Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 15 September 2007

	Yosemite National Park is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 20, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 13, 2007 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

	This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Protected areas 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Yosemite National Park is part of the National Park Service series, a former featured topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for featured topic status.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Template:V0.5

Doubts about recent changes

Some doubts about recent changes:

• I thought Yellowstone is the first National Park, not Yosemite
• Sequoia and Kings Canyon are two separated national parks though they are neighbors joined by their border. The original text had them separted as two links, the recent change merged the two together into one.

----

Yellowstone was the first national park created by that name in roughtly its current form, and the Act of Congress that establishing it set the pattern for the national park system. But the first effort by a modern state to set aside such an natural area was the ceding of Yosemite Valley (a small part of today's park) to the control of the State of California during the Civil War, some years before Yellowstone. Some historical materials seem to indicate that the more sweeping Yellowstone legislation was prompted by the mixed (at best) results of the Yosemite experiment. The Park Service, Smokey Bear hats and all, didn't come into existence until 1916, when there were 14 parks and 21 national monuments. (see http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/npshisto.htm) Some countries have never set up a unform system of parks, even though they do set areas aside.

The relationship between Yellowstone and Yosemite does make for some minor rivalry and a great trivia question or two.

As for Sequoia - Kings Canyon, they were established separately (Sequoia first) but are contiguous and are managed as a single unit. (see http://www.nps.gov/seki/index.htm) ClaudeMuncey, Thursday, April 18, 2002

Geology

Mav: interesting stuff about geology of Yosemite. I haven't heard anything at all about the school of geologists who don't think that glaciation and uplift had a major effect. I went to a Open House at the Menlo Park USGS back in 1995 or so and didn't see anything about that. And there is lots of glacial polish well above 5600'... Well, you properly NPOV-ed it.. Is it possible to give sources on it? I'd like to poke around some more...

I think the large amount of uplift of the Sierra is pretty well established --- the faults along the eastern Sierra have undergone a large amount of vertical displacement (the westernmost Basin and Range fault) .. For example, the Alabama hills in the Owens Valley have the same granite as near Mt. Whitney, but are much lower. Anyway, it seems difficult to reconcile with the "glaciation and uplift are unimportant" theory. Say more? -- hike395 00:19 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say that the newer school thought that uplift did not have a major effect. I did say that this newer school has attacked the longstanding idea that rapid uplift over the past 2 million years combined with highly abrasive glaciations has been the major shaping force of the parks topography. They state that the uplift happened much more slowly and much further in the past and that jointing was the major dictator of events (of course all types of erosion will take advantage of weaknesses and joints provide those weaknesses). This new line of thought has been led by Jeffrey P. Schaffer (see cite below). Much of what I read in the cite was statements of fact with little supporting evidence (which in understandable considering the book I read was a natural history guide). But I'm sure his earlier work The Geomorphic Evolution of the Yosemite Valley and the Sierra Nevada Landscapes will have all his evidence. I just report what I read and try to NPOV it - thus the last paragraph was a compromise between Geology of the National Parks and Schaffer's natural history guide.

Yosemite National Park: A Natural History Guide to Yosemite and Its Trails, Jeffrey P. Schaffer, (Wilderness Press, Berkeley; 1999) ISBN 0-89997-244-6

Oh and Schaffer is not arguing that that glaciers did not effect anything above 5600 feet. I know for a fact that glaciers did cover areas well above 9,000 feet in at least the high country since I saw (and photographed) a several ton glacial erratic on top of Lambert Dome. The erratic was unmistakable since the rock type of the boulder was markably different and it still had glacial polish and striations below its base (meaning that it was transported and did not erode in place). Schaffer does disagree with the prevailing view that Lambert Dome is the shape it is because it is a huge roche mountonnee, however. He points out, and I have to somewhat agree, that the cliff face of Lambert (and Liberty Cap for that matter) does not look at all like it was formed by glacial plucking (which would result in a great many concave depressions in the rock face). It looks to me more like a joint plane (very similar to Half Dome's steep face). Of course glaciers would have taken advantage of the joint plane and helped to sheer off large slabs of the face but Shaffer states that without the joint plane there would not have been a vertical cliff (thus Lambert and Liberty Cap are not roche mountonees). His overall theme, I gather, is that the granitic rock of the Yosemite area is very resistant to erosion and when it does erode it almost allways follows major joint planes.

