Talk:Everglades National Park/Archive 1

Move information?

Some of the information in this article should probably be moved to the Everglades article, like Human History. This article is about a part of the Everglades known as Everglades National Park. --Jagz (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but if you read the section and sources, it still applies. I'm modeling this information from the featured articles on Bryce Canyon National Park and Zion National Park. I intend to bring this article to FA status. --Moni3 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

American settlements

I still have a problem with material sourced from the NPS site. It is not consistent with, and sometimes contradicts information found in the Tebeau books published by the University of Miami Press. As Tebeau was a professional historian (and chairman of the History Department at UM for many years), I believe that his books are more reliable sources than the NPS site. As to the effects of the 1909 and 1910 hurricanes, Tebeau 1955 (p. 59) records Thelma Smallwood as relating that the first bad hurricane at Chokoloskee after 1873 was in 1910. While "Ted" Smallwood's store was destroyed and residents moved to higher ground on the island during the hurricane, they returned to their homes as soon as the hurricane was over.

The Calusa presence on Chokoloskee Island is another problematic area. While the general area of Marco Island and the Ten Thousand Islands had been absorbed into the Calusa realm shortly before the arrival of the Spanish, the prehistoric inhabitants of the area were more closely related in culture to the Tequesta and Jaega of the east coast (under the heading of Glades culture) than they were to the Calusa. While some web sites and popular books confuse this, archaeologists make the distinction. That's why I left mention of the Calusa specifically out of the section. I may have to go back to the library for exact page references. -- Donald Albury 12:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your issues with the conflicting sources, and I am not an authority on this matter - just someone who thinks the article should honor the subject. As someone who doesn't claim to be so knowledgeable, it is very difficult to discount the National Park Service as the ultimate authority in matters relating to the park - particularly over an historian who published books 40 years ago and more. Clearly more study has been conducted on the early inhabitants of the park since Tebeau published his books. Unfortunately for me, those studies don't seem to be readily available in book or article form.

However, I must allow that both sources are flawed, because all sources are flawed in history. In that case, as editors, we can only present historical subjects by reflecting what each source says. If you are familiar with the Tebeau sources you referenced and they conflict with the NPS source, rewrite the section in question to say, "Historian Charlton Tebeau wrote in 1968 that the people who lived etc etc etc.(ref) However, the National Park Service states these facts blah blah blah.(ref)"

After I get the info necessary to make sense of the "Park economics" section, I intend to nominate the article for Featured Article, and the references have to be immaculate. If you have the Tebeau books and can cite the page, that would be very appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the NPS web site. First, you have stated in the article, "Two hurricanes in 1909 and 1910 forced Chokoloskee Island to be temporarily abandoned." What the web site states is, "The Everglade and Chokoloskee community was just recovering from a hurricane in 1909 when it was devastated by another, the worst on record, the following year. ... Many inhabitants of the outlying islands were forced to abandon their homesteads." That says nothing about Chokoloskee Island being abandoned. Another problem is the statements on the NPS web site about the hurricane of 1909. According to 1909 Atlantic hurricane season, the only tropical system to hit southwest Florida in 1909 was a tropical depression that went ashore near Naples. The NOAA Coastal Services Center Historical Hurricane Tracks mapper at [1] also shows only a tropical depression passing within 65 miles of Chokoloskee in 1909. That site also shows the path of the 1910 storm. I don't know where the 1909 hurricane came from on the NPS site, but apparently the Weather Bureau was not aware of it. -- Donald Albury 03:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing Dalbury, just amazing. I'm amazed at how you can get on here and site the NOAA map webpage as a great resource for hurricane information. I had edited the city of Miami wikipedia page, and accurately stated that the last time a hurricane struck Miami with a direct hit was from Hurricane King (and it was referenced with the SAME webpage you mention above). Dalbury, you removed my information and replaced it with Hurricane Cleo, which you referenced from some other webpage (not the NOAA webpage). When you look at a hurricane map path, while Cleo was close to Miami, it was not a direct hit on Miami, but King was! Why didn't you look at the link I referenced and check the map? Why are you now referencing the NOAA webpage as the authority? You have the gall to site the NOAA webpage as a great source, yet you reject it when I used it and you replaced it with a non-NOAA webpage! Hypocrisy is amazing...216.23.61.234 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not surprised, really. I have found glaring errors in books, articles, websites, interviews, and other sources for the research I've done for several articles. I have access to the University of Florida library. There are some resources for the Calusa, and I'll read those. At the UF Museum of Natural History, there was a display on the Calusa last year. I'd like to know if the peoples of South Florida are still considered Glades Indians, or if they're currently recognized as separate Tequesta and Calusa.

I have a letter in to Everglades National Park asking them to clarify the park economics issue. I'll write to them again, asking them to clarify the issues involved with the American settlement references. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The archaeologists speak of cultures (defined by pottery styles and details of artifact assemblages) rather than tribes for pre-European contact times. The Glades culture covered approximately the eastern half of Palm Beach County, and Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe and Collier Counties. The Caloosahatchee culture covered approximately Charlotte and Lee Counties. The Caloosahatchee culture area formed the core of the Calusa realm when the Spanish reached Florida. The Glades culture area included the Jaega, Tequesta and Matecumbe tribes(?) at that time. The Ten Thousand Islands area, which was in the Glades culture area, was under domination by the Calusa at the time of first contact, although there are indications (IIRC) in the Spanish records that the people in the Ten Thousand Islands still had some sort of separate identity (but I don't have the sources for that right at hand). The Calusa more or less politically dominated (by marriage between chiefs' families, tribute, etc.) southern Florida, including the area around Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee Valley, and the east coast from about Cape Canaveral south. The archaeological cultures developed in place over a couple of thousand years from a common Archaic base, so it is plausible the 'tribes' were related, but there is so much that isn't known, such as whether they spoke a common language, and if not, how closely related the languages were. -- Donald Albury 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I spend too much time here? I'll look this up, you know, just to confirm. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Park history

I would like to see more of the early history of the park. The park as established in 1947 was considerably reduced from the original proposals, excluding the Big Cypress entirely and leaving a large area of farmland in western Dade County as an enclave in the park (the "hole in the doughnut"). (That link, BTW, has a problem in that it says the park was established in 1934. Sigh!) The boundaries were not fixed until the 1950's, when, among other changes, 30,000 acres in the Ten Thousand Islands were added to the park. I can source part of this to The Florida Experience by Luther J. Carter (1974), but need to find sources for the rest. -- Donald Albury 12:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll work on this as well. I think Coe's and Douglas' contributions and influences should also be expanded a bit, but I'm not sure to what extent. --Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a paragraph or two should be sufficient, just to give an idea how much the park has grown over the years. There was quite a bit of opposition, political fighting, and compromise to get the park established, but I don't think we need much detail on that. -- Donald Albury 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Park economics

This section was added from recommendation from Peer review. I have been unable to explain the discrepancies in the numbers, and I admit it is a confusing paragraph. I've called ENP to speak to someone there about the confusion, hoping they can point me to a document that clarifies things. After waiting for a month for someone from ENP to answer my question about their total budget, I'm almost ready to give up. Anyone care to give a recommendation on how to proceed? I'd like to get the article in shape to nominate for FA soon. --Moni3 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

Another outstanding piece of work, Moni3! Very thorough; it's clear you've spent untold hours on this article. Below are some thoughts and questions I had while reading. I hope they're helpful!

Thanks. Let me reply to what I can while Maralia is still editing, then I can see what I can do to add or remove content. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do we need an entire paragraph in the lead on the Everglades themselves? It feels out of place to me. I'd recommend the first two paragraphs as they are (I've reorganized them a bit to group like topics), and adding a paragraph on history (of people and the park), and one on threats to the park. (As with TKaM, best to mirror the structure of the article itself.)

That the Everglades is a river or a system of rivers I think is important to point out. Many people still consider the Everglades to be a vast stinking swamp of no value at all. In fact, an FAC reviewer commented on the potential stench as the reason she wouldn't visit. And the destruction of the Everglades is also important to the lead since a large chunk of the article addresses preservation and restoration efforts. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The last paragraph in the "Climate and geology" section is unclear to me. I tried to copyedit it as best I could, but some of the sentences in the middle are confusing.

