Talk:Lake Merritt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

HOW in the world is Lake Merrit the largest lake of any kind in the world????? It might be the biggest pond in the world.

Contents

[edit] Two points about the birds

(1) The section "Dry season" says Canada geese "become nearly ubiquitous around the perimeter of the lake." Should this be, e.g., "...in Lakeside Park, bordering on the lake"? The park is full of geese – they eat grass there – but in my experience they don't occupy the part of the perimeter next to the street.

(2) I think the lake is a stop on the Pacific Flyway. Include this? Cognita 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just today I saw one right next to the street on the opposite side from the park but mostly they hang out in the park. --Calibas 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the jogging and grass strip on the southlake shore (opposite fairyland) i always see canada geese there, in pairs or groups of 3 or 4, never as much as on the other side though.CholgatalK! 02:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courthouse misID'd in photo caption?

Top photo: caption says Oakland courthouse, but isn't this building one of the Alameda County courthouses? Superior Court trials are held there. Cognita 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National (?) Wildlife Refuge

This page claims that Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge was the first National Wildlife Refuge. However, the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge article also makes that claim. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states that Pelican Island was the first.[1] Also, looking through the FWS website, they make no mention of Lake Merritt being part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The National Historic Landmarks Program site (National Park Service) claims that Lake Merritt was "America's first official wildlife refuge" but implies that it is city property.[2]

It seems clear that Lake Merritt is the oldest publicly-owned "wildlife refuge" in the USA, but it is not a federally-owned "National Wildlife Refuge." I propose any references to National Wildlfile Refuges in the article and categories be changed. Any comments? — Eoghanacht talk 21:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I live nearby and I've never seen any signs saying any part of Lake Merritt is a National Wildlife Refuge. I think an editor got confused, I changed it. --Calibas 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that it is a National Wildlife Sanctuary, and I've seen signs at the Fairland side of the lake that state it was the first and that the park was part of the movement to create such habitats.CholgatalK! 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I added sources from the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmark that document its status as the first officially designated (by California, not the U.S.) wildlife refuge in the U.S. In doing so, I added a NRHP infobox, which currently looks awkward on the page. I put an adjacent photo inside it, which may reduce the impact of the photo. The infobox could be moved elsewhere in the article, and it could look better with a different photo and caption put inside it. doncram 20:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Preferably a photo full of ducks, wild ones. The NHL name is Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge. doncram 20:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I could take a picture of any or all of the various birds at the lake, but I'm not sure which, in partciluar, would be appropriate. -Chunky Rice 00:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brown color

This article states that Canada geese feces are responsible for the brown color. I highly doubt this, I'm pretty sure brown color comes from the pipes on the west side pumping all the runoff from downtown. Calibas 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Love to see the article... link? Personally, I just can't believe the water could get so badly fowled fouled by bird droppings--the geese spend much more time on land. Binksternet 01:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] listed as lake

Lake Merritt deserves to be listed among the lakes of the Bay Area. Its uses are lake kinds of uses. Most folks think of it as a lake. I support its inclusion in any list of lakes. Binksternet 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question is, of course ... wait for it ... whether it actually is a lake, at least in the technical sense. I don't know; anyone know one way or the other? +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's both a lake and an estuary. From Merriam-Webster: a lake is "a considerable inland body of standing water" which I feel is fairly inclusive. An estuary is "a water passage where the tide meets a river current" which only works for Lake Merritt if you allow for our measly California "river" sizes. Lake Merritt is more like a meeting place of three or four streams plus the bay tide. Binksternet 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Oakland Estuary is separate from Lake Merritt; it's where the lake meets the waters of the Oakland Inner Harbor (and I think it includes at least part of the channel which runs by Laney College and the Kaiser Convention Center). Just to be precise here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Lake Merritt was fully an estuary before Westerners came along. Oakland Estuary was dug a lot deeper for shipping. All the waterways around here have been engineered extensively. Binksternet 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In 1850 "San Antonio Slough" (aka Lake Merritt) was a slough and lagoon/baylet formed by the confluence of the mouthes of many creeks and their tributaries, however it is now 2007 and the wetlands are destroyed and it is no longer a slough, it doesn't connect to the bay anymore, there is a small drainage channel which barely passes for a creek, and its shut off at the whims of EBMUD. Even reservoirs are lakes, lakes don't have to occur naturally. A lake is a large body of inland water, it can be salt it can fresh. Lake Merritt is a lake. Just read the article, it doesnt jusy say it is called a lake, it calls it a lake. Sure it is a salty lagoon, but that is merely a kind of lake. Disregarding this fact is original research, the article would have to be rewritten with sources clarifiying that it is not a lake its just a bunch of water taking up space in a hole in the ground but is not a lake. I highly doubt that is possible so the Lakes in the San Francisco Bay Area category should stay. I wonder why didn't you remove the Lakes of California category as well?CholgatalK! 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

