Talk:Antelope Canyon

Suggestions

1. I believe there are too many photos in the Upper Antelope Canyon gallery, given that this is an encyclopedic article and not a photography forum. Any suggestions on which should be removed from the article?
2. The Geology section is a bit lame, as I'm not a geologist. Maybe somebody with better knowledge could contribute.
3. There have been several commercial ventures shot in Antelope Canyon, including a Britney Spears video. Maybe there should be a section that describes this?

-- moondigger 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the photos. Why not pick maybe a total of three or four for the article as a whole. I like [1], [2], [3] and [4] as they help to show the scale of these features, how it looks from the outside, how the descent works, that it is a popular place for photography, etc. I think most of the rest are on commons and can be added to the gallery there, which is already linked to from this page. Then we could get rid of the photo gallery. Anyone oppose this? --MattWright (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If an image is used in the main body of the article, it probably doesn't have to be duplicated in the gallery sections. That would reduce the number of thumbnails in the gallery by two. I'll make that change right now.

As for the rest... I don't think I can give an unbiased opinion of which images should be trimmed, since four of mine are present in the article. I can only comment on objective considerations:

1. While the images with people in them are illustrative of the scale of the place, I don't know if they adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, since it's doubtful the people in those images gave explicit permission for the images to be published. Since Wikipedia requires free commercial licensing, explicit permission from each of the subjects is probably required.
2. This image [5] demonstrates both the narrow passageways and the uneven footing present in Lower. Therefore I would suggest leaving it in the gallery section, though (again) I'm probably biased because it's one of mine. -- moondigger 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some of the edits we had discussed regarding images. I made the commons gallery link more prominent and added a link in See also, so that if people want to see more images, they can hop over there. I think it looks much more like an encyclopedic article now. As always, if you disagree with the image selection, placement, etc. feel free to move things around or revert my edits. Moondigger -- your images are very nice and contribute well to the article. --MattWright (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The geology section is lacking a bit - no blatant errors, just needs expanding. It would be good to have a bit on the stratigraphy, structures and topography (local relief & stream gradients) as well as info on the size of the upstream watershed. The structure seems perhaps most important - are the strata all horizontal or is this one of the monoclines of the area. The nature of plateau above the canyons is critical. However, I have no direct knowledge of the local area (I did some field work on the Kaiparowits and Bryce Canyon area years ago) and as yet haven't found any published descriptions of the local geology to reference. Will keep it in mind if I find sources to use. Vsmith 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Crowding in Upper Antelope

It needs to be well known that upper Antelope canyon will be completely inundated with people all of the time, and that any photography will be severly restricted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.90.246 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A good point. Is this in print somewhere, so it can be cited? I revised your comments so they were less opinion and more wikipedia. New comments on Talk pages go at the bottom. Thanks for your contribution. Ratagonia (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antelope Canyon. 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/20110511123205/http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/hikers-rescued-from-flooding-in-the-upper-antelope-canyon-in-northern-az to http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/hikers-rescued-from-flooding-in-the-upper-antelope-canyon-in-northern-az
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.naztoday.com/top-stories-archive/2010/07/eight-people-rescued-from-antelope-canyon/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External link

A page on my website is linked to from this article, but as an archive.org page rather than the current link: https://web.archive.org/web/20060822175756/http://www.americansouthwest.net/slot_canyons/antelope_canyon/index.html

Is there any reason why this cannot be changed to the actual link? The page in question has been online since 1998 Americansouthwest (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)