User talk:Shannon1/Archive 2

WikiProject Canyons etc.

Shannon1, does this look alright as a simple banner for the project?

{{WPBannerMeta |PROJECT = Canyons and Gorges |BANNER_NAME = Template:WikiProject Canyons and Gorges |substcheck=<includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly> |small={{{small|}}} |category={{{category|¬}}} |listas={{{listas|}}} |IMAGE_LEFT = Canyon midday.jpg |QUALITY_SCALE = standard |class={{{class|}}} |importance={{{importance|}}} }} You've probably already got everything set up, but if you need any help with getting the WikiProject up and running, I'll be glad to do whatever I can! Good luck - I.M.S. (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, just need help on porting the wikiproject page from userspace to Wikipedia space when it is ready. My last proposal ran into the deadline because I didn't dare to start it without admin consent or something. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[[

Have things changed a lot on starting projects? I wasn't aware admin consent was required. When Kingboyk and I started WP:BEATLES neither of us were admins. Anyway I've voiced my support. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No - Consent is not required. I've set up a few WP's without "admin consent". Optigan13 (a senior WikiProject editor) told me once that "You're free to create a project if you want, these proposals exist to gauge interest by pointing possible participants to sign up here, and to get feedback from others on whether the project would be a useful and productive effort." You've gotten a few votes now Shannon1 - I'd say it's time to set up the WP! I.M.S. (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Laguna Canyon is a Good Article

Congratulations. I've taken a final pass through and promoted the article Laguna Canyon to Good Article status. It was a "good article" when we started and now it's great! I had a couple more suggestions but that's all they are, suggestions. Thanks for all your efforts on this (and other) article(s). I know it took us a while but I think the delay was well worth it. Good luck in your future endeavors, I hope we get to work together again, it's been a pleasure. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for all your patience on this matter; I'm glad it was resolved nicely. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 15:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what the guidelines say... but one of my earliest GA noms was quickfailed when those of us working on it were sure it could be fixed in a week. Much acrimony ensued. I'll never fail an article for time reasons if I think the editor(s) are working on it, however slowly. But don't count on other GA reviewers feeling that way. I dabble, at best, and it may be explicitly counter-policy to be patient, not sure. Best. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(hehe) I don't follow guidelines completely, but most of what I do happens to be legal, I just do what I think is best. Then again, one of my GA noms was failed while I was on a wikibreak; apparently the editors commenting on it didn't bother to notice. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 02:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Klamath Diversion

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Klamath Diversion, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:KlamathBasin-location.jpg

File:KlamathBasin-location.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:KlamathBasin-location.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:KlamathBasin-location.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Baker River

Saw your question on Pfly's page and figured I could check on that as well - that is actually a combination of Bald Eagle Creek and Lonesome Creek - Lonesome Creek is the portion that veers off to the southwest, Bald Eagle continues for a bit to the southeast and it's valley is visible in the topography. Also if you want to add it, that other unlabeled creek you have to the southeast of Blum Cr. is Noisy Creek. Kmusser (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually made that map before I found the USGS topo maps on Peakbagger (I think) or I didn't pay close attention. There are also loads of tributaries on there I haven't checked out yet, so I will add those to the Baker River article when I have the time. I'll update the map when I have time. (I'm borrowing a computer.) When I finally got a good looks at the USGS map, I was a bit confused when Bald Eagle Creek just "turned" right into Lonesome Creek, so thanks for clarifying things up. I love place names in the Pacific Northwest.

(I hate how Internet Explorer delets what you type later if you type in the middle of a paragraph too...) Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Snake River

I agree it is an important river and will take a look and make some comments over the next few days. I note that the Columbia River article took several editors a few years to get to FA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the quick reply. I have been working on my sandbox version for about a month, and my version's probably not much better than the existing page, but I have this thing in my mind to get it to GA or FA. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 03:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to your request, I'd be happy to take a look. It may take me a while since I'm involved in another FA that's hit a couple of rough patches, and I'm trying to keep a fairly constant oar in at peer review. Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll post a more lengthy reply when I get back to my own computer. Right now, I still think both versions are short on referencing, so that's the primary thing needed to improve. I haven't actually edited the actual article much, I just don't want to scare everyone like what I did to Klamath River. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got back. The current article is definitely a C class; it is written ok, but a little patchy because obviously a lot of people have been editing random parts of it, that's a problem with most of the articles for large rivers. The lead is too short, which is what I have been doing in my sandbox to correct; but it lacks a "biology" or "wildlife" section; the closest I have been able to get to it is a "Pollution" subsection. The History section does not really elaborate on all the expeditions to the area. I have been having problems with a "Watershed" section because the closest I have been able to get is nearly a partial copy of the Columbia River watershed section. Finally, I have seen in all the other river FA's (except Columbia River) that the "Course" section usually has three or four references describing the whole length of the river or stream. As you both write awesome river articles, where do you find those? Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Heya, I'd help with the Snake River page. I did some work on it a year or two ago. It was rather sad (Here is how it looked before I put some work into it (and it is probably my fault the lead is too short, since I added the sections and have (or had) that habit of making overly short leads). On comparing your sandbox to the page itself, I'd say you ought to just add stuff to the main page. A quick look over your sandbox looks good to me. It's easier, for me, to just look at one page and make edits instead of trying to compare two pages and think about "content merging" type work. It won't hurt the page to copy over lots of content, I figure. And it would goad people like me to look more closely. Reading both your sandbox and the real page carefully enough to see what and how to move content over is....a little daunting. Just move on over, I'd say! Issues can be addressed over there, on its talk page, etc. Your Snake river map.jpg looks nice--you got the basemap from the seamless server eh? Nice. ...All this said, the Snake River isn't one I know as well as those closer to home. But it plays a pretty fairly role in the history of the PNW, and I spent a little too much time researching its tributaries a while back. It's interesting how some rivers sink into the Snake River Plain and emerge as springs near the Snake. But I'm still not happy with what I did with Lost River (Idaho)--one page for at least two separate rivers? Non-ideal. The Big Lost and Little Lost should probably be split. Anyway--be bold! I'll keep the article more up front on my radar. Pfly (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far. What I mean by what I did to the Klamath River page was just copypasting the stuff in my sandbox onto the main page, which I certainly did not have the guts to do with such an important river as the Snake. I'm now pretty sure with the lead section, and the Watershed section seems like it should be moved over because the main page doesn't have a watershed section. I'll actually continue working on it in my sandbox for a few more days, as I don't have streamflow data yet, and I also don't have a "biology" section (maybe you can comment on how the ecology of such a large river can be described). As for Lost River, it seems a little bit like a disambiguation page that has grown in a way such to describe its contents. It should be split, I guess, as the rivers don't exactly join together. However, I have seen in some articles that the two rivers, or at least the Big Lost River, becomes a dry riverbed that goes off across the Snake River Plain, maybe some research on that could be done? Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well you could move over the parts you think are ready and good--the lead certainly, the watershed, etc. Pointing out which parts in your sandbox you think need more helps. The whole is a bit long for me to pour through, but a section is more manageable. On a biology section, I'll think about it. I probably have a source of two that address the Snake's biology specifically. I'll take a look and see if I can write something up. The main point, if I remember right, might be how Shoshone Falls effectively divides the river and watershed into two biologically distinct parts. And yea, there is a "Dry Channel Big Lost River", maybe that's what you're thinking of? It's mentioned on the Lost River (Idaho) page. I did a bit of research when I made that page, but it was far from thorough, and information was not exactly easy to find. It's a strange set of streams and water features (there's no less than 7 GNIS entries listed at the bottom of the page!). Also, I now notice "Columbia Gazetteer of North America" references, which are now dead. Basically that page needs work! On the other hand, it is a rather obscure topic--not exactly high priority. I was reminded of it mainly because thinking about the Snake River made me think about the odd hydrologic features of the Snake River Plain--especially north of the river. ....did anyone complain about your overhaul of the Klamath River? Seemed fine to me (but I wasn't paying close attention). The Snake River may be a major river, but I suspect the page is not a major concern to many editors. The WikiProject Oregon folks are so active and organized--it seems like every little stream is important to someone or other. I haven't seen anywhere near as much attention paid to Idaho geography. Granted, the Snake River runs along the Oregon border, but I suspect it is so remote from the population center of the state that few Oregonians are much vested in the article. In short, I wouldn't worry about making major changes. Anyway, I'll see what I can find on biology stuff. Pfly (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wrote up a short biology section and added to the Snake River page. It's all from the WWF freshwater ecoregions book I have at hand. Certainly more can be said (not least of all on how development esp dams have impacted fish, esp salmon), but it is a start anyway. Pfly (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: On your sandbox page the source of the Snake is described: "The Snake River rises in Shoshone Lake, in western Wyoming inside Yellowstone National Park, southeast of Yellowstone Lake. Issuing out of the south end of the lake, it flows 20 miles (32 km) south through Lewis Lake into Jackson Lake..." But when I look at the GNIS entry (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Snake River--ignoring the note there saying "Heads in Jackson Lake") and USGS topo maps, it doesn't look like the Snake flows through Lewis Lake. The USGS source is barely within Yellowstone NP, just south of Two Oceans Plateau (aptly named). From there the river winds in and out of the NP, collecting Heart River flowing from Heart Lake, then Lewis River flowing from Lewis Lake, then turning south and emptying into Jackson Lake. The inflows of U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Shoshone Lake appear to be DeLacy Creek, Shoshone Creek, and some minor streams; the outflow seems to be the Lewis River, tributary to the Snake. Just some observations--I could be wrong of course. Pfly (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(also, Lewis Lake goes to a disambig page, there doesn't seem to be a page for Lewis Lake (Wyoming)) (later note: made that page) Pfly (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

After "biology"

OK. The "biology" section is good for now; I'll eventually try to find some more references, from Google Books, possibly, (as I don't go to the library that often), besides, the Snake River has been on my watchlist for about a month; the only change I saw was your edit to add the "Biology" section. That section's wording seems to loop in and out of the wording of the Columbia River's watershed or biology section, so maybe it has to be edited a little bit. I'll try to add some stuff on how dams have impacted anadromous runs, but again, a lot of this is going to overlap with the Columbia River article.

I guess I should change the info to say that the Snake River rises at the confluence of the Heart River and Lewis River, and then flows into Jackson Lake? Is that correct? The main page currently says that the river rises inside Yellowstone Nat'l Park, so if that's true, the river can't begin at Jackson Lake because that's already in Grand Teton. In Google maps, too, the only two rivers I see are the ones coming out of Lewis Lake and Heart Lake - your Lewis River and Heart River, which join and flow a few miles into Jackson Lake.

Besides, on the map for the Lost River, it also shows a few large creeks to the east of the two rivers - Birch Creek, Two Medicine Creek, Camas Creek, they all look to be over 50 miles long and have no separate articles. Perhaps the page could be moved to a title like "Idaho's lost rivers", describing all of these rivers on one page, because as you said, it's hard to find information on any one of these waterways. I've also been having trouble on finding sources recently, but there's no clear explanation.... . Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 22:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I discovered another decent way to view usgs topos, although still in a basic Google Maps style interface--ACME Mapper. And it looks like you can make direct links. This link should go straight to the source of the Snake River in usgs topos. The text "Snake River" isn't on that level of zoom, but zoom in a level or two and it's there: Like this. Oddly the stream line visible at the more zoomed-out level becomes much shorter in the zoomed-in version, where there appear to be three headwater streams coming together where the text "Snake River" is shown. But given the zoomed-out map (esp with panning around) and the way the text runs along the southernmost fork, I think it is clear that the Snake River properly continues up that southern fork to at least the "spring" shown...if not beyond to the continental divide (switching to "terrain" view shows the stream continuing east of the spring). So... I think the source is quite a few miles east of Heart Lake. I think Two Oceans Plateau is called that because it is the source of the Snake and the Missouri (via the Yellowstone R). Later I will check the DeLorme and Benchmark topo map books I have somewhere around here. OR, to keep it simple, the USGS places the origin at 44°07′49″N 110°13′10″W; and unlike lots of other rivers, the Snake keeps its name all the way to its source. ...will have to reply on other topics in a while, but yea, quite a few "lost streams". Interesting geology. Pfly (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is an awesome link, previously I was only able to view these dynamic topos via Peakbagger pages. It actually seems that the Snake River is formed by the confluence of Heart River and Wolverine Creek, and flows west to meet the Lewis River, from where it turns south to flow into Jackson Lake. Besides, I finished a draft for the salmon migration section; I'll put it on the Snake River page later after doing some tweaks in my sandbox, where you can see it if you wish. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I figured there must be lots of info about the source of the Snake since it is in one of the most famous, maybe the most famous national park in the world. My first hit was the park itself. Yellowstone Resources & Issues 2009, Division of Interpretation, Yellowstone National Park, National Park Service; page 12, FAQ: Geography: "Does the Snake River begin here? Yes, the Snake River—a major tributary of the Columbia River—has its headwaters just inside Yellowstone on the Two Ocean Plateau, at a point on the Continental Divide. The river flows through Idaho and joins the Columbia in Washington. The Snake River is 1,040 miles long; 42 miles of it are in Yellowstone National Park."