comment also the United States Geological Service (USGS) says it is a lake of all things.CholgatalK! 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, that seems to be an authoritative word. It's a lake. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
cool, sorry about the confusion, thanks for taking the time to discuss it though, thanks a lot.CholgatalK! 06:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on lakeside development is WAY out of proportion

This section is gargantuan compared to the rest of the article and needs to be trimmed down badly. It also has waaaaaaaaay too many references (not to mention that the editor who wrote it put in many redundant references, instead of reusing "named" references; a look at the editing help pages would be in order for them). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

..."waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many refernces?" According to what? Please educate me. Isn't it good wikipedia policy to cite potentially contentious facts and details? Also I'm still learing the "named" reference templates. Also I've self-edited the length.Critical Chris (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of proportion; just look at your section, and at the article as a whole. What you've created is basically an entire article unto itself. It's left up to your good judgement to decide how much to include, and what to exclude. Yes, statements should be cited here, but that doesn't mean that one can't pile on such citations to excess. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok so that part of the article is not written in mind for a 5th grader doing a report on feeding Wonder Bread to ducks. There are a number of details that beg explanation, and a chronology of events of the course of this 'flagship' status development, which would be the tallest building in Oakland at 457 feet and not only that...it's a development in progress and there are complex political, planning issues, and environmental issues that, believe it or not could be expanded upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.136.65 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point: I have no doubt that this development issue could be expanded to many times its present size. But the fact is that this article is not about development conflicts in the city of Oakland; it's about Lake Merritt. If that conflict is that notable, then perhaps it deserves its own article here; in any case, that section of the article is way out of proportion to the article as a whole and needs trimming down. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, most of that section is already, nearly word for word, in the Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California article. The section should be trimmed down to a few sentences that describe exactly what it has to do with Lake Merritt. Calibas (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the current version which is laughably waaay too short, it doesn't even mention that a 42 story skyscraper has been proposed. Don't the potential environmental impacts of project this size, this close to the lake, at least deserve factual review? Critical Chris (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've "boldly" reverted a paragraph describing the location, height, facts, and name of the proposed project, which contains a reference link to the Planning Department staff report on the project so folks can do further research on it. This section consists of 3 factual, concise paragraphs, and don't forget that aerial photo of the project in the layout makes these 3 short paragraphs look longer than they actually are. At this point I do not feel this section is out of proportion in comparison the other sections of the article. If anyone disagrees, please explain yourself.Critical Chris (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your last question in the previous paragraph above, the answer is, that depends: if this were a document being presented to, say, the Oakland planning department then yes, it would deserve "factual review" as you put it. But this is not a place for that document, nor for exhaustive examination of this subject which, while relevant to Lake Merritt, is tangential and doesn't deserve a disproportionate amount of text here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If we are to improve this article into a Good class or better article, we need to include links actual source material for a serious student or researcher. In regards to Architect Birchall remarking the developers intend to replant the shrubs, I added it for balance reasons, but am not going to loose sleep if its gone.Critical Chris (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"Links to actual source material"? Good god, man, take a look: your section has 9 references (not all of them unique, by the way), far more proportionally than the rest of the article, or most articles here for that matter. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care about the number of references, but it still remains that the first paragraph of the section has barely anything to do with Lake Merritt. Calibas (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)