Well, the point there really is that ENP is the fresh water recharge for the South Florida metropolitan area so quit polluting it, dumbasses... I tried to describe what fresh water recharge is. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• South Florida slash pines are uniquely adapted to promote and resist fire... I don't get it. How can a tree do both?

South Florida slash pines are quite interesting in their relationship to fire. The beds of the pinelands are covered with dried pine needles and the bark is dry, which of course, promotes fire. But the tree itself resists damage from fire better than any other pine tree in the US. It has a cousin in the Bahamas that self-immolates when sunlight hits the sap at a certain angle. Pinecones will only open above a certain temperature (even in the microwave). --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• Most of the images seem to have pixel-widths attached to them. Wikipedia:MOS#Images recommends not specifying widths, and I agree.

Ok. Let me see if I the images without pixels dominate the page too much. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• In general, try to avoid starting sentences and/or phrases with "there". ("There are 200 species of X in the park.") Instead, start with your subject whenever possible: "200 species of X live in the park."

Will do. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Few trees thrive in this region... (I edited the beginning of this sentence.) I assume "this region" refers to coastal lowlands? If so (I didn't want to change it, because I wasn't sure), it's better to just say "coastal lowlands" here. Ditto "this zone" in the next sentence, and the line about the panthers. (It's the phrasing of "this region" and "zone" that bothers me; usually such a phrase refers to one unified area. Since this section (from what I can tell) is referring to a kind of area, better to use plural referents. (Plural noun [lowlands] = plural noun [areas].)

There will have to be an MOS addendum for singular/plural issues for Everglades. Several sources I use address the fact that Everglades can be used both ways: The Everglades are... vs The Everglades is. I think the same issue applies to Coastal lowlands. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence listing all the wading birds in the sloughs is very long; perhaps we can cut the last bit about what feeds on what?

If it's a dealbreaker I can do that, but it was a conscious attempt to foreshadow what happens when water levels fall dramatically in the park. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are so many single-paragraph subheaders, and I think it's best to combine them. How about combining Mangrove and Cypress into one subhead (called "Mangrove and Cypress") and one called "Sloughs and marl prairie"?

I can do that. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• When listing birds ("wild turkey, ibis, herons...") it's best to make each item in the list either all singular or all plural. You may want to go through the article and check for this.

Will do. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• Their pottery was diverse in structure and purpose. Insofar as this is disconnected from anything else in the paragraph (and not analyzed in detail), I'd support getting rid of it.

Ok. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• I'm afraid I agree with the editor at FAC that some parts of the article would be better suited in the Everglades piece. I think the entire "Native people" section could be compressed into two paragraphs (with the rest incorporated into the Everglades itself), but that would be a drastic step and I leave it up to your judgment. Ditto the "Land development and conservation" section. I wouldn't oppose the FA on this basis, but I would consider it when the smoke has cleared.

I'll consider it, especially when I begin to write the Everglades article in earnest. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Only a few hundred Seminole hunters and scouts existed in the region until the various leftover tribes were forced to settle within what is today Big Cypress National Preserve, rather than face emigration to the west after the Seminole Wars ended in 1842. This sentence is very confusing to me. Does the first part refer to the time before the Seminole nation was founded? (As the previous sentence seems to suggest?) Or are we moving into the post-nation-founding stage? I'd like to start the sentence with "After the Seminole Wars ended in 1842...", but I'm not sure how to do it, since I don't know the history being discussed.

Ok. Let me take a peek at reformatting this sentence. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• The use of "Americans" in the settlements section is troubling. After all, the native peoples are often referred to as Americans. How about "European immigrants" or "migrants from Europe"?

Well, I'm not sure how to do this. They weren't all European because some escaped and freed slaves settled there, too. Non-Indian settlements? I don't really know. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. How about "Settlers from other areas of the continent"? – Scartol • Tok 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Two years later, the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane claimed 2,500 lives when Lake Okeechobee once again surged over its levees. "over" or "through"?

The term Michael Grunwald used was "sloshed over". --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The influx of humans affected plants and animals of the region... (I edited the start of this sentence.) "affected" is a vague term. How about "reorganized the ecosystem"?

