I uploaded an image of La Ventana. While the structure is nice (and I think the image is nice as well), it's rather uncharacteristic of the monument itself. The arch is on the side of the main area, which is mostly a vast expanse of black rocks. I'll see if I have a more characteristic picture to put up in place of this one. Anyone opposed to the idea of having two? Charles 20:05, 13 November 2006 (EST)
- Having a couple of images is fine - see Wikitravel:Image policy#Minimal use of images, which pretty much states that multiple images are fine so long as they are used to create a travel guide, and not a photo gallery. As to the park being "mostly a vast expanse of black rocks", I think many people think of the caves or La Ventana or even some of the forested hiking areas just as much as the lava fields when they think of El Malpais. There is quite a bit of black rock there, too, and if you've got a good picture that would work, although black rock isn't always the most interesting subject for photos... -- Ryan 20:33, 13 November 2006 (EST)
- I've added a second image I had (not quite pleased, there's a small misalignment in the panorama), which I think may be ok. I'm not sure how to arrange the page with both of them or if both should stay. I'm not quite sure as to whether the second image should stay.Charles 20:50, 13 November 2006 (EST)
- I like the panoramic, but I think it needs to be bigger to work. I also moved the picture of La Ventana down to the "See" section where the arch is mentioned - hopefully the changes I made look OK to you, otherwise feel free to revert. -- Ryan 20:55, 13 November 2006 (EST)
- Looks good. I was trying different layouts at the same time as you were doing your modifications and we ended up (with the image sizes within 50px) at the same result!Charles 20:59, 13 November 2006 (EST)
This looks very good, Ryan. I don't know El Malpais all that well -- went caving there years ago (unexpectedly helping fight a forest fire while I was at it!) and did a little surface stuff, but really not that much. But what you wrote is consistent with what I do know. It's well structured and descriptive yet terse.
One thing: You may give Grants a little too much credit. It's an old uranium boom town that has fallen on hard times, although things are a little better there now than 15 years ago. The capacity to pick up "everything a traveler could want" may have existed in the 1970s, but I'm dubious now. I'll make some minor modifications when I get a minute.
Anyway, good work. Bill-on-the-Hill 09:28, 26 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Thanks for the comments. My outlook on Grants is probably skewed by the fact that I had been camping prior to arriving there, and it was the first place in a while I'd see with more than one hotel and gas station. When I get a chance I need to update the El Malpais article with some backcountry info from nps.gov, unless someone beats me to it... -- Wrh2 11:57, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
I spent an hour editing this page, removing old info and adding new info. I've been visiting El Malpais for over 20 years, and I'm offended that all my data was deleted. What gives? - Kyle —The preceding comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
- Hi Kyle, sorry about the unpleasant experience. But I can see from here that there's no edit on this page since early 2012. So, maybe a misunderstanding of some sort? Or it's not this article? Again, please do understand that nobody here means to offend you in anyway if you are upset. We certainly wish to see you here again. --Binbin (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2014 (EDT)