I may have given Schaffer's views more credit than warrented (since I'm not a professional geologist and do not really know what the consensus view on this is) so if that is the case then please attribute those views to just Schaffer. Also, IIRC, Muir and a prominent contemporary geologist (whose name escapes me for the moment) also differed on this exact point; Muir thought that glaciers were the primary shaping force of the valley but this geologist (who was apparently highly respected in his time) thought that major joints where the primary shaping force of the valley. It would be great if we put this argument into its historical context. --mav 02:45 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK.. I'll try and investigate and see if more people than Schaffer believe it. I've found that we have to be careful about those guides, sometimes: the Roadside Geology of Washington had the "asteroid hitting the hot spot causing the Basin and Range" hypothesis that I mentioned in Talk:Basin and Range Province.. I suspect that people use guides as a bully pulpit for their favorite hypothesis. But, you did NPOV it well.

Oh, btw --- The contemporary geologist you are thinking of is Josiah Whitney, the chief geologist of California at the time. Mount Whitney is named after him. -- hike395 14:40 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah I've heard about the "asteroid impact as origin of Yellowstone/Snake River Plane Hot Spot" hyp too, but only via one Discovery Channel TV program. I do have a policy whereby anything I see on TV has to be backed-up by a reputable-looking print reference but it seems that print media has similar problems regarding the advancement of less-than-mainstream ideas. BTW my geography instructor for my last Yosemite trip and my geology instructor for my previous trip to Yosemite both indicated there is renewed controversy about the relative role glaciers had in shaping the park and esp the Valley (my geography instructor specifically mentioned Schaffer). Oh and thanks for the Whitney ref (D'oh! How could I have forgotten that?). --mav 18:05 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hunting around on the Web, I cannot find much support for Schaffer's views, other than from Schaffer himself: (Schaffer wrote the review of the book in the second link). It is clear that Schaffer is very passionate about his hypothesis! Unfortunately, not being an expert in geomorphology, I cannot evaluate his hypothesis without a lot more research (and now I'm hours away from a technical library). I'm a little dubious about his application of Alaska mass wasting data to the Sierra Nevada, but again, I'm not an expert.

I'd like to suggest attributing the "old canyon" hypothesis directly to Schaffer. If he turns out to be correct, then we've given him the credit he deserves for destroying a bad paradigm. If he turns out to be incorrect, then the article is still factually valid. What do you think? -- hike395 06:42 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I'm planning on expanding the geology section much more in the next week or so. I'll change the ref then if you don't beat me to it. --mav

Climate

The 1st part of the paragraph states Yosemite is about 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean. I don't believe this is true. I also think that the temperature is being moderated by the Pacific is untrue. I suggest these 2 parts be taken off this article - 13:31, 20 April 2007 67.126.69.9 (Was unsigned...)

I agree, I don't think that's quite right... based on computer-assisted measurement using ] it's a minimum of approx. 122 miles to the San Francisco bay (or about 130 mi. due West), and 125 to Monterey. All as the crow flies of course. I would say a more accurate estimation is 130 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and I agree that the part about temperature being moderated by proximity to the ocean needs to be verified, but I think it's probably true. trisweb (Talk) 22:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo needed