"Reorganized" sounds like what happens when a library moves into larger quarters. Total land rape is what it was. "Obliterated" would be appropriate, but POV. Within a span of 10 years dozens of animal species were hunted to the brink of extinction. Melaleuca tree seeds were dispersed through salt shakers in the air. "Affected" was the only NPOV term I could think of that was still somewhat applicable. How about "The influx of humans had a detrimental effect on the plants and animals..." --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• It looks like sometimes US is used and sometimes it's U.S. You should go through and check for consistency.

Will do. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• "selling out" is kind of slangy. I replaced it with "prioritizing".

Was their term, but I can change it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• For future reference: A blank line between the code for images and the following paragraph doesn't show up in the article, and makes editing easier.

Good to know. Ok. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The National Park Service keeps annual statistics on the income of each park, and the impact of each park on local economies. I think this could be cut without loss.

The entire section? Was a suggestion by someone in PR. I can cut it though. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

I meant just the sentence. I think the rest of the section is useful. Sorry for the confusion! – Scartol • Tok 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Has "gumbo limbo" been linked before the discussion of that trail 9and I missed it)? If not, we should get an explanation of what it is.

Should have been linked in "Tropical hardwood hammocks" --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• a salt water license may be available Why is this not "is available"? This sounds confusing.

Sometimes you can purchase a saltwater license at some facilities in the park, but not all of them, and not all year round. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd recommend combining "Camping" and "Boating and fishing" into one section, perhaps called "Camping and recreation"

Ok. Good idea. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• The west coast of Florida relies on desalinization for its fresh water; the quantity demanded is too great for the land to provide. The connection of this sentence to the rest of the paragraph is unclear.

Ok. Will expound or delete. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• As a Gator, I don't believe that FSU Research in Review can be counted as a reliable source. Just kidding. =)

Too right! --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend combining the two sections into one called "Fire, drought and sea levels".

Ok. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• National Geographic rated both Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve very low at 32 out of 100 in their scoring system... What was it scoring?

Will explain. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

• In general, I feel, for Wikipedia it's best to put attribution before the quote. (I've fixed this in the latter sections.)

Ok. Good tip. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Coyotes have also been spotted in the park, as well as in Big Cypress National Preserve, which park managers have attributed to the lower numbers of wild pigs in both parks. Are we sure the language is correct here? It seems to say that there are more coyotes in the park as a result of fewer wild pigs. Maybe it should read: "...which park managers blame for the lower numbers..."?

Ok. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DONE

Good luck with this article. Nice to see such careful attention paid to the Sunshine State. – Scartol • Tok 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance very much, Scartol. --Moni3 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope it's enough to convert the nonbelievers. – Scartol • Tok 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT CURRENTLY BEING RECORDED

Anyone know how to say ooid? It is like oolite (letter o, letter o, id)? or like negroid (letter o, oid)?

Here is a sample of what I have recorded so far if the authors have any suggestions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Everglades_National_Park.ogg

PopularOutcast (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Say oo-id, emphasis on the first syllable. Btw, slough is pronounced "slew", but I always say it as "sloff" in my head. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Well sloff is correct in some circumstances no? I learned the word "slough" for ground stuff in the backwoods of Tennessee and I guess I didn't realize it was being said with in an accent!! LOL. I'll re-do that part. Now as for ooid and oolite. I have had much discussion about this with several friends, so I want to make sure we are on the same page here.

oolite is said oh-uh-lite according to Merriam-Webster. It is like the word iolite. I had always said it oo-lite with the oo as in goo, but apparently that is not correct.

That being said, ooid, would seem to be said as either oh-uh-id or as oh-oid. We were thinking the latter because of the type of thing an ooid is but after seeing both oolite and ooid spelled with an umlaut on the second o, I'm thinking that the word is pronounced oh-uh-id.

So oh-uh-id differs from your suggested oo-id (as in goo I suppose). You are the expert, so I will take what you decide is correct. I just want to make sure.

