Talk:Saline Valley salt tram

Vandalism section revert

 * I didn't realize we weren't allowed to use official government accounts publishing via the Instagram platform!
 * What was POV about the text?
 * Should we not edit FAs once they've passed FA approval? That seems weird --they're not somebody's dissertation--this is meant to be a living encyclopedia and in this case it's seems like news about partial destruction of the historic site would be germane? jengod (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . Probably, but I think it's too early to put something like up. Its WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE at the moment, particularly with instragram ref, which is junk non-rs and unsuitable for an FA article. You shouldn't be using it. It stands out like a sore thumb. I think you should try and make it a single sentence, after it's all done and dusted, a couple of months up the road. And why a quote the investigation being humbling. What has that do with the salt tram? It is completely undue.  scope_creep Talk 
 * Ok! Not pressed about it or anything. We're not a news site but a damaged national landmark makes the news people often seek clarity about what happened on the Wikipedia article.


 * Instagram is just an information trafficking site. USNPS puts content on there that's identical to any other platform it uses. Instagram is not fundamentally more or less reliable or serious than any other given worldwidewebsite.com or FTP or BBS or Discord -- it has no inherent worth or worthlessness, it's whether the content creator is reliable etc.


 * The "humbling" bit was where we glean the information that that the off-roading community were supporting the investigation, which suggests to the reader that perhaps known off-roaders had been implicated as perpetrators.

jengod (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Instagram is a social media site with no filters and is completely unreliable by definition. The problem is most folks can't tell the difference, the effect is its a half-way house with no benefits for those for or against. I take them out. If that instagram ref was in when it was reviewed for FA, it would have been rejected. I tend to taken them out. I don't know about the second part, although waiting a month and then put something. It does need something, no doubt. Right, aye, I see what you mean. I think that WP:UNDUE as well. I still think wait a wee while for better sources then a succint one line sentence that states it was vandalised and the tower destroyed. I don't think you need more details for that such a small FA article.   scope_creep Talk  00:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Reports are beginning to come out...,, ,. The second link is a release from the Nat'l Park Service — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs)
 * I see it has reached the UK independent this morning. I think there is enough reportage withot the istagram ref. Sorry I delayed you.    scope_creep Talk  07:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * All good. Thanks for patrolling! I think my confidence is shot though; hopefully someone else will come along and add something. jengod (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

, I can help out with that. , thanks for the link to The Independent. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)