I agree that the article needs a beautiful photo, I just worry about overlap with Yosemite Valley. Does someone have a different photo, like of Cathedral Peak? If not, I can try and dig one out of my collection (or just go and take a photo). -- hike395 07:52 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, preferably it'd have its own photograph. Really though any photograph we could put here could conceivably go on another page as well, since all the really picturesque locations are also famous in their own right. Perhaps two different images of the same thing so at least they're not identical? If nobody else has one, I can try to dig one up, but my last trip to Yosemite dates from before I got a digital camera, so it may take some digging (and finding a scanner). --Delirium 07:55 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have a whole bunch of digital Yosemite photos from two different trips but I still haven't got around to doing the name, crop, resize, upload bit. With any luck I'll get to this by the end of Sunday. --mav

Cool! I don't have any digital Yosemite photos (I checked), so please go ahead. -- hike395 08:09 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK - have fun with these photos (it might be some time before I'll have much time integrating them into Misplaced Pages so please beat me to that if you have time): User:Maveric149/Images - Yosemite National Park. --mav

For what it's worth I definitely think we should have the tunnel view photo on this page. It is gorgeous and the symbol of Yosemite. I'm not worried that the same photo also appears on Yosemite Valley. Tempshill 04:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think the transcription "yo-SEM-mi-tee" is misleading. My understanding (Webster) is that it's pronounced -m&-tee. Where & is schwa (or perhaps a hinted i as in "pit") and NOT i as in "fight" or "bike". The openness of the penultimate syllable would tempt people to opt for the "bike" though.

Whether my understanding is correct or not, I'd suggest using a better transcription or perhaps adding an additional IPA or SAMPA transcription. Glimz 09:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. I don't understand SAMPA --- could you add a transcription?

Isn't IPA preferred by Misplaced Pages? Ambush Commander 15:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yosemite Native Population

The Ahwahnees were never designated as Miwoks in the first accounts by Savage and Bunnell. Bunnell writes "Ten-ie-ya was recognized, by the Mono tribe, as one of their number, as he was born and lived among them until his ambition made him a leader and founder of the Pai-Ute colony in Ah-wah-ne. His history and warlike exploits formed a part of the traditionary lore of the Monos. They were proud of his successes and boasted of his descent from their tribe, although Ten-ie-ya himself claimed that his father was the chief of an independent people, whose ancestors were of a different race."

That would indicate that the Ahwahnees were not related to any other tribe, not even the Miwoks. Lafayette Bunnell writes "Major Savage was our best authority. He could speak the dialects of most of the mountain tribes in this part of California, but he confessed that he could not readily understand Ten-ie-ya, or the Indian guide, as they appeared to speak a Pai-ute jargon." "The Yo-sem-i-tes had been the most warlike of the mountain tribes in this part of California; and the Ah-wah-ne-chee and Mono members of it, were of finer build and lighter color than those commonly called "California Digger Indians." California Digger was what the Miwok, Yokut, Maidu and Washoe tribes were indentified as, but not the Ahwahnees or Paiutes. The Ahwahnees had already been absorbed into the Mono Lake Paiutes. Chief Tenaya was born and raised by his people the Mono Lake Paiutes and took back mostly Paiutes into Yosemite. That is why the main article should read "Native Americans" called the Awhanees, because it was not really known if they were Miwoks or another group as it was written by the first accounts.

One of the earliest maps of the Miwok tribal areadone by the noted California Indian anthropologist, C. Hart Merriam, around 1901 indicates that Miwoks were only at the western entrance of Yosemite around El Portal. Most of Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy were east of the Miwok territory which is Paiute.

Climbing Discussion

Yosemite is one of the key climbing destinations in the world, but no mention of climbing is made here. Many historical climbers started here and many epic and amazing climbs have been done here. Would it be appropriate to add some discussion of this here? Also some of the larger ethical issues about ecological impact have been raised here which would add to the environmental discussion already here.

