This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lake Tahoe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days

	Lake Tahoe was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 5, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Nevada ( inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles Lakes High‑importance Lake Tahoe is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. California Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Old West Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Low-importance).

I have lived near or in the Sierra Nevada for almost my entire life. One of the most annoying errors that I hear all of the time is when someone refers to the Sierra Nevada as the "Sierra Nevada Mountains" or the "Sierra Nevada Range".

The word Sierra means a jagged or serrated mountain range. Placing the word range after Sierra Nevada translates to Snow-covered mountain range range. Placing the word mountains after Sierra Nevada translates to Snow-covered mountain range mountains. The correct name of the range to the west of Lake Tahoe is the Sierra Nevada.

The first sentence in this article should be changed to correct this error.

Pah Rah ( talk) 21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC) reply

done. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 06:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lake Tahoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009WR008447.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't know what the policy is on this, as I'm a new editor, but it seems to me that the Highways portion of this article counts as original research, as it doesn't cite any sources and relies entirely on the writer's personal experience. It reads more like local tips than a researched and sourced article.

Also, I've made it my first Wikipedia project to try and get this article to a ga rating. For this purpose, it seems adding a few maps would help (beyond simply improving the text). Is there any good place to get either topographical or city maps without breaking copyright? Would a bus map help things at all?

Thanks - SpiderGnome ( talk) 07:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lake The Lake. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

There has been an unwarranted editing of this specific section, triggering the need for a discussion of future edits. Henceforth any future edits are unripe without first discussing the proposals here, and any future attempts to revert this section without consensus, will present a prima facie case of bad faith. The land below the high water mark is in a public trust or easement under the Submerged Lands Act contrary to the outright delusions of some very wealthy and affluent people with lakefront properties. If you think the sourcing of the section could be improved, there are tools and due process for that—e.g., the {{"Citation needed"}} tag. If this section were to become hotly political, then we must be constrained to merely describing the debate rather than engaging in it. Who owns Lake Tahoe's submerged lands is not only information of extreme public concern, but one based upon fact and expertise in the law. In the United States, the Supreme Court's holdings are final. An interview column by a 22-year old copy-editor for a small-town tabloid-ish newspaper full of "sponsored content" who was told to contact persons who were not authorities on an issue, does not carry the same authority as a concert of opinions from the State Attorney General, the Supreme Court, agency documents published by the "US Coast Guard" and "California Lands Commission" and "The State of Nevada," especially when the latter are all in agreement. If relevant persons of public importance hold conflicting opinions, you may preserve neutrality through mention that person x says this, and person y says that. You may not delete what somebody previously wrote about what person z said on account of the bare fact that you disagree with person z's opinion.

@ Steven Walling: Thanks for your edit. I should have started a discussion before reverting. I'm just wondering if it's necessary to mention the Great Pacific garbage patch? It seems like to only reason it's included is for shock value ("Great Pacific"!), and there are no values attached to it. Maybe garbage patches are actually pretty low in microplastics?? Also, you wrote "the highest microplastic pollution concentrations found among 38 lakes and reservoirs measured". Is that significant? Are these 38 lakes in the area, or across the state, county, or world? I know what you're trying to say, that microplastic levels are high, but none of the comparisons actually state this. Is there a chart someplace that states when levels become dangerous, or something like that. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I mentioned the Great Pacific Patch only as a point of comparison for general reader. People don't really understand what any specific measurement of microplastics means, because they're well… microplastics. There isnt also a measured "safe" level of microplastics for animal life, human or otherwise. The more important and objective comparison is that it is one of the three highest levels measured out of the 38 major lakes and reservoirs they tested. Steven Walling •  talk 22:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply