Talk:Cabo San Lucas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Travel and Tourism Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Interesting place

I spotted this city using Google Earth. It seems to be a very interesting place. NSR 1 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)

Yes is is.DrSatan 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit about the Golden Corridor

I think that the title to this section sounds stupid. Opinions? I am going to change it to The Golden Corridor, but if people want the old name, I'll change it back. DrSatan 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Adding the Spam

Please stop adding the Cabo house rentals website up. This wiki doesn't even seem very popular.DrSatan 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever adds these must be exceptionally stupid - they only stay up for a few minutes, unlikely to get many clickthrus. (Or they are smart, and even being up for a few minutes is enough additional traffic to be worth the trouble. :-) ) Stan 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the weather thing added should have been deleted...Opinions?

Heh, never looked at it before - 8 bits of weather info, 8 megabytes of ad, so not worth keeping. I'm sure there are better current weather links, if one likes that sort of thing. Doesn't anybody talk about Cabo *without* trying to sell something? Stan 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not...DrSatan 04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World-class

What the hell does "world-class" fishing even mean? Those words have no meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.65.182.239 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pictures

I believe the beach picture should be first. Without its beaches, Cabo would not be on most Americans radar. Why is Cabo popular? First and foremost, because of it's beaches.

I also think a mountain picture might replace the marina picture (although the marina picture is good), because Cabo's mountains are a little known, prominent feature of the surrounding geography. (posted 4/25/07 by chrisknop)

Los Arcos is a distinctive feature of Cabo, so it seemed most sensible as the first. While the beach picture is nice, it could have been taken anywhere in the world - I didn't see anything in it that said "only at Cabo". There are additional pictures at commons (see commons:Category:Cabo_San_Lucas), though nothing that is both good beach picture and good Cabo picture. All fine points though, I'm not going to fight to the death over it. :-) Stan 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Arcos is a nice feature, and definately a trademark of Cabo. However, I believe the beach picture is also distinctively Cabo; the wide clean beach, the water, and the cliff. I think it's important for the layman to see Cabo at first glance as a beach destination. Don't you agree? Chris, 4/26/07

Well, no. We're not a tourist brochure. In fact, WP:NPOV requires us not to promote any particular view of the place. And what about the people who actually *live* there? Doesn't their viewpoint count for anything? Stan 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I look at it. Having pictures of Cabo without showing the beach is like having a picture of New York City without showing the skyline. As far as NPOV, my understanding is that it applies to writing, not photos. Chris 4/26

I'm not arguing against having a picture of the beach, I'm just talking about relative importance. As for NPOV, you're the one who said "important for the layman to see Cabo at first glance as a beach destination", which is a very distinct POV. NPOV does apply everywhere, it's just that it's harder to push POV with pictures alone, and most of the time we don't have enough pics for it to even come up. As I said, it's all fine points, and if past experience is any guide, editors will randomly rearrange the photos from now until the end of time anyway. Stan 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Red Rocker"

What the hell does that even mean? How about "Rock musician, Sammy Hagar..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.189.164 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Corridor (again), utter crap

"Cabo San Lucas's party atmosphere and San José’s subdued colonial style are bridged by a golf course and resort-studded tourist corridor that stretches between the twin towns along twenty miles of beaches and coves."

I nearly vomited when I read this sentence (I just copy/pasted it from this article). Sometimes it's painfully obvious that Wikipedia isn't close to being a proper encyclopaedia. Sort it out please, Cabo-people! 5.67.222.8 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cabo San Lucas. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 12:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]