Then some books. From: Yellowstone National Park: Including Grand Teton National Park and Jackson Hole, by Ken Retallic. On page 117 is a section title "The Upper Snake River", which says: "The Snake River rises at about 9,000 feet on the shoulders of … Two Ocean Plateau. … Beginning as a humble trickle south of Mariposa Lake, the Snake makes a brief loop south into the Teton Wilderness [of Bridger-Teton National Forest] and turns north to return to the park. It collects small tributaries as it cuts a steep northwesterly course along the face of Big Game Ridge in a rapid descent of nearly 1,000 feet in 10 miles to pick up the Heart River in a short valley." And there's a map on page 118 showing the upper Snake flowing out and back into Yellowstone NP, with its source above Plateau Creek.

Another book, Fishing Yellowstone National Park: An Angler's Complete Guide to More Than …, by Richard Parks, has info from page 102 to 105, indicating that the Snake originates near the Continental Divide and Two Ocean Plateau and flows west and northwest along the southern edge of Yellowstone NP, leaving and reentering the park, then picks up the Heart River and turns south toward Jackson Lake. From page 105: "Named tributaries to the Snake River…include Plateau, Fox, Crooked, and Sickle Creeks…"

Finally the DeLorme Atlas of Wyoming shows tiny Mariposa Lake lying just west of the Continental Divide and intermittently draining into Plateau Creek. The Snake appears to start just south of the lake and immediately exit the national park, then quickly loop back north to enter it again just downstream of the Plateau Creek confluence. The maps show "Fox Creek Patrol Cabin" on the Snake just inside the national park boundary, after the river returns.

And yea, there's a whole "closed basin" region in southeast Idaho, north of the Snake, with interesting underground connections going on. There's also a number of streams that are totally diverted and disconnected as tributaries to other streams, like the Pahsimeroi River ("totally disconnected year round") and, I think, the Lemhi River. I'll try to take a look at the biology stuff tomorrow. Pfly (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

By your clarification of the location of Mariposa Lake I found it on Acme mapper, with the USGS topo maps enabled, I think it does show the three headwaters streams you were talking about a while ago. (I believe that to be accurate, as the USGS is more reliable than most of the other map sources.) From its source it does flow southwest out of the park and turns northwest into Yellowstone to receive Plateau Creek, and from the Fox Creek Patrol Cabin you were talking about, the river flows northwest and then picks up the Heart River. (I have no idea what I was talking about when I mentioned "Wolverine Creek", it couldn't just vanish from the map overnight.) Besides, Two Oceans Plateau seems to me like a big jumble of crooked hills instead of a plateau. :)

So this is probably going to be the text I'll actually use for the article: The Snake River rises on the southwest flank of Two Oceans Plateau, along the Continental Divide, in Yellowstone National Park in western Wyoming. From there, it flows southwest, briefly looping out of the national park before flowing northwest back in to receive the Heart River and Lewis River. At the Lewis River confluence, the river turns south and flows about 15 miles (24 km) into Jackson Lake, located at the head of the valley of Jackson Hole.

Besides the "closed basin" region also grabbed my attention when you mentioned it; could you clarify where that is? Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 15:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sounds good. Wolverine Creek joins from the south between the Heart and Lewis Rivers. Looks like the creek is mostly south of the national park border. On the closed basins, I just noticed Kmusser's attractive map at the Lost River (Idaho) page. I forgot he made that. It shows the "lost streams of Idaho". Nice. The first reference on that page is to the nwcouncil's subbasin report, Upper Snake, Headwaters, Closed Basin Subbasins Plan. Lots of info and maps in that PDF. More of the report here. And for the rest of the Snake, here (specifically the subbasin plan links for the Middle Snake, Snake Hells Canyon, and Lower Snake). Have you ever been to that area? It's a weird landscape. From the Big Wood River (around Gooding, Idaho) nearly to Idaho Falls, Idaho, and from almost the Snake River itself in the south to the mountains in the north, there's huge piles of old lava flows--Craters of the Moon most spectacularly, but also the Wapi Flow, the Cerro Grande lavas, Hells Half Acre, etc. Probably more of the land is covered by lava flows than not. Very weird place. I drove through once on the way to Yellowstone. On another topic, I just noticed the Snake page calls ancient Lake Bonneville a glacial lake, but I don't think it was. I'll look into that. Pfly (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for providing those webpages!!!!!!!! Now I can use them as references for the Snake River article, they seem legit. So by the "closed basin" in southeastern Idaho, you did mean the lost streams of Idaho. I'll take a look at these things. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yea those nwcouncil subbasin reports are a good research, even if quite long and sometimes painfully dry. :-) Pfly (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I somehow managed to finish the 10 kB biology section quite recently; I'm going to port that to the main page after adding pictures and a few more tweaks. Have you any idea of what else I could include in the "Watershed" section? I know I'm overdoing this but this is a big project. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 15:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! I finished copying a lot of content over to the main page today; I still have some missing references to take care of, otherwise I think it's doing fine so far. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 22:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Central Valley Rivers

Nice! --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have a small knack to create a good or featured topic out of rivers in the Valley, along with the group of editors trying to improve the Central Valley article. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Bondurant, Wyoming

Yes, all US municipality articles were bot-created. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend needs to get out of my head - I was just coming by to say the exact same thing. You seem to have some interest in the rivers in this part of Wyoming - they all need help, so I hope you can stick around and help us improve them. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 02:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've been working on Snake River; I've been editing some of the western Wyoming river articles lately. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 03:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sulphur Creek (California)

The article Sulphur Creek (California) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sulphur Creek (California) for things needed to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Stella Solaris-02.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Stella Solaris-02.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Himalaya-02.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Himalaya-02.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SS Iberia (1954)

On January 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Iberia (1954), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mount Torment

(Edit summary)HOW DID THE PROMINENCE ARRIVE AT 7821 FEET?!

Answer: because you entered 7821 feet when you created the article. Viewfinder (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. And it was quite an exact-looking figure as well. I might have been asking myself that question in the edit summary. Shannon^talk _contribs 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Shannon1/Archive 2! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Valley Canal?

Just wanted to make sure you saw the latest discussion about a possible Imperial Valley Canal page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Create Imperial Valley Canal?. I was hoping you might be familiar with the subject. Thanks for any help in advance. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rio Puerco vs Puerco River

Hi, I just did a minor search and have found the terms Rio Puerco and Puerco River used in environmental impact articles interchangeably about a river that is infamous for a radioactive spill that flows into the Little Colorado (ie radioactive levels were found as far downstream as Chambers Arizona according to one source). Yet, the article "Rio Puerco" references a sediment study that flows into the Rio Grande.

Your tag "not to be confused" has brought to my attention that the two articles (particularly the "Rio Puerco" article) are currently confused in content. Thanks. - Steve3849 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. Rio Puerco is the Spanish translation for Puerco River. There could be two rivers with the same name but in different places. The Little Colorado River tributary's most commonly used spelling is the English version, and the Rio Grande tributary is referred to with the Spanish wording. I got the data for Puerco River from here. I think the Rio Puerco gets all the attention because of the radioactive spill or whatever it was. Shannon^talk _contribs 03:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. The article about the uranium spill says that it traveled as far as Navajo, Arizona, so that must be by way of the Little Colorado River. Thanks for clearing things up. Shannon^talk _contribs 03:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Northward-flowing rivers

The Deschutes River in Washington flows more westward than northward and the Little Colorado River actually averages about 315 degrees (equally northward and westward.) The San Joaquin River flows SW before it makes a right-hand bend to the NNW.---Heff01 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree about the Deschutes and LCR but the San Joaquin River seems to be angled more north than west, and on some maps it appears to flow due north. I notice that not all the rivers in the list flow perfectly north, for example, the Eel River flows at about the same angle to the north-northwest as well. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination

I nominated your article Potlatch River for DYK. Very interesting article. Joe Chill (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was accepted for DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Aliso Creek (Orange County)

Is the caption "Steelhead trout has been said to exist in Aliso Creek..." grammatically correct? Should it be "have been", referring to the trout as a group? RJFJR (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I corrected it. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yellowstone River

Don't know if you care about these, but here you go, you deserve it:

		The Geography Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Shannon1 for the excellent Yellowstone River map and for all of the other efforts and edits on river-related articles. Keep up the great work! AlexiusHoratius 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Shannon^talk _contribs 04:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - by the way, as good as that new Missouri River map looks, you may want to take another look at the state name labels ;). AlexiusHoratius 06:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see - did I spell somethign wrong? Shannon^talk _contribs 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It has Minnesota labeled as Wisconsin and Wisconsin labeled as Michigan. Like I said, though, great looking map besides that. AlexiusHoratius 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OMG. I got to go fix that ... Shannon^talk _contribs 02:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bighorn River

I love the map on Bighorn River, but I have a minor nitpick - above Boysen Reservoir the river is known as the Wind River. Looking forward to more maps - something for the North Platte River and South Platte River watersheds would be awesome. Keep up the good work. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 03:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I found out it was called the Wind above the Owl Creek Range a few days after I created the map. I'll get back to that soon; my maps seem to be having some minor problems lately. :) Shannon^talk _contribs 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I am also happy to complete any map requests for rivers in the U.S. although those requests typically are directed to Kmusser.. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the Bighorn/Wind problem. Thanks for poking me on that. I otherwise wouldn't have noticed. Shannon^talk _contribs 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your maps are coming out great :-) Kmusser (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What an honor! I still like your maps better however. They form the basis for most of what I do with mine, except for the “river gets larger closer to the mouth” effect that I use. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, overlaying the basin boundaries on the colored relief is a nice effect. You probably should be saving those as PNG rather than JPG, you may find the text and borders come out just a little bit crisper. Noticed further up on the talk page - I might have a higher resolution version of that Klamath sub-basin map, will try to remember to check. Kmusser (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Missouri River +

Hope you don't mind - I went ahead and made a few more minor corrections - the Grand River was labeled as the Moreau and the White River was labeled as the Bad (see the third map on this page.) No big deal though, all of those rivers are pretty minor and I'm probably the only person who would have ever noticed.

But enough of the past and on to the future: have you any plans on doing a map for the Mississippi River? It already has a couple on there, but they are both kind of lacking in their own ways; I was thinking that it would be cool to do one in the style of your Missouri map, in other words incorporating course, borders, cities, watershed, ... everything into one map. The problem is that I'm having a helluva time trying to get state boundaries onto the basic Demis map, and I have no idea how you were able to do it on the Missouri map. If you want, we could kind of collaborate on this - if you could upload a blank map covering the whole Mississippi watershed, along with the state boundaries, I could try to handle the rest (labels and so on), and could upload a version a few days later to see how it looks. No rush or anything, just something to consider doing if you want. AlexiusHoratius 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That’s an interesting suggestion. I’ve been thinking about making a Mississippi River map for a while too, but never really dared to step out into the really grand side of map making. I got the state boundaries from the USGS Seamless server, whose maps are in the same projection as Demis mapserver, then applied the state borders to the watershed map, which I already had created. You could also get county borders from the USGS site, but that would be a lot more tedious, as I learned with my Klamath River map and my slow Internet connection. Good idea, too, as admittedly for anything east of the Continental Divide I often get the names for the rivers by applying satellite view on Google Maps, then looking for long green patches indicating irrigated land along a river, then zooming in to see what the river’s name is. Kind of an unrealiable strategy though. ;p So I probably would leave many of the labels blank, and then you would fill them in. That’s what you mean right?

