Talk:Antelope Valley
Add topicBanner photo
[edit]
The top picture makes such a a good banner, I think it should be used for the entire state of California's page. I'm going to move this to the California page and replace it with the second image. If ultimately the California banner becomes something else, I would recommend using the top image again for this page. Mcd51 (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since we don't have a banner for California yet that may be OK, although I'd suspect someone would eventually replace the poppy banner on the state page with something that is more iconic for California, such as a banner of the Big Sur coastline. Most non-Californians (and many Californians) are unlikely to recognize the poppy as the state flower and understand why that image would be used for the state article. As a result, it might make sense to leave this banner on the Antelope Valley page and look for something else for the state page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Changed the banner image to one that gives a panoramic view of the valley. I think this gives a better sense of the size, population and climate of the region. Wrk3 (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- No offense, please, but I like the previous (i.e., second) banner better. The current banner has nothing but background, whereas the previous banner had foreground, middleground and background. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Almost all of our banners sacrifice the legibility and functionality of a proper table of contents for some eye candy.
- If we're going to have eye-candy, let it be arresting and not mediocre.
- I vote for the truck passing the joshua trees. --210.246.47.134 03:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I also support banner #2, and therefore will change the page banner to #2. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Region confusion
[edit]The Antelope Valley is claimed to be a region in the north end of Los Angeles County and eastern Kern County, while all of Los Angeles County and Kern County are claimed to be subregions, and "Los Angeles County" in fact links to Los Angeles. If this is the intention, the descriptions should be improved to make the relations clear, and the breadcrumbs should be fixed.
I now see that in fact, the article is breadcrumbed to Los Angeles, where it is listed as one of Los Angeles County regions. Los Angeles is a "huge city", but exceptionally with both districts and subregions. Kern County is breadcrumbed to San Joaquin Valley, and should thus be unrelated article-wise.
I was going to move a host of added listings to the appropriate destination articles, but not knowing the area, it is too labourous with this confusion.