Pictures

Various public domain pictures of Yosemite from http://pdphoto.org, someone more artistic can sort out which ones to use :) Tom- 12:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These are quite beautiful, I think they could be used more!Trisweb 08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

UntraveledRoad links

User:SimonP deleted the link to UntraveledRoad on Feb 19, 2005, which has been there since Nov 15, 2004. User:Mav voiced support for this link when I (User:KelvinSmith) added it. I want to hear a consensus on whether it should stay or go. Please note that the text on the page in question is of trivial interest, but it is the hub of a tour that lets you walk virtually through large areas of the park. Many users have followed this and other of my links, often spending an hour or more exploring the park. It was also copied by someone other than myself into the French article on Yosemite. I would love to see it reinstated, but only with the approval of the community.

I revisited your site --- I remember poking around it in November and thinking it was valuable and nifty. hike395 05:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Compassmonkey links

Sequence of events:

1. User:204.75.125.173 adds Compassmonkey.com links to 4 national park articles
2. User:24.5.225.47 adds Compassmonkey.com links to 28 national parks
3. User:Trödel deletes Compassmonkey.com links from Bryce Canyon National Park, claims IP on anonymous contributor within 5 miles of owner of compassmonkey.com
4. User:SimonP deletes Compassmonkey.com links from 28 national park sites, warns User:24.5.225.47 on his/her web page against spam
5. User:Hike395 delete Compassmonkey.com links from 3 more national park articles
6. User:66.97.254.238 reverts deletion from Yosemite National Park

More information:

• Geobytes.com says that 204.75.125.173 is in San Ramon, California; 24.5.225.47 is in Dublin, California; and 66.97.254.238 is in Crosby, North Dakota.
• Zoneedit.com says that 204.75.125.173 is registered to Robert Half International, Inc. of Pleasanton, California; 24.5.225.47 is registered to Comcast, Bay Area; 66.97.254.238 is registered to Dakota Carrier Network.

Thus, 66.97.254.238 is probably not the same person as 204.75.125.173 and/or 24.5.225.47 .

I personally don't much care whether the compassmonkey.com links are in or out, but I think we should be consistent about it across all 30+ articles.

Comments? -- hike395 06:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Our external links policy states that they should be to high content sites that add information Misplaced Pages articles lack. Compassmonkey consists simply of brief bits of public domain U.S. government information repackaged with ads. - SimonP 06:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The reversion by User:66.97.254.238 was me, not noticing that I was no longer logged in. I don't particularly care one way or another, and haven't even looked into this yet. But the main point is that I don't like somebody claiming "consensus" on something that hasn't even been mentioned on the talk page (a reference to anther talk page may do if it is under discussion in detail elsewhere). Gene Nygaard 11:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry --- I have many national parks on my watchlist, so I saw the whole thing unfold in edit summaries scattered across many pages. I'll refrain from using the term "consensus" unless it refers to Talk pages. -- hike395 17:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reverted out of Bryce Canyon because compass monkey.com is registered to Compass Monkey, 414 Regal Lily Lane, San Ramon, CA 94582 and the IP for dublin is like less than 5 mi away. Now that I know taht an IP from San Ramon also made similar changes - this is clearly a case of site promotion. I did play on the site for a little while before writing this comment, and think that it is a decent site - I wouldn't included it, but if editors other than anons presumably from Compass Monkey felt it should go in I wouldn't oppose it assuming that it is notable - However, I do oppose the links being reverted back in just (claiming no concensus) where this was a clear case of site promotion with too many external links. If someone want to argue for notability and value of the link I won't be hard to persuade, but it should be out until somone can. Trödel|talk 12:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Compassmonkey site seems to have a heavy load of advertising per (small) page of content. If this is public domain info then let's find a better link to it. Meanwhile, a small set of useful links is good. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:24, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

United States Postal Service stamp for release in Feb 2006

As this article is very mature, I'll propose an addition here rather than simply adding something to the article body. In late February 2006, the United States Postal Service plans to release an 84-cent postage stamp (an international rate) featuring Yosemite National Park as part of their Scenic American Landscape series. An image and available formats have been published in the Spring 2006 issue of USA Philately. An image can be found on-line at the USPS online store under the "Release Schedule" submenu; see this page. According to USA Philately the available date is 2/22; according to the USPS online store the available date is 2/24. The reason why I mention this is that it appears to be common for commemorative stamps of people, places, things, and events to be mentioned in the related article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Question About The Elevation At The South Entrance

The article says: "At South Entrance near Wawona (elevation 6192 feet; 1887 m)". I think the elevation of the South Entrance is closer to 4,000 feet.