Also, I have a wondering question. How did you manage to correct the labels on the Missouri River map? I’m pretty sure that you can’t edit text that’s already in the same layer as the rest of the map. As far as I know the only way to do that would be to erase the text, blend it with the background, and fill in the correct text, but the change was so clean that I couldn’t even tell that it had been erased, except that the words aren’t bolded enough. (Maybe my Photoshop skills aren’t good enough yet. I feel like laughing when I look at the “totally outdated” section of my maps subpage.) Shannon^talk _contribs 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For the Missouri map, I just colored over the old names while trying to maintain the same look as the surrounding terrain and then just inserted the new names using a new layer. I figured the spots were small enough to be able to do this without anyone knowing what was up. I use Paint.NET, which is basically the same thing as Photoshop but may explain why the names came out a bit less bolded. It's sort of a technique I came across when trying to remove a ugly catolog number from a portrait that I haven't uploaded yet. I was just messing around with the painting to see how it turned out, and it was like perfect, even if you zoomed in, you couldn't tell, after I hit the restored areas with a bit of a blur. If you want to redo the names, go ahead, but you may want to be careful about saving a .jpg too many times, like Kmusser says above. Often I'll work with an image as a .png, even though the file will be much larger, and then upload it as a .jpg.

About the Mississippi map, I had seen the thing about the USGS Seamless server on your earlier map, and was trying to get that to work, but it wouldn't let me download what I wanted to do, telling me the area selected was too large or something. I messed around with it for a bit before saying 'screw it'. -I figured if you already were able to do the borders then you could just do that part and I could take care of the rest. Like I said, no rush or anything, and I understand your point about it being more of a heavy duty task than some obscure creek or river somewhere. Still, fame and fortune are yours for the taking - that article averages around 2,000 views a day. AlexiusHoratius 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I caught the problem with the Seamless server. I simply took a screenshot of of the state borders (with no other layers enabled except the national border) and then put it in as a new layer in Photoshop, and adjusted the opacity so I could trace the borders on a separate layer then delete the screenshot. It's kind of tedious work, but I only learn as I do, so your strategies might be different :) I'll get right to the Mississippi River map after I've finished making one for the South Platte River, as User:CosmicPenguin suggested above. So I guess I should upload a map simply with watercourses, state boundaries and the watershed boundary? Also, I notice that Kmusser uploads maps in .png format. (Just to note.) Shannon^talk _contribs 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jackpot

Wait! Hold off on doing too much on the Mississippi thing just yet... I just found exactly what I need from the national atlas - topo, Canada + US, state borders, river routes - everything. It's beautiful. I'll get back to you in like a week. AlexiusHoratius 03:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, Seamless has just about every kind of data you'd want... just it's really slow. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't resist anyway. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Potlatch River

On February 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potlatch River, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Santa Ana River

The GA review of the article can be found here. I have placed the article on hold until the end of February while issues can be addressed. WTF? (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations in San Bernardino, California Lead

Hi Shannonchan; I noticed you removed some citation requests from the San Barnardino article, stating that leads don't need citations. Normally I would agree, since a lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, but when a lead includes facts or claims not presented in the rest of the article, it seems appropriate that those facts or claims should require a citation, or the facts or claims should be removed. What are your thoughts on that? Thanks. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In some GAN or FAC I was told that the lead typically wouldn't have citations; but that was for a river article. Maybe it's different for city articles? Shannon^talk _contribs 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with the type of article, i.e. city or river, it has to do with whether or not the information that needs to be cited is mentioned somewhere else in the article. I am in agreement with Alanraywiki that this particular lead needs citations because the lead includes information that was not mentioned anywhere else in the article. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LEADCITE. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't find anything that exactly matched in the body of the article, so maybe it's just better the way it originally was. Shannon^talk _contribs 16:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Friendly nudge

Hi Shannonchan. I've watched as you steadily improved Aliso Creek and pushed it closer and closer to FA. I'm impressed by the job you've done. However, I'm concerned that you seem to have stopped responding at FAC. I think the article is very close to promotion but also that promotion is unlikely if you ignore any of the reviewers' suggestions. It's OK to disagree with specific suggestions, but you have to say so; you can't just ignore them. One of the FAC rules says that a nomination will be removed from the list and archived if actionable objections have not been resolved. I know how hard FAC can be and that it's not always easy to keep going. I'm writing this note to encourage you to respond to the reviewers and to make any changes that you agree with or to make it clear if and why you don't agree. Best wishes. Finetooth (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yup. I've been kind of on and off Wikipedia for the past few days. I will resolve some things tonight. Thanks, Shannon^talk _contribs 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		Given with respect and admiration to Shannon for all your hard work getting Aliso Creek (Orange County) to Featured Article! Congratulations, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. Very glad to see your efforts succeed. Finetooth (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay!!!Shannon^talk _contribs 00:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I was planning on giving you a barnstar, but Ruhrfisch seems to have beat me to it. Congrats! ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=345923271 Cherish the link!) ;) ceranthor 01:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kura River

Hi Shannonchan! I just wanted to thank you for considerably improving the article on the Kura River. It is very useful and provides important references. Greetings! --Kerres (Talk) 09:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Shannon^talk _contribs 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Map thanks

I've been meaning to say thanks for the Rogue River (Oregon) watershed map, which is much better than the one it replaced. I'm hoping to push the article to FA eventually, and the old map was certainly inadequate. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think that the article is great. It certainly deserves GA status and I think if you put it up for FA directly it would succeed much better than any of my attempts. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I've done quite a bit more work on the article in the past month. I think it's getting close to FA quality but is not quite there yet. One of the things that I'm looking at more closely is your watershed map, a great improvement over its predecessor. However, I'd like it to include a few other cities such as Gold Beach at the mouth, Agness at the confluence of the Illinois and the main stem, and Prospect on the upper river. I'd also like to include the state and county boundaries, and (sorry about this), I don't think the map should be signed. Would you be willing to alter the map? If you are too busy or would rather not, I think I can do it. I've never used the Demis software, but I think I could pull your map into Paint.Net or some other program and add more detail. The political boundaries are apt to be the most tricky parts; I don't know if the Demis software can add them. Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I could alter it today; I should have time. However I might have trouble with counties; I was originally planning on adding them but couldn't get to it for some reason or another. And as for signing it, I use point 1 font now, so it would be unintelligible anyway :) Shannon^talk _contribs 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. The counties look especially tricky since there are seven of them (five in Oregon and two in California). Map clutter might become a problem. The only way I've learned to add political boundaries is by finding a base map that has the boundaries, pulling the base map into Paint.Net under the main layer, and tracing the boundaries on the top layer. Getting things to line up exactly takes patience; I do a lot of tinkering, usually. A map bot would be nice. :-) Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the new map a bit late, because of problems with the image type. But I got it on the Rogue River page just now. Shannon^talk _contribs 23:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the cities with labels and the state border with labels. That's a significant improvement. Much obliged. Finetooth (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park

Hello...thank you for your efforts on Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park. I was reading through your material and references to the trails in the park, as well as other materials, and it would appear that the plans mentioned to connect the park trails through the Aliso Creek Inn and Golf Course property (current footnote 6) have been put on indefinite hold as of August, 2009. I wanted to make you aware of same so that you might update the article and references, or, if you'd rather have me do it, I shall. Thanks again.

Article from Laguna Beach Independent, August 14, 2009

Tvccs (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for updating me. I’ll get this into the article as soon as I have time.

Thank you for your prompt reply. I reviewed the changes you made, and removed what had become a dead link to the former redevelopment plan and made minor edits to the copy to reflect the plan's suspension to improve readability. The city of Laguna Beach appears to still have the index page on its Web site for the redevelopment plan, but the underlying linked documents are no longer available. On further research, I also found references to local groups which opposed the redevelopment plan proposed, which you may find useful and consider including in the article.

Laguna Beach Aliso Creek project index

Laguna Coalition objections

Please review at your convenience, and thanks again for your efforts. Tvccs (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Snohomish/Skykomish River map

Hello--I like your map, File:Skykomishrivermap.jpg. Your maps keep getting better and better. I do have one question about this one though. As I understand things, the North Fork and South Fork Skykomish are generally labeled as such, and neither considered *the* Skykomish. Your map shows the South Fork as the equal to the mainstem. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe it would be better to label the South Fork as well the as North Fork? For the Skykomish River page, which describes both forks, the map could highlight both? Oh, and also, above the name "South Fork Skykomish" only starts where the Foss River joins the Tye River (Washington). Your map shows the Tye River as the Skykomish. Pfly (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! Appears that I didn't pay enough attention to naming. Seems weird how since there is a North Fork, I didn't consider there to be a South Fork, so I didn't check over there. I have a correction ready and will upload it as soon as possible. (I am also currently fighting to get my username changed, if it kind of confused you since you haven't posted on my talk page in a while) Shannon^talk _contribs 21:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, your map got used on the French Wikipedia: Skykomish (rivière). Nice, especially considering how beautiful some of the French maps are, like on the Columbia (fleuve) page, esp. Columbia drainage basin map-fr and Columbia estuary map-fr.. The Vancouver Island map is nice too, Détroit de Géorgie (I like how the Strait of Georgia comes out Détroit de Géorgie in French). Pfly (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In the continuing quest to catch up to what the French are already doing, you may want to try flipping the highlighting of the drainage basin (i.e. the basin is darker than the surrounding area rather than lighter), I did it for one of my recent maps File:Senegalrivermap.png and I think it does look better. Also pondering going back and adding in the topography to a lot of my previous maps. Kmusser (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I used to make the drainage basin darker than the surrounding areas (what I did for early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early, early maps). But I think that making the drainage basin lighter actually emphasizes it more (highlight) and it allows the details in the watershed to be shown better. However the Columbia River map on the French Wikipedia does a good job of showing the basin with the surrounding area lighter. Maybe it's just on how the topography is shown; my data is limited, and the one on the French Wikipedia appears to be made with something like Photoshop (when it is loading the big version of the image, the terrain comes out in layers, quite cool, really). Shannon^talk _contribs 00:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you would need to start with the background topography a lot darker for it to work, then you can give the area outside the basin a grayed/washed out look and the basin seems to pop out - I am using Photoshop so that might be making it easier to achieve the effect. Scale might be an issue too, working on the smaller rivers the topography isn't as sharp, I haven't tried it on many rivers yet. Kmusser (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Columbia River

I removed a nickname you added to the Columbia River navbox; do you have a cite for it? tedder (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is from a book The Columbia. A wonder that no one seems to know of that name. But I will soon add it. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And if there are other (existing) nicknames that are cited in that book, feel free to tag 'em too. Just trying to make it a net improvement, especially with nicknames. Cheers. tedder (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This brings up the question of what is meant by "nickname". The geobox pages don't say--I suppose it is up to individual users to decide. Mainly I wonder whether it ought to be mainly for nicknames in current use or (and/or) for historical variant names. There must be at least ten historical names for the Columbia that were fairly well used--River of the West, River Oregon, Grays River, Chinook River, etc. I don't have an answer, just wondering out loud. Pfly (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should go under the "alternate names" or whatever parameter, which isn't even used in the Columbia River geobox. Instead of putting variant names under "Nicknames" I put them in the slot that goes right under the name in teh geobox right above the picture as I did (kind of overboard) with the Kootenay River article. But seeing as the Alternate-name function isn't used for Columbia River and the page is so heavily guarded :-) , I did what I did. Shannon^talk _contribs 23:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly GNIS only gives one variant name, River of the West. But at "Columbia River". BC Geographical Names. we get Oregon River, Rio de San Roque, and Great River of the West. The book I've been reading, Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods: The Maritime Fur Trade of the Northwest Coast labels the river on its main map as "Columbia River (Chinook or Gray's)". Anyway, as far as I know, these alternate names are not really used anymore, but date to before Gray's entry in 1792, or in the decade or two following. But then again, what do I know? Oregon River might still be used in a poetic sense. Pfly (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This might not be incredibly relevant but The Columbia which I got the "River Oregon" name from is a really good read. It's a pretty obscure book, however, and I can't quite figure out who authored it. I've been using it to help me with the Kootenay River article and I think that it could also contribute a lot to the Columbia River page (even though it's a FA already) if interest arises. It's odd how the GNIS page only mentions one variant when there is got to be so many of them. Shannon^talk _contribs 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Name change