Also would you like to review the whole read article before I upload and post to the page? I know you have worked hard on this page and I want to make sure you are happy with the finished copy. Since this article is so long, I will likely cut the audio into sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopularOutcast (talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of overhauling the Everglades article, and writing four satellite articles for that one. Let me read through this one to make sure all my information is consistent. Give me 24 hours, please. --Moni3 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okee doke. By the way, I'm not even close to finishing recording it. It takes quite some time. I stopped when I got stuck on the words with section one. I'm new to the recording software and don't know how to edit too well so I'd rather get things right as I go. Take your time. Let me know and I will continue to record at that time. PopularOutcast (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well. This article I was actually considering rewriting, despite the fact that its featured. Such a perfectionist am I that I think I can do much better particulary since I'm rewriting the main Everglades article. You can see the suggestions above that I alter this one when that job is complete. When I wrote this one, the Everglades article was a pathetic 9 paragraphs and 3 citations or something similar, so this stood for the most information on the Everglades on Wikipedia. I'm trying to change that, and in doing so, will make this article more about the park and less about the overall geographic feautre of the Everglades. But if you want to record it, please do. I called the reference librarian at the Marston Science Library at the University of Florida. I'm venturing a guess that both pronunciations are in use, but the dictionary she used confirmed the oh-OH-id and OH-eh-lite are correct. Good luck! --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for calling the librarian. My friend suggested such a thing but having never done it, I was a bit shy. There is no schedule for recording the FA articles. We choose them because they interest us. I've lived in SFla most of my life and grew up going out to the Glades on field trips and such so I just thought this would be interesting to record. Since there is no time table, I will drop it until you are done with your re-write. Drop me a line on my talk page when you are ready for it to be recorded. Good luck! PopularOutcast (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Better Photographs

I think more professional photographs of the park would encourage more people to get out of the house and see the beauty of the Glades. Let's face it, most Floridians drive down to the Glades, see a lot of bushes, a few birds and then never return. A lot of the beauty of the park can only be seen if you get out of the car and walk around...

Better quality photographs might encourage a new crowd to revisit the Everglades, those who thought the Glades is just a swap with a lot of brush and gators sun bathing.

The photo labelled "Anhinga" is actually a cormorant (hooked bill). It would be a better article if the photo and caption matched. 65.82.126.103 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Replaced with an appropriate image. Nice catch. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am putting together a gallery on Flickr, take a look at it so you can see the caliber of local photographers. I'm trying to open a discussion in the group to see if any are willing to donate one or two of their photographs to the Everglades NP article.

What do you guys think? --Joel M. (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article and many of the images are from the park website.

The images you link are indeed quite beautiful, but you seem to know that already. I don't know how familiar you are with image policy. The images appear to have copyright notices on them, so unless a GFDL is used as permission to post the images, they cannot be loaded to Wikipedia and used in this article. There seem to be multiple photographers who use "All rights reserved".

As to whether better images will affect how many people visit the Everglades, or Everglades National Park, I'm not sure that these images would do that trick. The images in this article are not ugly by any means and they illustrate the concepts involved with the park nicely. Still, discussion is always good. --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know the quality of the photo won't be a definitive factor in bringing in visitors but it might encourage some. Beautiful photographs do affect people. For example, my brother didn't care much for the park. He had visited before and his general attitude was, "Whatever dude, the Everglades is just a bunch of brush and a road that takes you across to the East cost." After I bought my new DSLR and gone out taking photos, his attitude changed. I showed him my photos and those of other local photographer and now he's excited not to only go back to the glades but to also go hiking and camping! There's a lot of beauty out there and it's almost impossible to see it from the road. Other National Parks like the Smoky Mountains you can drive and the view is breath taking, the Glades is different, you have to get out and walk to see its beauty. That said, most people (local) don't do that. I think it's important to show them pictures of these trails and say, "Look, if you get out of your car and walk, you can experience this too!"

The photos from the NPS are not ugly but the quality is so-so. Some of them are blown out and low detailed...

As to the copyright, I am trying to talk to them to see if they would be interested in donating the photo (changing the copyright so that it can play nice in Wikipedia).

Take a look at these photos. --Joel M. (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To get the most authoritative word on what it will take to be able to use another photographer's work who has copyrighted his/her images, I suggest dropping a note to User:Moonriddengirl, who has experience with copyright violations and GFDL issues. I have asked quite a few people to release their images and it has become an enormous headache to handle some of the permissions.

If any of the photographers do end up releasing their images for the article, please pick them with an illustrative purpose in mind. While it would be nice to have featured picture quality images in the article, if images representing the concepts of the various ecosystems, animals, and natural forces that are protected by the park are forsaken for striking images, that rather defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. I'm happy to give constructive criticism or my opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a list of freely-licensed photos on Flickr, displayed by "interestingness". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whose idea of interestingness? --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The site has some automatic process that determines how "interesting" a photo is. I'm not really sure what it is, but I think it has to do with the number of comments the file has and its rating by other contributors. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the image for the Blue Heron. I think the new image depicts the bird a lot better and the environment isn't so distracting.

• 
  Before
• 
  After

--Joel M. (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The environment...of Everglades National Park...isn't so distracting? In this article? --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The photograph focus is on the Great Blue Heron in the Everglades. The old photograph shows the bird but it's a bit dark and the environment, the reflection on the water, is too strong. The main subject of the photograph is lost. Photos of animals in the Everglades should depict the animal clearly. Photos of the Everglade's environment should depict the environment clearly.

Of course, the best photographs of animals are the ones that show the animal interacting with its environment. For example, a bird swallowing a fish or a crocodile hiding in the saw grass. But to have a photo of an animal where the animal is hard to see is just not good enough. --Joel M. (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Enhanced Photo of Aerial View of the Park

I fixed the Everglades_FH020005.jpg photograph. I boosted contrast and color along with other things. What do you guys think? --Joel M. (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will say I think the main photo at the top with the ibis is really grainy and with the ibis in the corner looks kind of phony though I assume it's genuine. I would replace that one if it were me. MDuchek (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately that photo can't be improved much. Sure I can make it smoother and what not, but it will loose too much detail in the process, it's just too small to be practical.

I prefer to replace that image all together with a photo with a higher resolution. I haven't done it yet because it should be a photo that represent the Everglades park as a whole. Maybe an aerial photograph. --Joel M. (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree on that. The current photo is quite undewhelming in several respects. MDuchek (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disregard

Removed my earlier comment.TCO (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, holy crap. How do you want me to reply to this? If your commentary is going to be this extensive for all 8 Everglades articles (please feel free to shoot me), what's your time frame for expecting sufficient replies? --Moni3 (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Moni, no shooting. Yeah, it was a long list. Please disregard. Cool topic and article.TCO (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to answer them actually. I was just taken aback to see them all. If you're game and you want to do this, then put it back up. I'll do my best to reply but with a list as long as what you posted it's going to take me days or weeks to reply. I was also concerned about how to reply. Threading replies between your comments would make it more confusing and the list is so long that replying below your list would probably make it just as confusing. Maybe if you put your comments in sections and allow me some space to respond that would be best. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking "U.S. state"

This page has been protected due to edit-warring over the linking of U.S. state. I agree with Moni3 that U.S. state should not be linked per Wikipedia's MOS, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#Link specificity, which states "always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information". Florida is more specific than U.S. state, and therefore more useful to the reader. There is nothing in U.S. state that aids the reader in understanding this article, and if there is a slim chance they might want to read the more general article, they can always access it through the Florida article (the chain-linking principle). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To keep this all together, the AN3 discussion is here. Another discussion is on User:Zarcadia's talk page here. --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I can only re-iterate here what I wrote previously, and that is that U. S. State is linked to on numerous articles and 90% of the English-speaking world are not American and would find this link useful. It seems bizarre to me that anyone would object to an encyclopaedic link like this on an online encyclopaedia. Zarcadia (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain why "90% of the English-speaking world ... would find this link useful"? U.S. state is linked on numerous articles because of old linking practices which dictated that anything tangentially relevant to the subject should be linked (; those were the days when we even linked dates, for some reason. In any case, that is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Most articles are not featured and need improvement in many areas, including linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain why' "90% of the English-speaking world ... would find this link useful"? - What don’t you understand about the majority of English speakers not being American? The impetus is on you to explain why they shouldn’t find it useful. Zarcadia (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That the majority of English speakers are not American is true, but irrelevant. I'm not American myself, but I'm well aware that the United States is a federal republic made up of states. I'd suggest that the vast majority of English speakers are at least as knowledgeable. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, reiterating as well, the number of articles U.S. state is linked to is irrelevant. It is how pertinent U.S. state is to Everglades National Park. If you check just the table of contents in that article, you will find nothing there that has to do with the formation, history, ecology, or geography of Everglades National Park.

