Talk:Transverse Ranges

Article name
It seems like the more accurate name for the article would be the Los Angeles Ranges, or at least Sierra de los Angeles. But on the other hand, Transverse Ranges is used quite a bit more often, especially outside of the geologic/geographic community, so there is the common usage factor in play as well. To accomodate the Los Angeles Ranges, I'll create a redirect that points here, and clarify a bit in the article as well that they are the same. wbfergus undefinedTalk 11:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of them being referred to as the "Los Angeles Ranges". Do you have a source for that usage? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With Google I've found some sources that use the term. But I don't see how we can say that it's a "more accurate" name. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe by "more accurate", I should have said "older"? :^)
 * Fenneman may have been the first to call them the "Los Angeles Ranges" in his books on physiography, though I think he probably adapted the name from the spanish "Sierra de los Angeles". I can probably find the references fairly easily if you still want them, but I think the redirect and the 'blurb' in opening paragraph should cover it. wbfergus undefinedTalk 19:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about instead of "more accurately" we simply say "also called"? Then in the text of the article we can give the history of the names. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That works fine for me. wbfergus undefinedTalk 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a map
Indeed it does, a map is worth a thousand words. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a map, but perhaps this image of the faults underlying the range would be of interest? (This is a view to the southeast, San Andreas fault is in purple, the roots of the Transverse Range is that zone of faulting running up the image.)  I'm thinking this could be put in the Geology section, with the current picture (which doesn't really show much geology) moved down to the Geography section.  Any objections? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transverse Ranges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222101439/http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/coastal/mountains.html to http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/coastal/mountains.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719220426/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=84109&lang=us to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=84109&lang=us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transverse Ranges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161222132418/http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/Documents/note_36.pdf to http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/Documents/note_36.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

When?
This article is missing the era(s) during which this rotation occurred, and whether it currently continues. Lesiz (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

LA_Skyline_Mountains2.jpg a fake
I am a brand new Wikipedian, so pardon my inexperience. But I'm a resident of Los Angeles and a good photographer. The first photo under the title "Geology" has been photoshopped. There is no such vista directly behind the downtown Los Angeles skyscrapers. The only mountains you should see in the background if you are looking at the city from this angle are those dominated by Mt. Wilson, with its readily identifiable transmission towers and observatories. Anyone who lives in Los Angeles would recognize this forgery instantly. Dramatic? Yes. Real? No.

Transverse Ranger (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It does look kinda fakey, and the GPS location is all wrong. But consider File:Los_Angeles_with_Mount_Baldy.jpg which has a similar shot and says Mt. Lukens in the background (wrongly called Mount Baldy in the filename).  Looks plausibly real, no? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I take it back – that really is Mount Baldy! This edit was wrong.  Look at a map of where it was shot from, and draw a line through the downtown buildings.  Both of these got shots of Mount Baldy from the Kenneth Hahn area, on some of those rare super-clear days!  Remarkable, but not fake. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I corrected the description back to Mt. Baldy (not on the image you're talking about, but the other one I linked). The intermediate dark mountain in both is maybe Glendora Ridge? Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * see above responses. What do you think?  Go there on a clear day and let us know. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's actually a pretty classic view, as you can see at this image search. If you want to see a particularly fakey looking one, this one with the full moon rising in the northeast looks pretty suspect.  But I think it's real. Dicklyon (talk)
 * Thank you for all the additional info on the photos, but I am now struggling as a new user to understand even the most basic necessary steps required to reply to you here, in the appropriate place and manner. After looking at all the photos you discuss, I did as you suggested and drew that line from the top of Mt. Baldy to Kenneth Hahn Recreation Area. I also discovered other snowless photos taken from the same place, and found that it is the very bright snow covering on Mt. Baldy and surrounding peaks that makes them come forward until they appear unnaturally close to downtown, especially when just behind the dark ridge that I agree is probably Glendora Ridge. Combine that with the extremely sharp focus, wide angle, and bright lighting of the downtown skyline, and the result is that the mountains look much closer than they actually are. Viewed in "real life" they look very, very far away, and they are. Again, thanks, and my apologies for whatever is amiss in my reply. Transverse Ranger (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You did the reply correctly, indented, with signature, responsive, etc. Thanks.  And I know what you mean about how fakey it looks, because it is so rarely that clear.  I lived at Caltech for 3 weeks before I realized there were mountains a few miles away, back in the peak-smog years (1970).  I drove up to Mount Wilson once to admire the lights, but could only see a vague brown glow coming up through the soup.  But the clear days are spectacular when you get them!  Welcome to Wikipedia.  Check my user page for my photos; some are good, many are hazy aerials or hard-to-see creeks, etc., but illustrate one thing or another.  As a photographer, you might consider doing some such.  Maybe you can find a place to get Mount Wilson behind downtown?  Like on top of the press box at LA Memorial Coliseum?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)