take a look at the full panoramic shot "La Brea pano 001.jpg". If you look at it full res there is a man who appears to be going up the stairs on the left-hand side that is almost certainly added in. Probably some kind of prank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.252.224 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's photoshop him out then, FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition photoshopped into panoramic shot 

message: I like the way the information is worked into the Carpinteria Tar Pits article better, in that it doesn't have a stub of a section dedicated to the information way below, it states that it's 1 of only 5 in the opener. When I started to read the article the first thing I wondered was how many of these things are there? Perhaps a sentence in the opener like "The Le Brea tar pits are the most famous of the five known asphault lake areas in the world." But here, I finally scrolled down far enough to find the information. Again, I think the Carpinteria Tar Pits article does a better job of naturally informing this important fact in the opener, where I think the information is valuable enough to belong. Dancindazed (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Tar Pits 

message: Hi!
There seems to be an inconsistency regarding the age of La Brea woman at time of death. This page says from 17 to 25, while the wikipedia page for La Brea Woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Woman) says 25 to 30. Both estimates have a source backing them up, but the one that says 25-30 is much more recent, and probably more reliable.
I am inclined to change the range to 25 to 30, but I would be more comfortable leaving this change to someone more knowledgeable on the matter.
Thanks!
76.118.176.33 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of La Brea Woman at time of death 

message: "The original Rancho La Brea land grant stipulated that the tar pits be open to the public for the use of the local Pueblo. Initially, they mistook the bones in the pits for the remains of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) or cattle that had become mired."
The word "Pueblo" is linked to New Mexico's Pueblo people. Not sure if this is intended.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.222 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pueblo? 

message: It says
but I can't figure out what "waggler" means. I would suppose it's a specialized term, in which case fine, but then let's link to the definition. Problem is, Wiktionary has two meanings for waggler: 1) something that waggles, and 2) a type of fishing lure specifically. And the Oxford dictionary (which we can't link to anyway, but I suppose could add as a ref for a [note], also only has these meanings. 
And it's not impossible that there's no such meaning and we're being trolled. Anyway, I've marked it with , and if anybody knows what it is, maybe a parenthetical explanation at least would be nice. Herostratus (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find another meaning, either. I did find, as often happens with WP articles, that other websites have copied the phrase without defining "waggler". I would give it 6 months for comment, then delete. WCCasey (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edit was made by anonymous user 205.126.54.230 on Jan 30, 2017 and replaced water with waggler, without giving an explanation. Another website entry on the tar pits has the phrase "The tar is often covered with dust, leaves, or water". Given a waggler is a float used by fishermen, you could imagine the term being used to meaning the floating dust and leaves. Waggler is used in this blog on the pits, which doesn't seem to be a copy from wikipedia. Either way perhaps saying the pits became covered water, dust and leaves would be clearer even if waggler means that. If we can't find the meaning in an online dictionary, it's likely that few readers of the article will understand.   Jts1882 | talk  07:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  waggler? 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: A user recently deleted this text from the lead because it's not important enough. I agree, and put it in a footnote instead. Then a different user reverted that edit because "citations should not be in the lead". That's not a hard-and-fast rule (MOS:LEADCITE), but whatever. I don't think there's enough to warrant a new "etymology" section, so I'll put the deleted text and citation here: 
:"The La Brea Tar Pits" is an example of a tautological place name; "the La Brea Tar Pits" literally means " tar tar pits". <begin citation><end citation>
Although this information is not very important to this particular article, it points out a common problem with the Americanization of Spanish place names. Maybe another editor will find a place to use this in a future expansion, or in another article. WCCasey (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That factoid — trivial as it may seem — absolutely belongs in this article, IMO.  (As a matter of fact, I came here today specifically to see how we described it, and was disappointed to find that we don't currently mention it at all.) I'll see if I can find a way to slip it in that the objectors won't object to. —scs (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tautological place name 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This article needs a photo of the sculptures of the mammoth family with one stuck in the tar. That is the most iconic image for the tar pits. 2603:8001:FF3F:FFDD:802C:F74B:D854:FB67 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no freedom of panorama for such artworks in the US, so there are no freely licenced images of it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammoth sculpture