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Shannonchan. Shannonchan (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Shannonchan. Shannon^talk _contribs 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snake River

The article Snake River you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Snake River for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I didn’t expect it to pass so quickly. The GA department is doing a good job of getting things reviewed on time lately. I was originally planning to nominate Snake River for FAC but got caught up on other things, etc. Would make a nice addition to the Columbia Basin repository of quality articles which I’m sure has the highest concentration of good and featured river articles of any region. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kootenay River

The issue with using {{Geobox}} for rivers that cross the border between the US and Canada is too complex to adequately explain in an edit summary. If I explain the difficulty, maybe you can get the problem fixed, or at least figure out a better workaround. Here's my understanding of the situation:

1. {{Geobox}} allows you to specify up to 16 countries that the river flows in.
2. If degrees of latitude are specified for the source, confluence, or any other feature of the river, {{Geobox}} invokes {{Geobox2 coor}} to format the coordinates, but it only passes the first country name. The other 15 country names do not reach {{Geobox2 coor}}.
3. {{Geobox}} allows you to specify Canadian provinces using either state= or region=, provided you override the corresponding label (state_type= or region_type=). However, since the river flows through both a state and a province, you cannot override state_type= without making it appear that Montana (say) is a province. So you are forced to use region= for the first province name.
4. {{Geobox}} can pass a region name to {{Geobox2 coor}}, but only if there's no state provided (or the state parameter is left blank). So the province name never reaches {{Geobox2 coor}}.
5. {{Geobox2 coor}} uses the country and state/region passed to it to determine an ISO region code for every coordinate in the Geobox. It does this using {{CountryAbbr}}.
   • If the country name refers to the US, then {{CountryAbbr}} tries to determine the ISO 3166-2 region code assuming that the second argument is the name of a U.S. state or territory. If it's not (if it's Manitoba, say), then {{CountryAbbr}} generates a erroneous region code, namely "US-X".
   • If the country name refers to Canada, then {{CountryAbbr}} tries to determine the ISO 3166-2 region code assuming that the second argument is the name of a Canadian province or territory. If it's not (if it's Montana, say), then {{CountryAbbr}} generates a erroneous region code, namely "CA-X".
6. The region code is not displayed in the infobox, but it is passed to tswiki:GeoHack as part of a URL.

Not one of these details is, in itself unreasonable, but in combination they create headaches for me (since I truly care about correct, or at least valid, region codes in coordinates), and the best workaround I've found is to list the United States first. This practice is not intended to mislead people as to which country owns a greater share of the river's length. Geobox just doesn't handle river coordinates very well. Perhaps we should {{Infobox river}} for these rivers. Best regards,--00:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I get it. So it is in summary that the "region" parameter can't be put in front of the "State" parameter. But since most countries are divided into provinces instead of states, shouldn't there at least be a Province parameter also? (a suggestion to the Geobox developers) Shannon^talk _contribs 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your summary is an oversimplification. If I were rewriting {{Geobox}} I would at the very least allow a different region for each set of coordinates. If I were rewriting {{CountryAbbr}} I would make it fail in a way that does not generate invalid output. But I'm not ready for rewrites of that magnitude today. Let me see if I can make us both happy in the case of Kootenay River. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've found an equitable workaround. Take a look. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good, but it prevents the use of the flags in the geobox. (Although the flags are not exactly necessary, they look good.) Shannon^talk _contribs 20:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They do look nice, and I've certainly used them a lot. But I recently read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags, discovering that their use is discouraged without good, relevant reasons. That flags tend to "emphasize nationality", which is not really something I usually want to do. And subnational flags--state, province, "should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article." Makes sense--I hadn't thought about it before. Pfly (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Shannon, I've got the flags displayed now, in case you feel they are relevant.--Stepheng3 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding ways to solve these technical difficulties; I appreciate your help. And as of Pfly's comment, I am a bit confused because I don't get how they 'emphasize nationality'. Using the Kootenay river article as an example, both the U.S. and Canada have their flags displayed, and neither appears bigger or more important, thus killing the "emphasize" part. Shannon^talk _contribs 00:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Shannon, I tend to agree that flags should not be used in infoboxes, especially not state/province flags. The issue with "emphasize nationality" isn't about whether one nation is emphasized more than another. Its whether geopolitical regions are so important that they need to be highlighted with graphics. In the case of natural features, I'd say not. However, I'm something of a gnome, so I try to leave these issues to those actively involved in building and expanding the article. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Colorado River Map

An anon pointed out an error on my Colorado Watershed map File:Colorado watershed.png and I noticed that the same error is on yours File:Coloradorivermap.jpg - I've fixed it on mine, compare the last two versions - the watershed boundary through Wyoming is including a closed basin in Sweetwater county (NE corner of the whole basin) that it shouldn't be. Kmusser (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall update my map; admittedly a lot of the watershed boundary on my map came from yours (especially in the flatter region), some from the USGS, some from random maps I found, and a tiny bit from logic. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I get them from the National Atlas [1] (under Water - Hydrologic Units) - where the offending closed basin is obvious once you know to look for it, deceptive colored the same as the Colorado, but not a part of it. Kmusser (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Since my original watershed layer had problems, I just remade the map. Hopefully it is better now. Shannon^talk _contribs 03:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Kmusser (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Keeleriver.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Keeleriver.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New map

There's a slight typo on the new Missouri River map you uploaded - although the river is the Saline, the city in Kansas is Salina. (The file got on my commons watchlist after I edited it a few months ago, if you're wondering how I saw it.) AlexiusHoratius 15:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall fix it. Thanks for poking me on that. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi River

There are numerous errors on the Mississippi River map, some other folk have posted about them on the en image talk page where you aren't likely to see them, I'll consolidate them here: What you have labeled as the Duck River is the Cumberland River. The Allegheny goes too far, it should end in PA, you're combining it with the Genesee which is part of the Great Lakes basin. The Illinois goes too far, it does not extend into IN. The Wisconsin is broken up and not being included in the basin which it should be (that river segment in central WI), it's probably big enough to deserve a label as well. St. Louis is misplaced, it should be near the Missouri confluence. I think that's it, the west portion looks good. Kmusser (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually noticed that I labeled the Cumberland River wrong when I looked at the map a few weeks ago; I’m actually working on a newer one (maybe if you want to imagine how it would look like compare the old and new Missouri River maps) in Photoshop. It should be done in a week, tops. Also I noticed that what should be the Cumberland River looks like it joins the Tennessee River; some major cities such as Pittsburgh and Denver are omitted (I corrected that on the Missouri River map for Denver already) I shall also correct that. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look and notice a few more things. The Kanawha River isn't that long, looks like you included the New River too. Likewise, the Tennessee River begins near Knoxville (under that name anyway). Looks like you included the Holston River. The uppermost part of the Big Horn River you've colored is the Wind River. Perhaps adding small labels on the upper portions would work, New, Holston, Wind (although I read here that you've making a new map). Pfly (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, funny is that I ran into the Wind River problem with the Yellowstone River map, the Missouri River map and now the Mississippi River map. And I have a habit of marking the stream to its farthest source instead of where it begins by name (maybe I should name the headwater stream too if that's required). Also I note that I couldn't quite fit the name of the Kanawha River into that tiny space; I think increasing the resolution might work. Shannon^talk _contribs 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Finished the updates sooner than expected, the new file name is Image:Mississippirivermapnew.jpg. Let me know if you still spy any problems. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. I like the overall graphic style better. No problems with the rivers that I can see (nice to see you included the Kentucky, Green, White, and other rivers), but I do see one thing. It looks like you put Denver rather far south of where it ought to be. See File:National-atlas-colorado.png. Denver is on the South Platte, but quite a bit north of where the river has that westward bend into the mountains. That bend is much closer to Colorado Springs. Perhaps it is a small detail, but I used to live in Denver and to me its placement jumped out as not right. I used to drive from Denver into the mountains in a southwest direction to reach the headwater reach of the South Platte. On your map one would have to drive northwest. Anyway, a minor point, but I'd wager that most Denver folks would not want to be confused with "C Springs". :-) Pfly (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Much better, agree on Denver, it should be in between the two S. Platte headwaters. Also I'd add in Chicago, it is technically in the Mississippi basin since the Chicago R. was reversed to flow into the Illinois via the Des Plaines. Kmusser (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering Chicago, does some of Lake Michigan's water also flow into the Mississippi basin through the Des Plaines? Just wondering (for I could possibly add the upper Great Lakes watershed to the map... or maybe not.) Also I might have confused myself on the location of Denver. I think I made the same mistake on the Missouri River map, got to go check. Shannon^talk _contribs 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some Lake Michigan water that goes into the Chicago River so there is a linkage there - the exact amount is actually set by law and metered, details are in our Chicago River article, but the vast majority of Lake Michigan's outflow is still headed for the St. Lawrence so I don't think showing a combined basin is appropriate.Kmusser (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, I have fixed Denver's location and added Chicago to teh map. Shannon^talk _contribs 15:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Kootenay River/GA1

Hi, I have started reviewing your GA nomination at Talk:Kootenay River/GA1. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

	<font=3> Thanks again for your advice and encouragement and for the watershed map. Rogue River (Oregon) made featured article today! Finetooth (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) ><>°° 11:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Great article, and thanks for the kind words. (Admittedly I liked the Rogue River Gorge photo in the geobox although it was over-adjusted.) So what is next? Probably the Willamette River or Bull Run River or something? I can’t wait to see your next river FA. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In case you do Willamette, I'm planning on redoing that map, I think it's probably my worst that is in use and I've been meaning to get to it for awhile. Kmusser (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Or would you like for me to do the Willamette, and you continue working on your newer maps? I note that this would be a distraction from your current work (you are making maps for African and Asian rivers, right?) Shannon^talk _contribs 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You could, at the moment the day job has been keeping me too busy to do much of anything, but yeah, I was planning on doing a few more African ones next. Kmusser (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am reading this belatedly, having popped in here recently to comment below on the new Willamette map. In answer to Shannon's question about what's next on my list, yes, it's the Bull Run River (Oregon). It's almost but not quite finished; the only way for someone like me to get into the restricted zone to take Bull Run photos is to go on a guided tour. I'll be doing that in July if things go according to plan. The Bull Run and the Willamette are the two remaining missing pieces needed to make a complete Portland major-minor stream set of FAs. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Shannon1, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autoreviewer right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autoreviewer right, see Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Willamette

