Talk:Rainbow Canyon (California)

.

Rainbow Canyon location
Rainbow Canyon, using the coordinates in the article, is not 250 miles east of Los Angeles. Even the attached map of California shows it is much more northerly than easterly. Also, the distance is roughly 165 miles from downtown Los Angeles, using Google Maps measuring tool. I'm changing the article to reflect this. Jamesfett (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , I took the number from published RS such as and did not fact-check it! But in looking at a map, I certainly agree with you. MB 15:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mobile phone GPS unavailability
GPS is GPS, whether it is built into a mobile phone or provided by a dedicated GPS unit. One would have to be in a narrow, deep slot canyon in order to be unable to get some kind of GPS service, but the terrain in the Rainbow Canyon area doesn't fit the description. Simultaneous view of three GPS satellites is sufficient to get a complete three-dimensional location fix, although in mountainous terrain there can be drop-outs when only one or two satellites are in view, and it can take a many minutes for the GPS receiver to achieve a fix. Source Tom Demerly may have meant well, but I suspect he's unclear about the difference between GPS and cell tower triangulation. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 19:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The Mach Loop needs to be linked in the See Also section
I added it but someone undid the edit. Their rationale: it's already in the body of the article. That doesn't matter, because you shouldn't need to hunt through an article to find a link you're looking for. I don't want to get in an edit war but reverting my edit was stupid. Ninjalectual (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it should not be in "See also" per WP:SEEALSO:  Following project guidelines is not stupid. MB 03:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia primarily uses inline links to connect to other article topics. The "See also" section is a place to collect links that ought to be in the article somewhere, but which aren't yet there. A perfect article doesn't need a "See also" section—it should discuss all topics that are relevant and link to them inline. Your complaint that you "shouldn't need to hunt through an article to find a link you're looking for" makes no sense. If the user knows what they are looking for, they should type it in the search box. If they don't know exactly what they are looking for but know they want articles on places that are similar to this one, the See also section is the wrong place to look. The right place to look for articles on similar places would be in the categories list at the bottom of the article. Category:Low flying, for example. Trying to browse Wikipedia by browsing only through See also sections will not work; the encyclopedia is not built that way. The category system is built for browsing.--Srleffler (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)