Because an article exists does not mean it needs to be linked to every article on Wikipedia.

Per Overlinking, we have to assume our readers are proficient in English (Simple English Wikipedia exists for those who are not proficient in English). This article is written at a level intelligent high schools students can comprehend. I cannot imagine there are people this proficient in English who do not understand that there are regions in the U.S. that are divided into states, that these states set some aspects of their own laws, and are distinct entities. In every country where English is a primary language, there are regions, territories, provinces, and states that are similarly formed. --Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is clearly a case of overlinking and that Moni3 is right. Every country in the world is made up of subdivisions and nobody reading Wikipedia needs to be reminded about this.GroveGuy (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Moni3 and WP:OVERLINK, plus the fact that Florida is already linked. Zarcadia, while you're right in arguing that most English speakers aren't Americans, most English speakers - even non-Americans - can figure out that the United States of America has states. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• As a general comment, I think that there's an inevitable tension in a hyperlinked online encyclopedia like this one, and the pros and cons of adding links are often masked by the way those links are presented, typically in a different colour from the surrounding text. That's distracting for a reader, hence User:Tony1's often repeated exhortation to include only "high value" links. The onus is therefore on Zarcadia to explain what the link to US state will add to the reader's understanding of the Everglades National Park. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I counteract that with why do we link to 'List of areas in the United States National Park System', 'Florida', 'Death Valley', 'Yellowstone', etc. There is a link here to 'George H. W. Bush', should we remove that as most English-speakers on the planet know who he is? You may think I'm being pedantic but I make a valid point. How does a link to 'George H. W. Bush' improve an article on the Everglades? Zarcadia (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You could make the argument that some of those should not be linked. However, that does not weaken the arguments in favor of delinking U.S. state. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I could take or leave the link to George H. W. Bush and don't care if that is de-linked. Death Valley National Park and Yellowstone National Park are...national parks...that are being used as comparison to Everglades NP. I think those links are valid and should stay. U.S. state, still no. --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected. It seems a consensus is evident here regarding the disputed link. Be nice now :) Vsmith (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's have a vote...

most unequivocal way to solve this is through sheer numbers. Everyone's said what they have to say so let's just vote. Voting is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You make me want to strangle the concept of consensus. This is going to attract sockpuppets to link "the". --Moni3 (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aww no fair, you're all s'posed to vote - we all live in democracies :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I and my 28 sockpuppets vote to change the name of the article to "Butthurt Vageline National Park". --Moni3 (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Butthurt Vageline National Park. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No link of US State

1. . Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
2. It really does treat our readers as fools to think it's likely they'd want to click on a list of "U.S. states" while reading that article. The presumption that wikilinking should be used to facilitate aimless wandering through the site went down the sink a few years ago. Please let's focus on selecting the valuable links for our readers. It's a skill, like writing good prose. Tony (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Obviously not. --John (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
4. No. GroveGuy (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Down with over-linking! (Not a vote, mind you, just my opinion.) -- Donald Albury 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
6. --JN466 06:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Manifestly not. Occuli (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Don't link. Common concepts need not be linked. The tiny minority who needs that link is overwhelmed by the huge majority for whom it is cruft. And that tiny minority has a google browser and the search window of Wikipedia to use. Links are like paprika, spice. Use sparingly. Only when you really want the reader to click on them because they are so flipping cool (subcooled in context of turtle blood), because it's too hard to explain in article (mitochondria), or because it is a little known proper noun. Think about the pleasure that comes from reading a sparingly linked blog or online news story, versus the pain and cruft of wiki.TCO (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
9. No link required. Not to Florida either. I'm British also. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Link of US State

1. . Well the voting's 4-0 but for what it's worth I'll cast my vote. If U. S. state isn't linked here then surely a lot of work is needed on other articles that are guilty of 'overlinking'. Zarcadia (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   You're not just whistling Dixie there, brother. --Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   D'oh. (Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OWNERSHIP#Featured articles. This is consuming valuable editor time for something that is obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

2. What about doing U.S. state of Florida? MDuchek (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)