Hi Shannon1. Thanks for creating the watershed map, which is better than the earlier two. I noticed that you've been adding books to the "Works cited" section, and I thought I'd mention that it should only include works actually cited in the main text. The "Works cited" section is directly related to the Reference section . It allows shorthand citations like <ref>Benke, p. 10</ref> to be added to the main text. This is very helpful when a book is cited multiple times and where the page numbers vary from citation to citation. All of the short cites are supported by the full bibiliographic data in the "Works cited" section. To avoid confusion, books that are not cited in the main text should not be included in "Works cited". Some editors add a Bibliography section below the Reference section for books that are directly related to the topic but not cited. I don't usually add a Bibliography section on grounds that if a book is important enough to mention, it's important enough to use as a source via an in-line citation. Finetooth (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is in preparation for the History section that I am working on in my Sandbox 7. I was hoping that you'd catch that, since I wouldn't want both of us to compile totally separate histories of the Willamette and have trouble deciding which one to post! (I noticed that you were working on a Bridge sectiion for the Willamette River.) I shall remove the Works Cited for now, or at least comment it out; I will repost it again when my history section is complete. Thanks for notifying me though. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's good news, indeed, and thanks for telling me about the History section. That's great. I haven't done any work on the history, but as you have seen, I'm finding a ton of stuff about bridges. Each river differs from the next, and I haven't worked on one yet that didn't have lots of surprises. Finetooth (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bridge information is interesting and I myself have an interest towards bridges (although I have only ever created one bridge article) but I'm afraid it might have a bit too much information for a river article (all those numbers!) Just thinking; the details don't make it hard to read but it might be getting a bit too detailed. Shannon^talk _contribs 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right; it's getting out of hand. When I was working on the Rogue River article, the course description ending up being something like 35 kilobytes long and overwhelmed the early versions of the article. My solution was to create a separate article Course of the Rogue River (Oregon) and to do a summary of it for the Rogue River article. I'm thinking that the same thing might happen to the Willamette bridges section; it might need its own article with just a summary on the river page. Something like "Bridges of the Willamette River". Or maybe that's unnecessary since there's already a List of crossings of the Willamette River and separate articles on many of the bridges. Not sure. What do you think? Oh, if you want to move this discussion to the Willamette River talk page to save space on your personal talk page, that would be fine with me. I think User:Pfly and User:Peteforsyth and others might want to join the fun at some point. Finetooth (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Heya, fwiw, I've been watching the fun and wishing to join in. Life is silly hectic right now though. If there are specific things that could use work, research, etc, please point them out. It's a bit daunting to figure out what needs doing sometimes. I like doing research, but don't always have the time and focus to see what needs researching... Pfly (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Shannon is getting things done on the Willamette, which for some reason I have made several false starts on and then backed away. If Shannon wants to take the lead on the Willamette, that would be great. Like you, I'm up to my ears in projects and real-life complications. Shannon, could we convince you to lead the way to at least GA on this one? Finetooth (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, wait, did you just remove the Bridges section altogether? I wasn't saying that there shouldn't be a section describing bridges … I was mereley saying that it might get a little too detailed. Still, with such a large and important river, I would need some help, especially with things like geology, watershed, etc. (The parts of my articles that I always fail at,) I am drawing close to finishing on the history section, I might begin with engineering soon. Hopefully we can get this article to GA, like the Snake and Kootenay rivers that I worked on (or even FA!). If this becoems GA then there'd be only one major Columbia tributary left that isn't high quality (though improving both Pend Oreille and Clark Fork would be quite a thing, I've done a bit of work on Pend Oreille River already, though it is totally lacking on references), unless one chooses to include the Spokane, Okanogan, Yakima, John day, Deschutes, Cowlitz, etc… Shannon^talk _contribs 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>The bridges material isn't lost; it's just stuffed in an off-line storage bin. It's an unfinished rough draft that needs re-working. Please don't take the appearance or disappearance of anything in my sandboxes seriously. GA would be swell; I'd be glad to help, and I look forward to seeing the new history. I like doing geology sections, so if you like, I'd be happy to work on Willamette Valley geology in the near future. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel this should be a mutual project between at least several editors. When I tried to conquer Snake River by myself (whew!) it resulted in a disastrously misorganized, overly long and complicated page (which still somehow passed GA). I’d be glad if you could work on some sections of the Willamette article - maybe Course and Watershed as well? And then there would need to be ecology, recreation, ... quite a lot of work to be done! Shannon^talk _contribs 03:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned the Course section. I will work on that first, before tackling Geology or Watershed. The map study required for a course description really helps in finding things (tribs, cities, ferries, bridges, highways, dams, stream gauges, canyons, waterfalls, parks) often treated in more detail in the other sections. I normally do a complete course description really early on. Finetooth (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Geology and watershed, and ecology, are things I enjoy. Maybe I can poke at those. Sorry for not helping much on the Snake River. I had done a bunch of work on it a few years ago and couldn't muster the will to dive in again. The Pend Oreille and Clark Fork rivers, on the other hand, I'd be into working on. I've some first hand experiences with both that I'm kind of nostalgic about. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm woefully ignorant about the Willamette--probably in part due to a general lack of first-hand experience with it--I gravitate toward things I've actually seen in detail, and I've only really seen the Willamette near Portland and in small bits and pieces upriver. Anyway, I'll make an effort to contribute. If nothing else I could copyedit and expand upon sections as y'all post them--find supporting references, etc. I'm probably not going to be able to write up whole sections myself for a while. Pfly (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I probably won't be much am but am looking forward to reading the results, I lived through the Willamette Valley Flood of 1996 in Corvallis at the time. It was a mess, all the roads out of town were flooded.Kmusser (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably have had less firsthand experience than any of you guys ( I did stand on the shore of the Snake River when I was a kid, but that was so long ago I can't even remember it). Nor have I ever seen the Columbia, except when flying 2 miles over it in a plane. Organizing the Pend Oreille and Clark Fork pages would be hard, in my opinion - what kind of history to put on the Pend Oreille, and what on the Clark Fork, as they are both kind of the same river except they are separated by a huge lake? (Of course, I might be wrong, I've never been within 500 miles of Lake Pend Oreille.) As you might have seen I'd added some significant content to the Pend Oreille page (although there is only 2 cites for the ~12,000 bytes of info I put on there … I will think about what I might do to add to the Willamette, as I am really only able to write history and engineering sections without problems. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And maybe the lead too ... who shall be responsible for the lead Shannon^talk _contribs 22:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Best saved for last since it's to be a summary of all the things as yet unwritten. :-) Finetooth (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Added a truncated version of the Bridge section tonight. I needed a bit of time off from the Willamette after doing the complete course description. If you see problems with either, please fix or suggest a fix, whichever you prefer. So much data, so little space. Finetooth (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it, except that maybe a title “Historic bridges” or “well-known bridges” or “significant bridges” or “notable bridges/crossings” might be more accurate. Or perhaps a lead/intro paragraph summarizing the fact that 40-something bridges/ferries cross the river might be at hand. Have been on and off the ‘pedia lately, various reasons. Shannon^talk _contribs 18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought about but hesitated to use an adjective in front of "bridges" because most of the possible adjectives are judgments rather than facts; for example, other users are almost sure to ask why other well-known, notable, or significant bridges have been omitted, or (shudder), they will add all the missing ones. Maybe "Historic" would work, but lots of others (Burnside, Sellwood, for example) are equally historic. On the other hand, I agree that adding the approximate total number of crossings is a good idea and that some kind of summary is a good idea. I will work on that. Meanwhile, I'm planning to nominate Bull Run River (Oregon) soon (perhaps today). If it makes it, that will leave only the Willamette to complete a set of eight major and major-minor Portland streams of at least GA quality. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Owens River

Hi, Shannon. It might be a good idea to take a break from the article for a while. I can see you're pretty frustrated, and, all things considered, Wikipedia isn't worth getting so worked up about. Also, not to be impersonal, but a few of your edits seem to be in violation of this guideline/essay/whatever. There are millions of articles to improve; no use focusing on one if it angers you so much. Regards, Juliancolton (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I went overboard with my edit summaries ;) but the IP was doing the same thing too, reverting my edits and causing trouble as if the article belonged to them. And plus they kept making ugly comments about how I was the troublemaker at the bottom of the article, and removing my citations while placing a citations-needed tag on the top. Sorry if this really has become an edit war, but I feel that he/she has something against me, that even if there’s nothing wrong with the stuff I put on there, the IP will challenge it (such as the height of Mount Whitney according to GNIS).

Since it looks like it might be relevant there - if you need a source for what exactly a USGS huc is you can use [2], they make it clear that they are "cataloging units" and not necessarily "watersheds". Kmusser (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand. I'm not faulting you or anything, since I don't know the article's background history, but I just saw it at the RFPP page and figured I'd offer you a nice cup of tea. :) Let me know if I can help in any way. regards, Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I still feel the Ip’s being disruptive, though, especially with the way they post negative comments about my editing at the bottom (I have so far managed to restrict that to my edit summaries, and I have also managed to restrain myself from vandalizing his talk page with walls of obscene language.) Maybe the right course of action is to tell him to stop directly, but looking at the talk page, he certainly isn’t responding to any of the warnings. (I especially like User:GreenGlass1972’s comment on there, maybe you guys should take a look.) Shannon^talk _contribs 21:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Shannon. 'In solidarity spirit' - I (User:Look2See1) and 'User:Vsmith' have each been having problems with this editor further south, with the Salton Sink article (that Vsmith recently protected), Category:Northern Mojave-Mono Lake region, Category:Lower Colorado River Valley, etc... User talk:Vsmith, and User talk:71.219.172.174 are collecting the trail of frustration, as well as your page here. Owens River article seems mis-locked, as you post.

Pasting in my recent update (& it's paste in) to Vsmith, including new IP address perhaps in use now.

"Hi Vsmith. I seem to be having some similar problems with User:71.219.172.174 as your post & edit warring notification on their talk page. Possible new address being used. Their revert edits 'seem uncanny' in now adding to Salton Sink article of ongoing rvt. concern & hitting approx. 6 new unrelated articles. Uses Parent-Grandparent Category reasons in edit box but refuses to respond on-use (Salton Sink) discussion page. Paste below of my reply on User talk:71.219.172.174 just posted there. If I can help you with this editor problem please ask! Sorry I don't know correct wiki-terms, paste in warning codes, or how to report to Admin.- yet. ----Thank you, -Look2See1 t a l k → 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)"

"Thank you User:Stan and User:Vsmith for reporting issues here (at User talk:71.219.172.174) and filing reports on User:71.219.172.174 edit warring. I have also been having repetitive revert problems with 71.219.172.174. Today they were done on some similar subject--topic type articles, but by editor using address of 71.219.169.105. However others were done on articles only related by my 'editor activity pages' and not by topic or geographic proximity. Possibly not 'good faith edits' but 'edit warring' by 'history ledger stalking'? - may be same editor as here (or not) ? No talk page enabled at that 'new' address. User:71.219.172.174 &/or User:71.219.169.105 concerns continue.----Look2See1 t a l k → 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)"

"P.S. Vsmith - just saw your 'Vsmith adds' to Talk:Salton Sink - so perhaps more likely User:71.219.169.105 is their new access address? Please let me know if need links to other articles by that address that needed my reverts today. Concerned that any article my 'little-wiki gardening' efforts done on is vulnerable. Is there a way to slow down this '? seemingly malicious or vindictive ?' address activity? Thanks again----Look2See1 t a l k → 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)"

so Shannon, sorry if to many words above, let me know if can help, Thank you----Look2See1 t a l k → 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Trolling/ Sockpuppetry. I saw enough. I opened a SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/71.219.177.7). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(old edit forgotten to post) Natch... I don’t think there’s any way to effectively block an IP, because IP addresses tend to change once in a while. Then again, there’s a problem with this one because they’re not trying to vandalize, but are attempting to make constructive edits, while not paying attention to the guidelines of Wikipedia and using some obscene language... Yeah, and he keeps blaming random people especially me for “fabricating” things that are obvious. (I never knew that the Long Valley Caldera was 700 square miles larger then Owens Valley, it looks a lot smaller to me on maps). Actually the comment on Talk:Owens River was apparently their only attempt at correspondence, there’s no sign of further communications with other editors. Shannon^talk _contribs 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/US40AL-01/Archive (rangeblocked 2 weeks). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalspaces

Hello, I took a look at your vandalism page and I want to warn you about their plan to eliminate vandalspaces as seen on the MfD page. As a suggestion, you might want to move or U1 yours. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Crosshairs

Could you remove "cursor:crosshair;" from the signature? What may look good to some is very annoying to others: the cursor "as we know it" literally disappears and must be "fished out" by moving it elsewhere. As if a combination of pale blue and pale yellow was not enough :)) East of Borschov (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I was inspired by someone else's sig and decided to put it on mine too, if it causes problems for some people I could remove it... Shannon^talk _contribs 17:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tucson on Colorado River map

Hey Shannon--while poking at the Colorado River page I noticed a probable mistake on your otherwise excellent map, File:Coloradorivermapnew.jpg. Unless I'm mistaken you've placed Tucson, Arizona quite a bit northwest of where it should be. If nothing else the city is on the Santa Cruz River not the Gila, as your map seems to indicate. This map, File:Gilarivermap.png, shows its location pretty well--you can see it is south of Yuma, and nearly directly north of where Arizona's southern border bends. Pfly (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that; while looking for Tucson on Google Maps I couldn't really discern where it was; seemed like it was in the Gila valley but really south... i will fix that eventually as soon as possible... Shannon^talk _contribs 18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally got around to fixing it -- Photoshop always comes dreadfully close to crashing my computer every time I load it. Hope it’s not too far from the real location now... ~ Shannon^talk _contribs 21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice Conchos map

