Talk:Santa Ana Mountains

California: Southern California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as High-importance).

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wrongly labeled picture

The picture is on this page has a label of "Santa Gabriel Mountains"... It should be "San Gabriel". Bgtgwazi 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo's gone now. I put a new one up. --Justin (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 15, 2008 - Incorrectly labeled photo (SANTA Gabriel Mountains should be SAN Gabriel Mountains has NOT, repeat, NOT been changed, I still see the pic with the incorrect label today, Nov 15, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaNavigator (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do

Sections needed and references: Geology, Ecology, Human Use.

Ecology: [1] Annual Grassland, Pasture, Mixed Chaparral, Chamise-Redshank Chaparral, Coastal Scrub, Valley Foothill Riparian, Coastal Oak Woodland, Eucalyptus, Montane Riparian, Montane Hardwood, Montane Hardwood-Conifer.

Human use: original human inhabitants were Tongva in the north, Acjachemen in the west, and Payomkowishum in the east, south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.Johnsen (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference

Check out "Shadows of old Saddleback; tales of the Santa Ana Mountains" by Terry E. Stephenson (1974) There is a copy at the Yorba Linda Library at CA-R 979.496 ST4 --Bluedv (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Creek

The article says that San Diego Creek is sourced from these mountains, but it is actually from the San Joaquin Hills; but some of its tributaries (ex. Peters Canyon Wash, Borrego Wash) are. Should this be changed? themaee (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Image

I have replaced the lead image. The photo I have posted qualifies under WP:LEADIMAGE. I in the past have had some interaction with the user User:Beyond My Ken that feels these ranges and areas should be shown with snow on them, something that happens every few years and NOT in any way a representation of what the range really looks like--WPPilot 05:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on my talk page to WPPPilot is that his picture is not very good. Ir's flat, shows very little detail, and is uninteresting. No matter how many technical "checks" it gets from a bureaucratic reading of WP:LEAD, it's just not a very good picture of a mountain range, at least at the size it can be displayed in the infobox. WPPpilot's arguments generally hinge on how hard it was to get his images, to fly a plan a take a photo at the same time -- it's all irrelevant, as is the camera and the lens used: if the picture isn't 'good, then it's not good, no matter how it was obtained.

I have restored the image, per WP:BRD which WPPpilot needs to read. BMK (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're an ass, and you obviously only care about Wikipedia policy when it allows your photo to be used, but I've fixed the situation for you anyway. Your image sucked in the infobox, but after cleaning it up and cropping it to the subject (we care less about how pretty and artistic an image is than what it portrays), it's not bad in the article itself, displayed at a very large size. (Don't worry, your precious original is still extant, I uploaded the new version under a slightly different title.) You can thank me anytime you want - but not on my talk page, which is a "No asshole zone." BMK (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the snowy picture is better in the infobox.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WPPilot didn't agree, so he reverted you. BMK (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADIMAGE this range does not see snow. That image did not qualify.WPPilot 07:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If the range does not "see snow" (I don't know if that's accurate or not) than the answer is to put that information into the caption: something about "in an unusual condition, with snow on it" or something like that. The range obviously does "see snow" occasionally, or that photo wouldn't exist! BMK (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assume arguendo that there's never snow on the mountains. The aerial photo still fails WP:LEADIMAGE because very very few people ever see these mountains from the air, so how's an aerial photo going to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. It's a great photo, but a photo taken from the ground with houses and so forth is how most people see these mountains, and thus is more in line with the guideline. The aerial photo is good for the article body because it shows the structure of the range.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

As a result of the WP:3RR-breaching edit war over these images, I have locked the page for 72 hours. During this time discussion needs to take place so that consensus can be achieved on which images to be included. If edit-warring instead resumes when the protection expires blocks will fall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I've no idea whose image is whose, or which was the original, but (just popping over here from ANI) the snowy one from ground level is way better. Mostly for avoiding the silhouette lighting. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WPPilot makes the argument that I "[feel] these ranges and areas should be shown with snow on them." This is not correct. My one and only concern is that the lede photograph show a representation of the mountain range which will display properly for the reader at the size available for infobox images. The original picture fulfills that requirement, none of the other images in the collection at Commons does, including that of WPPilot. All of the other images need more size to display adequately. The inforbox image must show some kind of repreentation of the range at a relatively small size. It is not fair to the reader to require them to click through to the larger version of the image to see what is there. BMK (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it cannot currently be seen due to the protection of the article, below is the version of WPPilot's image., cropped and adjusted, which I had inserted into the article, with the original photo (second one above) in the infobox:

BMK (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For background, see Talk:Mission Viejo, California#Infobox photo. BMK (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading what passes for discussion above and WP:LEADIMAGE, then looking at both images on multiple devices, I have to come down on the side of the original image. As a (fairly) local resident, I have a good sense of how the mountains look, and the original captures that look from the ground, despite the oddity of the snow, whereas the aerial shot, while attractive, has no sense of place or context. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of either image; the original has too much clutter (notably the street light) in the foreground, and the latter is either shot into the sun or over-exposed and thus lacks any detail especially at the size required for an infobox. However, on balance, given the options available, the original image is preferable. I do like the idea of enlarging the aerial photograph (although not as large as it is right now, which feels a touch pointy) and placing it in the article, but it could do with a trip through Photoshop to improve the contrast. I'd also strongly urge BMK to dial the inflammatory rhetoric down several notches and WPP to recognize that taking an image with Wikipedia in mind does not guarantee it will eventually wind up in an article, no matter how hard you pound another editor with your interpretation of policy. Both images fall within WP:LEADIMAGE, making that issue moot. --Drmargi (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I also like the image. My frustrations were only the result of the public inflammatory rhetoric BMK started using in his posted directed at me. In the previous interaction the same thing happened, BMK reverts without using the talk pages, as I had and resorts to the name calling that really upset me, as my real NAME is attached to my WP user ID as the result of how I upload my photos, and in fact BMK is just that, a acronym. I have contributed thousands and thousands of photos to WIki, and will continue to as I enjoy its art form.

As far as the original image, perhaps if you were to crop out the trees the light post the signs and such it would be a better depection for the lead image, and the 4:3 format does seem to be better suited for the info box here. That being said, I am excusing myself from this matter altogether and have no desire to do any editing that will interfere with BMK in the future, it is too frustrating and I am not interested in exposing myself to that. WPPilot talk 15:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can read the previous interaction between us, at the link I posted above, in which I was very civil, and you were not. And they can see from the edit history of this article, and from the comment you posted on my talk page, that you came in guns blazing, not me, I simply reacted to your sense of entitlement about your aerial pictures.

Be that as it may, I will look at the original picture later today with an eye towards editing it as you suggested. BMK (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TIME OUT! This is about deciding on which image is best, not a pissing contest that seems to be running from one OC article to another. Discuss the issue, not each other, and keep it civil or I'm going to ANI, which I never go near, and recommend an interaction ban. You've both lost sight of what matters: the best interest of the article. --Drmargi (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative image

Just uploaded this from Flickr. It might make a nice alternative to stop the bickering.

--Mike Cline (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lovely image, and the best of the three to my mind. I know the snow is unusual, but I'm not sure how big a deal that really is -- we locals know the snow is infrequent, but most folks don't. --Drmargi (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely the best of the three, although I still would like to see the aerial photo down in the article, as it shows the structure of the range so clearly.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very good, very clean and sharp image. My only concern is with how it will look at infobox sizes, which would be something like the top image at right.

If the mountain range template supports it, the image might look better a little larger, like the bottom image a right.

What do people think? BMK (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely fine. We'll never get a lot of detail in an image that shows a comparatively large geographic area in a small format. This one has good contrast, and the snow serves to highlight the mountains. --Drmargi (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the consensus, then I suggest that once the article comes off protection, the new image be added to the infobox, and WPPilot's image be placed where I had it at a large size. If there's room in the article, the old infobox picture, possibly with some editing, can be used as well, as long as it's not overcrowding it. BMK (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd call consensus just yet; it's only been a few hours, and we have a three-day page protect that affords folks more time to discuss. Let's go slowly and avoid anymore bad feelings. --Drmargi (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I agree. BMK (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mike Cline's image for the Infobox. Snow does make the shape of a mountain range "pop" out of an image. —hike395 (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility

I'd like to float another possible scenario. The photo uploaded by Mike Cline from Flickr is so clean and sharp, that it really seems a shame to not make full use of it by putting it in the infobox at a lesser size. I'd like to suggest the possibility of putting that picture in the place where the aerial picture was in the other version of the article, at a large size which will show it very well, and then restore the original photo (snowy mountain, seen above), with some cropping to remove the "clutter" that some people objected to.

Any thoughts? BMK (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to go with the Cline photograph in the info box. The others have been too contentious, and both have issues. --Drmargi (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your thinking, but I still think it's a shame not to get maximum value out of the photo. Oh well... BMK (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be, but let's go with consensus above, especially given the tension of late. --Drmargi (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

was wondering how the photo of San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, southern Santa Ana Mountains, from April 2007 was considered a better graphical image of these mountains then the photo that WPPilot took. That photo seems to show the whole range, and the photo "San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, southern Santa Ana Mountains, April 2007" could be anywhere on earth. 216.242.15.66 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency between traverse and peninsular?

The wikipedia article on the Peninsular (S. Calif.) ranges claims Santa Ana Mts are members. This article claims they are too, yet the first thing mentioned in their Geography section is they start with the Chino Hills. The Chino Hills are part of the Transverse Range. This is clearly inconsistent, and needs clarification: who is it that uses one or the other definition? (public? geographers? geologists? ecologists?) Or is one just wrong?Abitslow (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the USGS Santa Ana 30x60 topographic map; the Santa Anas show a NW-SE trend fitting the trend of the Peninsulars. To the northwest the Puente Hills trend E-W in line w/ the Transverses. Between these lie the Chino Hills which appear to have a WNW-SSE orientation. But, that's just my OR ... would need a RS to clarify ... and the statement in the Chino Hills geography section is also unsourced. Vsmith (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Transverse bit from the Chino Hills article. Seems the Chino/Puente hills have the NW trend and geology of the Peninsulars, however the Puentes abut the Transverse range. The geology is complex and would need a section of its own - and a bit of work. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]