Talk:San Luis Valley

"Alpine"?

The San Luis Valley is not alpine. To quote the WP entry: "Alpine climate is the average weather (climate) for a region above the tree line." The San Luis Valley is not above tree-line, it is in fact *below* the elevations in that area that support trees. Paalexan (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this should be changed. --Calibas (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This language originated with my first edit creating the article. My impression was that alpine was a synonym for mountain rather than referring to climate. Mountain valley would serve. Fred Talk 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Googling results in a lot of hits for a town, an other mentions of "Alpine Valley Liquors", etc., but the intended meaning of mountain valley is in use as you can see here, a book about a valley in the Italian Alps, definitely not above timber line. Fred Talk 18:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Kids' Guide" section

Below is more or less a copy of what I just put on User talk:Anrahyah:

---

Hi Anrahyah. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy participating in our community. With that said, I am afraid I have to offer some advice that will unavoidably be negative. I happen to be an educator myself, so I see that appeal of using Wikipedia as a teaching tool. We have even had in-service presentations to that effect. However I must caution you about using Wikipedia in exactly the manner you and your students are now doing. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia which aspires to the highest standards. Hence content contributed "by kids and for kids" is not usually appropriate, and will be edited severely, and most likely deleted entirely. (The problem is not specifically that it is by kids: it is that, so far, it is almost completely non-encyclopedic content. See What Wikipedia is not, for example. Also, even content that is appropriate will be drastically edited, perhaps out of all recognition.)

This editing/deletion may come very quickly, without warning, and without much regard for the feelings of the kids; an editor may simply see it as inappropriate content and revert the edits. As the warning at the bottom of the editing page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." I'm not sure what expectations your students have about their contributions lasting on the page, but if they expect them to last more than a few days---perhaps hours---they will be very disappointed.

There may be other user-editable ("wiki-type") sites that are more geared for kids' contributions, and that would be more appropriate for this kind of project. (In fact I might be able to ask my own Educational Technology coordinator about this if you like.) But Wikipedia is not the place for these contributions, I'm sorry to say. If you have questions or concerns, you can respond here, on your talk page, or at my talk page. Reading the help pages is also a great idea.

---

For other editors: I suggest that "be bold" be put on hold for just a short time in this case. It would be good to have a brief dialogue on this page with Anrahyah and the students about what is or is not appropriate for Wikipedia and what other places might want these contributions, before summarily reverting the edits. Others may disagree, but I feel that that would be most respectful of the attempt to contribute. -- Spireguy 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, since Anrahyah and class obviously haven't looked at this talk page, it's time to revert their contributions. To Anrahyah and to the students: you might want to look for a more education-oriented wiki site, such as PBWiki, to use for this purpose. Thanks for your contributions, but as I noted above, they aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Spireguy 17:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another note: if anyone wants to reinstate some of the content (a little bit of which could be made into encyclopedic additions) feel free to add it back in if it is verifiable. -- Spireguy 17:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spireguy, What a shock my students had today to find that you had deleted their contributions. We had been traveling this month, on a river run of the Rio Grande, and on the Alamosa based Rio Grande Scenic Railway as continuing parts of our SLV study. I am sorry you found the postings objectionable, and I regret that I did not visit here before the children's work was deleted. My students have learned a harsh lesson, as have I.Anrahyah 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Anrahyah

Sorry that you did not see my notes before I deleted the material. I waited as long as I felt was reasonable. As I said above, I encourage you either to find a more kid-appropriate site in which to participate, or to learn more about the purposes and methods of Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that the deletion of the material appeared harsh, but it needed to go. (Note: if you want to recover the material you contributed for inclusion on another site, just go to the history tab and use an earlier version of the page.) -- Spireguy 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kids are welcome, but not in a "kids' section". Fred Bauder 12:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What? No Snippy?

www.snippy.com

A few changes

I have removed a few unsourced or poorly sourced assertions from the article. Please find a reliable source before reinserting them. Identification of the correct San Luis and when the valley was actually named would be welcome. Fred Bauder 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SLV Dweller external link

I'll expand on my reasons for my deletion of the link to SLV Dweller, which was recently undone. Editors may want to see the lengthy and informative, but somewhat technical reply the anon IP user left on my talk page. The short version is that Wikipedia should allow external links to web pages even if they are not viewable by Internet Explorer. Now, I am not a big fan of IE, even though I use it for work reasons, but since it does have a large share of the market, not being viewable by IE is still a big strike against a site. See Wikipedia's guideline on external links: Links normally to be avoided, #7, which is very clear: "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users" should be avoided.

In addition, it is important to note that the burden is on the editor introducing the link to make clear why it is necessary; see WP:EL "this page in a nutshell", which says "they [links] should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." When evaluating an external link, I want to look at it and make sure that it satisfies these criteria. If I can't even follow the link because my browser is incompatible, then I cannot verify the criteria (except to note that it is certainly not "accessible"), and if someone else hasn't, then I need to delete the link. You might also want to see WP:What Wikipedia is not; this makes clear that many links that people might think are appropriate are in fact not, given Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

It's also clear given the response on my talk page that the link was re-introduced by one of the authors/maintainers of the SLV Dweller site. That's not horrible, but it is conflict of interest to some extent: see Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest, which says to avoid "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles". Given the conflict of interest, it's especially important for other editors to be able to follow the link and verify that it is appropriate and necessary. Again, that was impossible for me to do.

In sum, there were multiple reasons to delete the link, but the first one was sufficient and still is. I won't kill it again right away since I hate multiple reverts and prefer dialogue. I also welcome comments by other editors. If the anon IP user wishes to comment again, I suggest doing so on this talk page, and I also suggest getting a Wikipedia account, since that makes dialogue easier and encourages other editors to respond constructively. -- Spireguy 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better to have it. It's mostly local news. If a particular browser can't use it, which I doubt, no real harm done. Fred Bauder 07:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I think that perhaps you did not read the posting on my talk page, which makes it clear that the page does not in fact work with Internet Explorer. Instead the link returns a page saying "SLV Dweller is still here, but you need a better browser." (Not exactly the most polite way to address the issue, I would say.) However I gather that you do not agree with the Wikipedia guideline I quoted above about accessibility, so I assume that your opinion would still be that the link is appropriate. I disagree, but I won't press the issue unless others venture their opinions. -- Spireguy 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not polite, but objective evaluations of Microsoft products seldom are. The advise is sound, "Get a better browser". Fred Talk 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation doubtful

The pronunciation, san loo-WEE, seems odd, and is especially doubtful since even the "Valley" part was wrong. Can someone verify? kwami 08:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Loose ends

This article looks good, but maybe we should revert to some of the earlier information and note that it needs sourcing? The historical implications of penitentes, Tierra Amarilla, and 1848 are certainly worth checking out and having proper sources. Personally, I think the SLV cavedweller website is great - from my last read of what makes an external link undesirable is that it is only accessible via one browser - not only inaccessible via one. For the pronunciation, the San Luis part is Spanish, Valley is English and the common pronunciation is, depending on the accent, an anglecized version of the Spanish, with an English valley. I am not a linguist, but I can say that the s is soft, but it is there. How to source that? Diastar (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)diastar