It's great. I had been having trouble finding info about the river at all, let alone its tributaries and which were which. I thought about a map but wouldn't have known how to even begin. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It was pretty hard to find all the names of the rivers, and i admittedly had to take a random stab at some based on the lists in Wikipedia. Florido I found out because the Conchos article says it turns north at the Florido confluence so the large one extending south must be it. The Rio Grande tributaries list says the Parral is a major branch of the Florido - I had to guess. Chuviscar I found out because it says it flows through Chihuahua, Balleza because somewhere mentioned a town with that name, and San Pedro since it's the last remaining one of considerable size. Whew! I was thinking about doing a Conchos map months ago, but wasn't able to find out where the watershed was! Shannon^talk _contribs 05:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed you two working on the Rio Grande. When I get a chance I'll try and update that map, I know it's not one of my better ones and I have better data available now than when I made it. Kmusser (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking of improving that page for a long time now, but never got around to it. (like what I like to do to articles.) Maybe because it’s too big of a topic. Hope you guys can help. Shannon^talk _contribs 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dams

Hey Shannon, I was browsing through WikiProject Civil Engineering the other day and was upset to notice they didn't have a sub project for dams. However, I noticed that you had it approved but haven't launched it. I work on a lot of dam articles a lot and enjoy creating them as well, I consider it my specialty. It does appear that WikiProject Civil Engineering isn't terribly active and I don't think as of now that this one would be as well. I rarely see other users consistently edit dam articles but I know of a few that may want to help out. I have never been part of a WikiProject and would like to get involved in this one. It would be a good base to coordinate the improvement and creation of the articles. I am interesting in having the project launched along with helping and wanted to know your thoughts about it. Thanks --NortyNort (Holla) 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too; I was expecting there would be a "project approved" thing, but there never was; so I never created the project. Later I was taking with another user about this and he said that you can just create a page and start working on it; the wikiproject nominations page exists only to "gauge interest". Maybe I could recruit some of my 'friends' here and see what they say? Shannon^talk _contribs 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The way the proposal looked was that no one opposed it and you were good to go. I'd go for it and create it. Do we need to recruit people before the project is made? --NortyNort (Holla) 03:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a bunch of dams in the Rio Grande basin with no pages, or minimal ones--those in Mexico are especially lacking of course. Was planning to get around to working on some of the pages. I add WikiProjects to pages a lot, but don't participate in the projects all that much. It would be nice, though, to have a central place for getting a sense of where things are and what needs doing. I wonder...WikiProjects typically list pages by assessment and importance..I wonder how hard it would be be automatically map pages (those with coords anyway), showing project pages by assessment/importance on a map. That would be cool and useful not only for dams but rivers and much else. Hmm... Pfly (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea, to at least organize improvements. The only Rio Grande dam article I worked on was the Falcon Dam. I was thinking of using part of my user page to help with my ideas and efforts but the WikiProject page would be better and useful for all involved. Good luck on the map though, that is above my skills. --NortyNort (Holla) 05:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed you worked on the Falcon Dam page, nice. The mapping is above my skills too. Maybe I can figure out who to ask though.. hmm... Pfly (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Map makers are hard to find, unless they are right under your nose. haha--NortyNort (Holla) 13:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a matter of skills - it's might be patiience. If you want to put dots on a map of the world, bigger ones representing ones that are more important… I saw a USGS map once like that… not sure… should we go ahead and put the page online? I have no experience in creating a wikiproject, must have some technical things involved, I'd be glad for some help. Shannon^talk _contribs 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I guess just move it to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Dams" and we can go from there. Maybe this website has some ideas on maps. --NortyNort (Holla) 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If neither of you get to it first, I'll read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which seems to have info on starting up and running a project, and start it up. I've never done anything like it before, but hey, why not. Of course I might not get to it for a while, and might forget, so don't wait for me if either of you feel like going for it. It occurs to me that one useful thing would be a suggested page layout guide, akin to the WikiProject Rivers guide. I was thinking of making a page for one of the Rio Grande dams the other day but wasn't sure how to even start. I'd end up copying the style, layout, etc, of another dam page--but it would be nice to have a basic guide page with suggestions and useful resource links, etc. Pfly (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well the parent project would be WikiProject Civil Engineering. I haven't seen one of their templates on a dam discussion pae though. The scope would obviously be dams and the most notable. The dam articles I usually concentrate on fall into one of more categories: largest/tallest, most controversial, failures, high risk, historical or they receive a lot of press/academic coverage for other issues. I've never worked on a project so I don't know all the "ins and outs" but maybe we should open a discussion on the project page (Shannon's sub-user page). The layout there seems good. --NortyNort (Holla) 10:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look through some wikiprojects to get a scope then when ready I will move the whole thing to mainspace. I would appreciate it if you guys also added your names to the page. Makes it look like more of an effort. I tried creating a banner before but it didn't work out… will go take a look at that again. Shannon^talk _contribs 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I will work on the on the project template and I will put together a basic page layout for a dam; infobox, etc. and we can go from there on it. Thanks --NortyNort (Holla) 22:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I will start moving everything to mainspace and creating the cats and pages and templates and stuff today. Shannon^talk _contribs 17:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sweet. I kinda noticed when my watchlist was enormous today. --NortyNort (Holla) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blammo! I figure further talk can occur over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dams, which doesn't exist yet. I can see a bunch of stuff that ought to be done, although I'm not sure how to do most of it. Have been adding pages and doing a quick-and-dirty assessment. Will get to more later. Also made categories for articles by assessment with mapping links, like Category:Top-importance Dams articles. Interesting to see maps of dams as assessed so far. We should probably come up with some basic assessment guidelines at some point. You know, difference between top, high, and mid importance, etc. Anyway, thanks Shannon. Pfly (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Feather River map

I hate to keep pointing out mistakes in your maps, but I've found a few notable ones on your File:FeatherRiverMap.jpg. I've been working on the Feather River page and finally figuring out the complex details about where the various forks begin and end. You've got the West, North, and South Forks right, but the Middle Fork isn't as long as shown--you included its tributary Little Last Chance Creek, and the East Branch is actually rather short--looks like you included part of its tributary Indian Creek and Indian Creek's tributary Last Chance Creek.

Since I've just banged my head against the upper Feather's tributary network hard enough to actually understand it pretty well, perhaps I could make a new map instead of asking you to edit yet another of yours. If you'd rather keep yours on the page that's totally cool. I could describe the tributaries in more detail. If you'd rather I made a map just let me know. Who knows when I'd get to it, so none of this is pressing or anything.

Even more confusing than the upper Feather's tributary system is the tangled nightmare of dams, diversion canals, reservoirs, powerhouses, aqueducts, and so on. I came across some ridiculously complicated diagrams for just the region near the Feather River. Anyway, I hadn't meant to work on the Feather page so much. I had simply noticed that it lacked coordinates and set about to add them..and perhaps a simple geobox..with the river's length...and oh, its length counting its longest tributary...which would be...um...right. Still haven't figured out which tributaries are the overall longest, ah well. Pfly (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've been eyeing that map for a long time as needing replacement (like a lot of my older ones). I could make a new one, and also fix the projection. And also some of the eastern watershed seems to be completely off the map, since the East Fork was (confusingly to me) longer than the entire North Fork. I've tried to work on the Feather River page before… everything simply got stuck in sandbox and i've not got to it since. Should have the new map by today or tomorrow. Shannon^talk _contribs 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I peeked at that page again today and, wow, you have a lot more... determination than I do! Amazing. Pfly (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I created this page just to test if that IP can drill a single flaw out of it... It's got a cite for practically every sentence. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah. :-) The other spun-off fork pages are stunningly bad. I thought I had seen everything. I was wrong. Pfly (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Looky here. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave up on the main Feather River page – It’s kind of hopeless… and I want to see what it mutates into after a while. But I am working on a rewrite in User:Shannon1/Sandbox 6 … completely… everyone is welcome to edit it at will except that IP. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for LZ 10 Schwaben

Courcelles 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Snake River

aw.... you saw it. 134.134.139.72 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Grande Ronde map

Wonderful! Thank you. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- got that page on my watchlist, and seeing your edits today I suddenly remembered that I had a map on my computer I never uploaded. Pretty funny, actually. Shannon^talk _contribs 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sacramento

Sure. I was vaguely aware it was FAC--been a bit out of the loop. Things are a bit hectic, as usual--sister visiting this weekend, etc--but I will see what I can do! Pfly (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Having connectivity problems today; also sister visiting. Will try to post Sac FAC comments sometime. It's pretty good. Found a few minor things. More later, losing link.. Pfly (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I managed to add comments on the FAC page. There's a few minor things I might change, wording stuff. I used to work as a proofreader/editor, so I can get needlessly nitpicky. There was no need to mention these on the FAC--too minor. But I will get around to making some slight wording changes. Pfly (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to take a look at it, but it may be tomorrow before I get to it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys... I will take a look. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oop, sorry it didn't make it. I'll try to address some of the comments left. Looked into the geology stuff Finetooth brought up, but got overwhelmed. There's the age of the rocks themselves, multiple times of mountain building, etc etc. Complicated. Pfly (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, here's the exact bits that struck me as somewhat contradictory re: "longest river entirely within one state". From the lead: "Its extensive watershed also reaches to the volcanic plateaus of Northeastern California, and a tiny portion of southern Oregon." From the watershed section: "The largest river in California, the Sacramento River's watershed covers a majority of the northern portion of the state and is situated almost entirely within California's boundaries, except for a small portion of Goose Lake's upper drainage basin that extends into southern Oregon." And then, later in the watershed section: "The Sacramento, when combined with the Pit, is also one of the longest rivers in the United States entirely within one state—after Alaska's Kuskokwim and Texas' Trinity." I think I understand that the Goose Lake drainage is only rarely connected to the Pit. Not sure how best to explain. Either the mentions of Goose Lake ought to be clarified as "not really part of the overall drainage", or the mention of the Sacramento & Pit being the longest river entirely within one state ought to mention Goose Lake's role in making the claim true or not. Yea? Pfly (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I kind of still stick to the point the Sacramento-Pit is entirely in California… Even when the North Fork of the Pit is connected to Goose Lake it's still south of the California/Oregon border. I know that Thomas Creek which flows into Goose Lake is in Oregon but is isn't considered part of teh river, it's separated by a huge lake. I'm kinda pretty bad on geology though… if you or Finetooth had any other comments on that I'd be glad to recieve… Also I'd like to know some of your sources. Shannon^talk _contribs 01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Shannon. As a result of the discussion here and the proposal here, WP:UP discourages pages that encourage vandalism. Would you tag User:Shannon1/Vandalism Page for deletion?

