Talk:Mono Lake

Research links

• http://www.monolake.org

VFD discussion

Mono Lake

• Delete. Body of water, not a destination. --(WT-en) SHC 19:19, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
• Keep. This is the common name for the region, and the lake is a destination unto itself. The destination is comparable to a National Park including a variety of activities and things to see that exceed some many actual National Parks. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:30, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
• Keep. Agree with Colin - Mono Lake is the name commonly used for the region that includes the lake, located near Yosemite's east entrance. It's a very common recreation area for Californians, similar to Lake Tahoe. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:32, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
• Clarification make sense, and expanding of the article into an outline helps. Consider this an about face. Keep. (WT-en) SHC 19:47, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
• Keep. Large bodies of water can be travel destinations. I never did like the fact we could not do articles on bodies of water. There are some that would be an exception and not require a article due to being too large or too small, but I believe most fall in the same category as "Park articles". -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:25, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
• Anyone mind if we end this one early and nix the vfd? I'm the originator of the vfd and I was unware that Mono Lake referred to the region rather than the body of water alone. As someone who sometimes plans trips to specific rivers and lakes, I think (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel)'s suggestion to reconsider the concensus on bodies of water is valuable for discussion. As always, we should avoid the extremes: an article on the Pacific Ocean would be as useless as an article about the pond down the street. (WT-en) SHC 18:02, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
  • I think the consensus on this is pretty clear (and I agree with it, despite not having chimed in above). I'll archive this tomorrow (the 10-day mark) and copy the discussion to the appropriate talk page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:05, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
  • There seems to be a consensus to keep, so I don't think anyone will complain if this is kept - it would be good to just change the policy to allow ending a VFD early if there is a consensus to keep, but that's a discussion for another place. As to bodies of water, Project:Bodies of water is pretty clear that a body of water that is a region is OK - the policy is there (I think) to prevent things like a "Lake Erie" article, which really isn't of any benefit to travelers. Project:Bodies of water is the appropriate place for that discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:09, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Merge?

Should this be merged (or vice versa) with Lee Vining, which largely serves as a bedroom for Mono Lake tourists? I'm new here, I don't have a strong opinion, but for the most part they feel like a single destination. (Perhaps Mono Lake should be the remaining primary title, however.) --Joe Decker (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not strongly in favor of keeping them separate, it does make some sense to have two articles - it might be odd to include extensive information about the unique ecology and history of the lake in the Lee Vining article, or detailed information about Lee Vining shops in a Mono Lake article. As it is there is a nice split between the park / nature area and the town article. My two cents, although as mentioned, I don't want to stand in the way if there is a strong desire to merge the two. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

*Bump* Anyone else have any thoughts on this? The Mono Lake article has been on the site for a long time as a standalone article, and I think the separation makes sense. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should remove the merge tag. There's quite enough separate information in both articles; furthermore, Lee Vining is described as "in California's Eastern Sierra wedged between Mono Lake and the Sierra Nevada mountains," and is not on the shore of the lake, although it's close: A quick look at a Google map shows a distance of about 3 miles. But in this case, that's far enough to change the ecology. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, although if anyone disagrees please add the merge tag back so that the discussion can continue. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)