Neither is correct, the actual elevation of the South Entrance is 5130 feet (1564 m), as verified by a current USGS topographical map. Wawona itself is at 4,000 feet, but not the entrance. Article has been updated accordingly. Trisweb 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Double checked : Trisweb is correct hike395 10:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

highest elevation

I think the figure of 13,123 feet for the highest elevation in the park is bogus. This is the figure you get if you convert 4000 m to feet. I'm not sure, but I believe the highest point in the park is Mt. Dana, which is 13,061 feet. For now, I'm just going to change it to 13,000 feet, but if anyone can verify that Mt. Dana is really the highest point, feel free to change it to 13,061; that would also be a helpful fact to add to the Mt. Dana article.--WPIsFlawed 05:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha -- I came across the Mount Lyell article, which states that it's the highest point in Yosemite. Therefore it looks like the top elevation is 13,114 ft. I've changed the article appropriately.--WPIsFlawed 22:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

40 year old virgin

At the end of the film the 40 year old virgin isn't Yosemite the pre- ending location, it's only a guess but since the film is set in California I believe it's quite likely. 82.20.49.215 23:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Many Wiki articles have a "In Popular Culture" section, which, IMHO, ends up being a catchall of pop-culture trivia and should be applied carefully. This article is already long, quite a good article, and does not need such a section to "fill it out". An exhaustive "In Pop Culture" section on Yosemite would probably run 20 pages or more - it is in a LOT of movies and books. I suggest adding such a section would be NOT a good idea, and if added, a passing reference by a current movie (as opposed to an established classic such as "Thelma and Louise") would not make the cut. Ratagonia 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tunnel View Photograph

We seem to have a photo skirmish between K1000 and Maverick. K1000 prefers the photo 100_1325, while Maverick prefers Yosemite Valley from Tunnel View.

As a semi-professional photographer, I have to agree with Maverick that the lighting in YoVfTV is much better - the photograph is better. But I agree with K1000 that the presentation of 100_1325 is better - sharper, more pixels, etc. It is also nice (but not really on-purpose for the Wiki) that a large version of this photo is available for those who wish to download it. Maverick - is a better rendition of YoVfTV available to be uploaded to Wikicommons? Ratagonia 18:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that there are currently three photographs of the same scene (tunnel view, from mostly the same angle though different foregrounds). Surely there are other scenes of the valley and the rest of the park that could go in place of two of the duplicates? I'll search my archives, though I haven't been to the park with a good camera in years... Trisweb 09:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yosemite Park & Curry Company

Something should be written about them, the Yosemite Park & Curry Company, and their relationship to the park. --evrik  18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrows Featured Article

I sense... vandals approaching... good luck. MrMacMan 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's SOP for both of us. Blast 20.04.07 0024 (UTC)

Apologies for extra edits correcting vandalism; I was deciding between Popups and Twinkle and Popups was confusing me! I've settled on Twinkle and it all makes sense now :-) I'll be up until ~2 PST and will continue checking in the morning. This is a great article, congrats to everyone who contributed on the featured status. Trisweb 08:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Location

It seems to me like the location dot on the map is a little off - isn't Yosemite a little lower? Brutannica 04:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right, it was quite a bit lower. The former dot was approximately at South Lake Tahoe! I've moved it accordingly. I also updated the Lat/Long to be the nearly exact center point of the park at Mt. Hoffman. trisweb (Talk) 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Yosemite, actually a photo of Sardasht in Iran?

Is the photo on the main page of this article actually the mountains in North Western Iran in Sardasht? The pic i'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:100_1325.JPG

Many sources describe it as the Sardasht area in the West Azerbaijan Province one of the 30 Provinces Of Iran.

