Talk:Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park

resources

Lake Jean info

Fish in Lake Jean

Ugly tables

The tables are so ugly not even a mother could love them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, thanks, I think. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the tables and/or their appearance? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry--should have explained a little better. I end up with one long skinny column with a bunch of text a couple of words to a line, and don't even see the pictures. I looked and didn't see much in the way of quick fixes (other than using ft rather than feet should help a little bit). Sometimes shorter words in the column headers can help, don't see much here unless you used smaller type for some of them. It doesn't look too bad, now that I have a wide-screen monitor, if I go as wide as I can and go down a size or two in the fonts I use.

Having sorted tables isn't a real big advantage when you only have six or eight entries in the table, and the overhead of the sorting button might affect column width, but only a little bit at most. Sorting on the north-south axis only in the coordinates column is the least useful. And that is a wide column. Try dropping it, or moving it into the big text column. That should help a lot. At some point, adjustments in the size of the pictures displayed might help in fine-tuning it.

Or maybe the problem is just trying to present too much in that one column of text. Consider other options such as descriptions in running text (maybe using that html "definitions" format, starting a line with a semicolon for the header then a colon starts the description), then having a table which doesn't try to present so much information. Don't know how you'd want to deal with pictures--in the running text or the tables, but it might be easier to tweak them if they're the major factor affecting the display, maybe at left or second column of table rather than right.

I don't have any real good or absolute answers, but I hope this is more informative than my last comment. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that the settings on a computer can really affect how the table looks. I don't know the ins and outs of the settings, but I know that on my computer at home, I can see the entire table and the pics of the falls. On other computers the table is pretty awkward looking. The columns of text are very, very narrow and the pics of the falls do not appear on the screen. My conclusion is that there is nothing wrong with the formatting of the list just the settings on the computer. Dincher (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On Internet Explorer the text size can be changed under view, then text size then smallest. Dincher (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again - I have looked at this on a computer that has a widescreen and on one with a screen only 800 pixels wide (both in IE) and it looks decent for me on both. I also checked with Mozilla Firefox on the wide screen and had no problems. I added a clear before the only table without one. Not sure what else to do - will think about it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it make any sense to remove the comments and perhaps the images from the tables (and put them into text)? So make the descriptive paragraphs for each falls in order under the Glens, probably with a photo, then the table(s) would be just the name, height, coordiantes, and elevation. We could even have one table at the very end of the article with all the falls (add Glen in that case). I can do this for just Ricketts Glen's six falls in user space if anyone is interested in what it would look like. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I tried it for the six fall in Ricketts Glen at User:Ruhrfisch/Waterfalls. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can live with it. Not a bid deal to me either way. Dincher (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked Finetooth for an opinion on this too, since he weighed in on the Peer Review here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no trouble seeing everything on my laptop using Firefox no matter which way you do them. The new way shrinks the vertical white space between images in the table down to almost nothing. If you move the images into the text sections, as I think you are suggesting above, this problem would be solved, and the issue raised by Gene Nygaard would be addressed. I'm not sure the short text sections are all big enough to accommodate photos, though. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it work to delete the subheads and to make the waterfall images for each section into a gallery with captions? Probably not since that would further separate the images from the related text and also from the tables. Just a thought. Fishing for ideas. Finetooth (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried adding the section again and putting the images in with the text - had to use {{triple image}} and purposely kept the images the same size as they were in the table version (150 px wide for vertical photos, 200 px wide for horizontals). On my computer it just barely fits - the text for three falls in each case it just about as tall as the vertical image. I have to say I still like the current layout best as it keeps the height and elevation with the descriptions and the images. This latest try does reduce the size of the table considerably. Calling it a night, maybe I will have a better idea tomorrow. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>After looking at the latest try, I have to agree with you that current layout is better than the other two versions. I, too, must call it a night. If I think of anything else that might work, I'll post another note. Finetooth (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I still prefer the current layout (table with everything in it) too. Not sure what else to do. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed them up a bit. They're much more readable now. Had to disable sorting, but that seems okay. 98.235.98.38 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"wikilinked... Click on..."

This phrasing on the image in the article violates the WP:NAVEL guideline... we really should remove it or phrase it in such a way that it doesn't make any reference to an online encyclopedia or especially Wikipedia (or any generic wiki). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How does it work for you now? Just linked instead of wikilinked. Dincher (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's better, but it still presumes the reader has a fully functional computerized version of the encyclopedia at the other end; this is by no means the case for printed versions ("create a book" pdf's, printouts, or future installments via print) or for certain third party uses. But we've improved from a grade of "F" to "D". :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooh that is kind of a neat feature though. Well, I'm not sure how to handle that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What is a neat feature? Dincher (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue here. Because this is an image map, the caption follows the example at the MediaWiki Image Map page, which lets the reader know that it is a clickable image "Image map example. Clicking on a person in the picture causes the browser to load the appropriate article." My thought is that most readers of the online version do not expect the map to be clickable, so the article should let the reader know this. On the other hand, if someone is reading a print version and sees this, they know paper cannot be linked. I can name several other articles that have image maps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ruhrfisch. Dincher (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Beacause it is an image map, you can't just click on the image to see the larger version - instead you have to click on the little rectangles in the caption instead. Here is the current text: "Each label is linked to an article or image. Click on small rectangles in the caption for larger map." Can't figure how to make the first sentence shorter, but I suppose the second sentence could be shorter, perhaps "Small rectangles in the caption are linked to larger map."? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much information!

Sorry, but I think this article goes into way too much detail. Do we need to know about how waterfalls are formed, and what different kinds there are? That's what the main Waterfall article is for. Similarly, do we need to know the history of the whole Ricketts Glen area? That's what the state park article is for. It should stay focused on, well, waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park. Brutannica (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article. Being from Pennsylvania makes this article even more special to me.

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722003001/http://www.backpacker.com/readers_choice_awards_2009/destinations/12722?page=2 to http://www.backpacker.com/readers_choice_awards_2009/destinations/12722?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223032934/http://www.backpacker.com/januay-2010-ricketts-glen-state-park-pa/destinations/13716 to http://www.backpacker.com/januay-2010-ricketts-glen-state-park-pa/destinations/13716

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160221175442/http://dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_015919.pdf to http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_015919.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)