A source claiming the photo was taken by an individual in Iran http://uk.geocities.com/andyscatten/

The image described as Sardasht that seems to be similiar to this one http://uk.geocities.com/andyscatten/Iran-Sardasht.jpg

The same picture was used in an Iranian scenery calendar for May-June http://www.farhangsara.com/calendar85.htm

Also, a google image search of "Sardasht" brings up a very similiar image to this one. Is this the same exact photo, or is there a naming dispute on this image?

I am asking this because I have recently made a video slideshow of pictures in Iran, and many people have stated that the photo I speak of is from Yosemite. Their source is this article. I would like to have some clarification on this as to why there are so many sources out there claiming this photo is from Sardasht when this article claims it is from Yosemite. Or perhaps maybe the individual who put this here was posting an image from Sardasht by accident? If I could get a reply in a timely fashion it would be greatly appreciated...Persianguyagain 06:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has visited, taken pictures of, admired, and seen this valley many many times, I can personally verify that the photo in question is in fact of the Yosemite Valley in Yosemite National Park in the state of California, in the United States of America. Your few sources claiming that it's in Iran are of considerably less credability than this Misplaced Pages article, in fact, since they are from a single author who we don't even know anything about! Try this google search: for more examples of images exactly like this one correctly labeled as the Yosemite Valley.

For future reference, Misplaced Pages is generally correct on non-academic popular knowledge, and you can usually trust Featured Articles such as this one to be correct in most respects. Sorry that the photo is not of Iran... trisweb (Talk) 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Trisweb is correct --- that is probably the most famous viewpoint in Yosemite. Someone seems to be propagating a joke. hike395 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, maybe you want to inform google to re-name the image or cite it somehow if they can, as "Sardasht" still brings up this picture. Persianguyagain 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Google doesn't have control over the content or the naming of the image unfortunately (or fortunately, really) as they're just a search engine, so I don't think we can do anything about that. You may try contacting the site owners directly if you like, but that is up to you. trisweb (Talk) 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

World Heritage Site box

Clutter? Perhaps, but all content can be considered clutter to some extent. The WHS is an important designation, and deserves recognition. Ratagonia 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recognition, yes. But not an entire infobox when almost every single article such a box would be on should have a more specific infobox. Far better, IMO, to figure out a way to add the most important and non-overlapping WHS data into the protected area infobox. I have been tolerating the WHS box on articles only because of this possibility. If however, various users start to insist on having separate infoboxes no matter what, then I will reconsider my position and may start to oppose them. --mav

I agree that the infobox for the WHS is too much clutter...I'll try and adjust the Protected Areas infobox to include space for an image as well as a line to incorporate the WHS issue. I have just removed the box once again.--MONGO 03:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A single parameter is not enough, IMO. Could an optional parameter be added that could contain a nested table/template of data under a subhead that says 'World Heritage Site'? --mav

It may get too complex for my skills to create a "nest"...I can try...are there any other similar infobox/templates where I might get some ideas on how to do this?--MONGO 04:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Direct Knowledge

Thank you for your recent contributions. References in wiki articles are to published sources. Your direct knowledge is really helpful, but it is much more helpful if the facts can be referenced to a reliable source. That is the way Misplaced Pages works. Would be great if you can provide citations to publications that also include the facts. Ratagonia 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:To whom are you speaking? Or rather, which parts of the article do you think are unsourced? hike395 04:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry, it was clear when I looked at the article history. hike395

Marmot image

File:Marmot.JPG

This is a yellow-belied marmot photograph taken in Yosemite national park that is currently a featured picture candidate. As this is a featured article, I didn't want to alter it without some discussion. I think think image would go very well in the Biology section, maybe as a replacement for the golden mantled ground squirrel image. Enuja (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Protected areas articles
• Unknown-importance Protected areas articles
• Articles of WikiProject Protected areas