Also, you tagged User:Shannon1/Secret Page Challenge for deletion in April. Would you consider tagging the pages (User:Shannon1/Secret Page and User:Shannon1/Secret Link) for deletion as well with {{db-userreq}}? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you tag User:Amaeeandherfriend/Mystery (in addition to User:Shannon1/Secret Page and User:Shannon1/Secret Link) for deletion as well? In a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?), community consensus was that the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not prohibits secret pages. Cunard (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Shannon1/Vandalism Page

User:Shannon1/Vandalism Page, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shannon1/Vandalism Page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Shannon1/Vandalism Page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~NerdyScienceDude 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Shannon, I provided several examples at the MfD as to why vandalism pages are harmful to the encyclopedia. Would you tag this page for deletion with {{db-userreq}}? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Largest rivers of North America by discharge

Hi. Saw you Largest rivers of North America by discharge and tried to think of others. How about the Niagara River, at 204,800 cfs according to its page? One might argue it isn't really a river, since it flows from one lake to another, but I'm not sure I would find that argument convincing. If the Niagara counts, then so should the Detroit River, 188,000 cfs, and St. Clair River, 182,000 cfs (no reference though), and St. Marys River (Michigan–Ontario). The St. Marys River page doesn't say what its discharge is, but it's gotta be up there. Hmm, actually I just found a source for it: 75,397 cfs, apparently. Will add that to its page now. Pfly (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• slaps self on head* Oh my god how could I have never though of the Great Lakes drainage? The only ones I considered were the St. Lawrence and the rivers that flow into it downstream of Lake Ontario, like the Manicouagan, Saguenay, Ottawa, etc. I was even briefly considereing the St. Louis which lies at the very western end of Lake Superior. Thanks for telling me. I'm pretty surprised how I could forget... Shannon^talk _contribs 17:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yea... I grew up near Buffalo on the Niagara River--it's unforgettable! As a kid I thought of the Niagara as a "typical" river, then was surprised when I finally saw the great Mississippi near St. Louis, and found it less impressive than the Niagara. I often drove along Interstate 190 (New York), where it follows the bank of the river (I wrote "shore" instead of "bank" just now) just north of Buffalo, near the southern end of Grand Island, near Riverside Park. The Niagara is particularly wide there--over a mile. And with an obvious current too. Eventually I realized this vista was not "typical" for rivers! Pfly (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Las Vegas Wash Watershed

Why did you think that Hike796 was banned? I'm noticing a lot of category work, that is very odd and does not appear to be following the established policies. In many cases, it looks like the editor is trying to use categories as articles. I suspect that as articles, these would be deleted. Also in some areas, Mmcannis seems to be following the same pattern of edits. I'm thinking socks here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he is banned - but actually we have a big discussion going on at AfD on Central Nevada Desert Basins. I made a sock accusation there but I got yelled at and I feel I can't stand up to it. I think Hike796 is Mmcannis' sock puppet, but they won't take it as true. I agree, this is a strange problem, as I'm not the kind of person that usually gets involved in edit wars but this guy can tick off anyone... Shannon^talk _contribs 06:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make a more direct request to calm down, I appreciate your frustration but your behavior at AfD is being uncivil and is not helping your cause. Part of the problem is that I think you are conflating too issues - Hike796 (and possible socks) editing and the AfD conversion. AfD is for deciding one thing - whether specific topic in question should have an article, it's current state doesn't matter, who has edited it doesn't matter - sock puppet accusations there are totally irrelevant and come across as personal insults against anyone that's taken the time to take a look at the issue. Someone thinking that Central Nevada Desert Basins could potentially become a worthwhile article is not defending Hike796, they probably haven't even looked at the editing history, because it doesn't matter as far as the AfD is concerned. If you want to bring up Hike796's editing directly, that's an issue for WP:ANI, trying to use AfD as a proxy isn't really appropriate - and the AfD regulars will be justifiably annoyed if you try to make it one. Kmusser (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I said on the AfD that I would not continue talking about sockpuppets - I am trying to defend my claim that these articles are not notable and should be deleted.I have a bad feeling this is only one of the perhaps 500 or more pages/categories that I will be marking for deletion. I really have to make a point here because these categories just don't go with the rest of Wikipedia. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that sock puppetry and bad editing are not valid reasons to delete an article or category - what the AfD regulars will be trying to determine is whether the world outside wikipedia thinks the topic is notable or not. Kmusser (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My reason for bringing the article to AfD was because I was sure it wasn't a notable subject, and a quick Google search only brings up USGS HuC lists with brief passing mentions. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry check

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/US40AL-01. Perhaps you could add your observations. I don't think diffs are necessary, we just need to present a good reason to go forward with the check. I'm at the point now where I strongly suspect but I'm not sure enough to proceed without CU. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• See the results. They couldn't check on the old sockmaster, but User:Mmcanis and User:Hike796 are unrelated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tulare Basin Hydrography

i'm curious about why you keep adding the 'thumbnail' parameter to the image that creates extra whitespace when there's no caption to add. --emerson7 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

IDK, I just feel like there should be some kind of border around the image. Maybe will use wiki syntax to create a gray border. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

i think it's pretty standard throughout wikipedia that when images are used within templates to simply use the default. --emerson7 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevada geography

I've been slowly working my way through the categories. As I do so, I see stuff like Searchlight Pass which is apparently nothing more then a topographic saddle. Are these really notable? I don't know if you are going to start nominating these. My fear is that each one will need to be nominated since the articles are so diverse and a handful might actually be notable. On the other hand individual nominations will make a mess of AfD. I am not even considering prod since I suspect that one used will simply remove the tags. So maybe we start a few on AfD and then put the remainder on prod if they get removed there, then we can start them at AfD. I have started the prod list here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea that's just what I'm fearing. I don't even know where to start off. I think it's possible for a bot to do a mass blanking of all edits by a specific user, but the problem's that there are some articles he created that actually are notable. Well here's my old list. I will add more as I find them. Articles - Walker River Basin, Little Smoky-Newark Watershed, Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed, Dry Creek Watershed, Searchlight Triple Divide Point. Categories - Lahontan regions, Oregon closed basin, Humboldt River Basin, Great Salt Lake regions, Tulare-Buena Vista region, Northern Mojave-Mono Lake region, Central Nevada Desert Basins, Sevier Basin, Black Rock region, Carson River Basin, Honey-Eagle Watershed, Truckee basin, Great Basin section, Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed, Mono-Owens region, Categories named after valleys, Lower Colorado-Lake Mead… Shannon^talk _contribs 22:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a list at User:Vegaswikian/Nevada geography you can update it with changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As a first cut on whether those are notable would be a GNIS search (http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/), if it's not there (and Searchlight Pass is not) than it's probably not notable. The single river basins probably could have legitimate articles, those I'd redirect to their respective rivers rather than delete them (Humboldt, Carson, Truckee, Walker). Kmusser (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected some, but we are also dealing with the flood of categories which need to be deleted. Category:Truckee basin should be deleted, but if we had Truckee basin, that could be redirected to Truckee River. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice at first glance those were categories and not articles, yeah, there's no reason to have a duplicate category. Kmusser (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He is confusing them - like how he moved Category:Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed to Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed after he got deleted, citing the CfD in his edit summary. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Another point, I made at one of the CfD entries, but erased because it didn't actually apply to those categories--if categories or articles are specifically defined to be USGS hydrologic units, as many of these are, shouldn't they be named properly, with terms as used in the USGS system? Example: Category:Truckee basin says "The Truckee basin (USGS HUC 18100200)"--but an 8-digit HUC is a "subbasin" not a "basin" in the system. Similarly, the "Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed" page seems to be about a "subbasin", not a "watershed", as those terms are used in the USGS system ("The Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed (USGS Huc 16060009)"). I've tried to explain the system a bit at Hydrological code#United States, though it could be much expanded. Maybe this is too nitpicky, but I've been confused about how the USGS hierarchy is being remade into categories here, and the lack of consistent naming just adds to my confusion. Pfly (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, naming would be an issue since the name are not in common use. So article titles' guidelines would apply. Clearly calling something a watershed when it is a basin or sub basin would be wrong. I think that the USGS names on their own are going to be problematic. I'm not an expert in this area, but we need one. WP:GEOGRAPHY does not seem active so no help from there. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the USGS system, but I've been researching it a bit and might be able to at least point to USGS references about it. I suspect Karl is at least as knowledgeable as me. It's a rather esoteric subject, so I'm not sure how many regularly contributing Wikipedia editors will be able to offer a lot of insight. Pfly (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion to the editor creating most of these is to write a list article for the top groupings in the tree. This should provide the information without creating stubs that will likely be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - lists of USGS hucs might actually make useful articles :-) Kmusser (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TY

for clarification in Tulare, yes freshwater!!!Duh LOL Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome... thought of that because I have Aral Sea on my watchlist, for some reason... that article claims that Tulare Lake is the largest lake west of the Mississippi - I thought something else... Shannon^talk _contribs 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My Mistake, I lost the "freshwater" somewhere in editing. Glad you are on your toes! Put me on your watchlist LOLOL :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oop, I just removed that claim from the Aral Sea page. My understanding is that in its natural state Tulare Lake's area varied over a wide range seasonally and from year to year. Not to say that Tulare lake shouldn't be said to be the (formerly) largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi (in the United States, don't forget to mention!), but that perhaps something should be said of its variable size. During some years and seasons I suspect it was not as large as, say, Flathead Lake. Pfly (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Missouri River

Doh, didn't make FA? How come? Looks like the points raised were addressed. Was it just that there wasn't enough review or something? I was hoping to help, but have so little time that isn't unfocused bits and pieces. Plus it looked like you had addressed concerns raised. I've been thinking I might propose some river or other geography page for at least GA (not that I have much time, but, can't hurt to try). Does any particular page come to mind that might be a good/enjoyable candidate? I was thinking perhaps of some medium sized river in Washington, like the Nisqually River, White River (Washington), Skagit River, Carbon River, Hoh River, Walla Walla River, etc. Not that any of these are close to GA standards. Pfly (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa now that's strange, just coming online right now, to find that the FAC is closed. That was the fastest FAC that any of my nominations have ever gone through. Both of my previous ones lingered for a month or more -- this one lasted only two weeks. I think the problem is that my FAC nominations often get ignored. Also the only person that actually posted much on the FAC ... how would I say it? ... was confusing me. I'd just put it up again, right now... well for any other rivers that could reach FAC, I'd actually suggest the Willamette. Me and Finetooth both did a lot of work on that page, all it needs is a rewritten lead as the existing one is pretty short... and also the page lacks a Watershed section. Also I've been considering expanding the Clark Fork page for a while now, but I haven't gotten beyond a bit of extraneous research. I actually did a bit of work on the Pend Oreille River article a while back, although for all I added there were only two citations -- wow, makes one wonder where that info came from. Kootenay River could make a push for FA, as could the Snake. As for smaller rivers I think the Wenatchee or Skagit hold some promis. And oh boy, that Cowlitz page needs a picture... Shannon^talk _contribs 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't understand that person's comments at the FAC either. Was about to write more but kids are exploding. But wanted to share this insane video of the Stillaguamish River in raging flood, at Granite Falls the other day--only an hour drive from my house. I should go see! Pfly (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Now that's a good 30,000 cfs running past right there. I haven't ever seen anything like that (except in pictures and videos of course.) Down here 5000 cfs on the Santa Ana River would be breaking news. Got to go up to the PNW someday, I suppose... And as for the Missouri River, I can't help but nominate again -- they'll pay a bit more attention this time, I suppose? Hehe. Shannon^talk _contribs 03:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it reached nearly 60,000 cfs that day. Came down quickly over the next few days--back down to about 5,000 cfs today, so no point in me going to see, alas. Don't know why it happened so dramatically. Perhaps the warmer weather and plentiful rain made the snowpack melt out really fast in its watershed's upper reaches... Pfly (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Missouri River FAC

Hi Shannon, I'm not sure if you noticed, but the FAC instructions indicate that you must wait at least two weeks before re-nominating an article if it is archived. Because of the considerable backlog at FAC, we generally archive nominations that have failed to gain any support in two weeks. You might use the time to engage the relevant WikiProjects and let them know that you will have an article at FAC that may interest them. That is usually a good way to attract substantive reviewers. Good luck and thanks for all of your hard work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC is a consensus process—we do not promote unless there is consensus to do so. If no editors support promotion, or there are only "drive-by" supports, that does not form consensus to promote. Hope this helps! --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Shannon1/Archive 2! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shannon^talk _contribs 05:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Turning Ten

On Saturday January 15, 2011, Wikipedia will turn 10 years and people all over the globe will be celebrating Wikipedia on that day. No event is currently planned for Orange County Wikipedians, so I am leaving a message with some of the currently involved editors listed in "Wikipedians in Orange County, California" to see if we might want to meet on that day, lunch, dinner, group photo or other ideas welcomed? I will start a "Turning Ten" discussion thread on my Talk page to see if any interest can be planned for and determined. I am located in Old Towne Orange off the circle.Tinkermen (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

McWay Creek

In the history section of this article, as you wrote it, at least half of a sentence seems to be missing.

In the 1940s, a well-known limestone house, the "Waterfall House", was constructed on a bluff on the north side of Waterfall Cove, overlooking McWay Falls.^[5] who requested that the house be demolished in 1962, after the designation of the state park.

.

Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I think I have it fixed. Thanks for the heads up Shannon^talk _contribs 06:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello Im trying to expand coverage of the City of Chula Vista but I am not very much interested in the georgraphy I thought you would maybe be interested in the Sweetwater River (California) and Sweetwater Dam(no article for this one). They are important to Chula Vista history. Spongie555 (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely, I'd be glad to work on both these articles in the near future. I've been working on and off on Southern California rivers over my time at Wikipedia as well. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you it's appreciated. The cities centennial is this year so Im trying to expand everything about it but rivers and dams arnt my expertise. Spongie555 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont know if its too much to ask but could you get them to GA? Its ok if you cant. Spongie555 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to get the river to GA, but with the dam I can't find many good references. I'm working on the dam article right now, if you'd like a look it's in my sandbox... Shannon^talk _contribs 06:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

For the Dam the city of Chula Vista's history sections have Some little information about the 1916 flood,[3] and [4]. Their is a couple little information mostly dealing with the destruction of the flood on Chula Vista. Spongie555 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Great job with the article. I didnt know it was a historical landmark. Also welcome to Operation Lemon Capital Centennial. Spongie555 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still working on it -- planning to add some historic photos and such, and expanding some sections. Sweetwater River is proving a doozy. I'm getting a headache trying to write it... maybe some more tomorrow... Shannon^talk _contribs 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a good historical picture of W. G. Dickinson(the founder of Chula Vista) and Frank Kimball(the founder of National City) on the Dam here is the picture [5]. Also here is an article on the River that deals with current news, [6]. Spongie555 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Upper Baker Dam

1. We don't use {{expand}} anymore since it was decided that it should be deleted, and 2. there was no need for it anyway since the article was already tagged as a stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mackenzie Watershed Map

Hi Shannon. I'm new at using Wikipedia to communicate so my apologies if this is not the right forum to contact you. I am an editor working on a science textbook for high school students in the Northwest Territories. I wanted to use your Mackenzie watershed map in the textbook. Is the map available in a higher resolution or larger size? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seugenio (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to -- I still have the original on my computer... what size do you need it? I might be able to upload a higher resolution version if needed. Shannon^talk _contribs 23:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I proposed a merge of Kambaratinsk Dam (an article you created) into Kambar-Ati-1 Hydro Power Plant. Please see the discussion here. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Chula Vista Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your help on the Swertwater Dam and River articles. Hope to see you help with more Chula Vista related articles. Spongie555 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Shannon^talk _contribs 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am taking a short break from the Sweetwater River, am working on one of my other anticipated projects, will return in maybe one or two days. Hopefully that's not past the deadline. Poke me if it is. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no deadline but the cities centennial is Ocotober 16 so you can take as much time as you need. Spongie555 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Glen Canyon Dam

You accused my edits (from an IP at a public shared computer) on the Risks to the Glen Canyon Dam of being sockpuppetry, but it was obvious that you didn't look at the actual changes or requests for citations. I understand you've been having issues with sockpuppets, but please don't assume that all IPs are socks - IPs are allowed to edit for valid reasons as well. Just a plea to judge each case on its merits, not on who did the editing. Happily logged in on a private computer - PageRob (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

How many years ago was that? I don't recall doing such a thing :[] I do, however, have a grudge against a certain IP user that enjoys placing "citation needed" tags all over perfectly good articles. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A question about your maps

I noticed your fine Red River map and was curious as to why it is in .jpg form rather than .png. Did you make an .svg map and paste it onto a .jpg terrain background? I have recently ventured into map making of a special kind: artificial whitewater course maps. Do you have any advice for making maps of this kind?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adventure_Sports_Center_International_%28ASCI%29_map.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_National_Whitewater_Center_course_map.svg

HowardMorland (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Rio Grande? Idk if I made such a map... more likely Rio Conchos? I actually use Photoshop for my maps, but I save them directly in .jpg. I don't have any special map editors of any sort, though over time I've kinda developed better looking maps using Photoshop. I used to use .png but the resolution wasn't that sharp/crisp, so I'd say use .jpg. Shannon^talk _contribs 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I corrected my question. It was the Red River map. HowardMorland (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bridge Canyon Dam

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sweetwater Dam

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-emptive notice/apology

You'll find when you start editing next that I tore apart the geology section of Missouri River.

Yep, I did. I have next to 0 free time for WP at the moment, but I saw the state of the section and it inspired me to work frantically and well past my bedtime. I will try to keep watching it consistently but if I don't notice something please please email, pester, etc. me until I respond and until the section is resolved.

Awickert (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help anyhow. Hope you can complete it in time for the GAN the page is currently going through. I'll take a look... Shannon^talk _contribs 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Good timing; I just hopped on. Let's carry this discussion over to the article talk page. Mostly, I want to know if that level of geologic background (well before the integration of the Missouri River) is necessary and (when what is necessary is decided) to make sure that it is correct. I can get it done in time for the GAN. Awickert (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You're hot

Can we go out sometime? --Doerrman (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, lol. I wouldn't be so sure. Thanks for the compliment though... i like that. Shannon^talk _contribs 03:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Missouri River/GA1

I have finished my first run through. Please see comments at Talk:Missouri River/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Working... Shannon^talk _contribs 06:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just dug myself out from under my pile of real-life work, so drop me a line if you need a hand. Awickert (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the geology section looks a lot better than my... inexperienced attempt ;) I'm actually quite busy with other things right now, if you could help it would be much appreciated. Shannon^talk _contribs 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey - no worries about that. I came by it because I checked my watchlist (rare, until last week), saw that "Shannon1 made changes to Missouri River" (oh, boy, I like her river articles and the Missouri), *click*, oh, no!. : ) I actually do some work in fluvial geomorphology, so I know a thing or two about rivers too (yes, that's an open invitation to recruit me). I'm going to hit the hay soon, but I'll take a couple of stabs beforehand. Are all of Tony's un-crossed-out comments still active issues? Awickert (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the comments... haven't been crossing out comments on the review page, but I've fixed most of them. Oh, my, got to finish it... two failed FACs is pretty humiliating :D Shannon^talk _contribs 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, well, I'll see what I can do. Awickert (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In order to get the GAC moving run through my unstruck concerns and add a line after each one that you think you have resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through the discussion and restated outstanding issues at the bottom below the checklist section. Please respond there if you have addressed any concerns so that everything is easy to follow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is easier to follow if you respond to my concerns on a separate line rather than the same line.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have started tinkering with image placement in order to alternate sides. If I have moved images to places where they do not belong let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the remaining unresolved issues are those where the leftmost concern remains unstruck. Indented concerns following struck leftmost concerns are considered resolved. Could you please attempt to focus some editorial efforts towards the unstruck leftmost comments below the GA checklist review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

At GAC it is common to regard a period of more than seven days without progress by the main author as a surrender. It has been five days. I hope you are not giving up after all this work. You are pretty close.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize it'd been that long. I've been kind of busy recently. Responding to last comments... Shannon^talk _contribs 04:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the issues in the GAChecklist regarding captions and such.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to nominate this at WP:FAC, let me know. I would be glad to comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Woooooot! I'm definitely going to go for FAC eventually. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I imagine all the rivers that you work on need updating, but I just ran across the following two articles:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576359310991719094.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576377741363956676.html --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, yep. The snowpack in the Rockies this winter is huge (except for the Rio Grande headwaters, the Sangre de Cristo mountains, etc.). Drought's finally over for California too. I noticed a while back that the Yellowstone almost broke its all time high flow record too, and for the first time in years theres flooding in the Colorado basin.

P.S. I might nominate the Missouri for FA sometime this summer; just a lil heads up. Shannon^talk _contribs 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Coyote Creek map

Shannon,

Refer to your map at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coyotecreekocmap.png

One of the creeks on your map is labeled "Miranda Creek". Its correct name is "La Mirada Creek". In the text for the Wikipedia article for Coyote Creek, La Mirada Creek is mentioned.

Also, the map is labeled as being "About 30 miles across". Using the Google Earth Ruler utility as my measuring standard, it is a straight line 14 miles (actually measured as 13.99 miles) from where Tonner Canyon and Brea Canyon creeks join to where Carbon Creek joins Coyote Creek. Using algebraic proportion, the map's X-axis (east-west) distance is 22.2 miles. That is significantly shorter than 30 miles.

Like you, I live in Orange County, specifically between Carbon Creek and Fullerton Creek. BeachBumRAP (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I will correct this problem. Although I'm pretty sure... It is Miranda Creek? In one of the reports cited, it says it's Miranda Creek... I'll look at some topos and see what comes out. Shannon^talk _contribs 03:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Noticed this question and checked, GNIS and topo maps do indeed label it as La Mirada Creek. They also both label what you have as the North Fork as "La Canada Verde Creek". Kmusser (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, new file is Coyote Creek.jpg. Shannon^talk _contribs 23:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Award

	Valued Contributor Award
	You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on Missouri River. It has FA potential. Keep up the good work on other important US topics!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why thanks! Shannon^talk _contribs 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
. --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Map

In case you hadn't seen - I checked the forecast today and saw your map being used on the front page of weather.com. AlexiusHoratius 17:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dang that's awesome! Funny, they cut out the map scale (and my name) though. I wonder why they didn't attribute it to Wikipedia. Shannon^talk _contribs 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dam stuff

I hope the Auburn Dam doesn't come back to haunt. This summer should be an interesting one in various western basins. By the way, I was thinking of the next dam FA and noticed some here. Is there one you want to jointly work on or that I can help promote? I know you did a lot of work on Shasta Dam and others. I have been working on a few but more work is needed. I think there is time though; FAC is pretty backlogged and there seems to be a delegate crisis there now.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what shocked me – inflows to Lake Powell down in the Colorado basin rose by 30,000 cfs in the past three days to make 72,000 cfs now. I’m not sure if its normal, but it seems not to be. Gov. Brown declared the California drought over too, just a few months ago. The snow sure is pretty shocking. (Shockingly good.) Even our local reservoirs on the San Gabriel are way up. As for dams – I actually done a lot of work on the Sierra Club’s bane this week, and I’m thinking about putting it to GA, just maybe, if I can work some time outta my schedule. I have a feeling all the really well-known dams in the US have pretty complete articles now – except for Flaming Gorge, which could use some work. Shannon^talk _contribs 06:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call any drought over for at least a few seasons. This may be a reprieve but I do hope the dry days are over for awhile. Wow! That is some inflow, it should increase further in the coming weeks, there is supposed to be higher than normal temps next week. I have been expanding dams outside of the U.S. for awhile and I agree with you, most are pretty substantial. Oroville Dam could use some work too. I have a busy week ahead of me but can start working on that soon. I can read Glen Canyon Dam and provide some feedback if you want.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I actually did a bit of work on Oroville a while back, but kind of stalled when I went to work on Shasta. A word of warning though – it was damn hard to find information on that dam. I think it would be worth a shot though. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I will give it my best.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at this picture and was confused by the license. I know CA public records are usually PD, is that the license? I couldn't find a copyright page on the CA DWR site, aside from the notice at the bottom. The ca.gov website does indicate PD, I assume the water.ca.gov website falls under these terms as well. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the license to PD-CAGov.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that issue up. I couldn't find the license when I uploaded it and just hoped the pic wouldn't be deleted... ^_^ Shannon^talk _contribs 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Willamette River

Shannon. Just a heads-up. User:Jsayre64 independently nommed the Willamette River article for GA a couple of days ago. That prompted me to finally add some bird, fish, otter stuff to the "Flora and fauna" section. While doing that, I ran the dab checker and dead-url checker and fixed all the problems they found except one, a dead url for citation 73. I couldn't find another online source for that one. Thought you might like to get in on the action since you've done so much work on the article. Yours, Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He'd probably have done some work of his own on it then, I guess. The article is in good shape, I think, except for the lead, which I could work on. I'll see to it. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for peer review now, just so you know. The subpage is here. I'm looking for what to improve to get the article ready for an FA nom. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Wikiproject Rivers That just doesn't happen

Not 100% correct: [7] --Mike Cline (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, originating from a lake is still a better example... how many rivers split off from one another compared to the amount that originates at say, a lake, or a glacier, the confluence of two tributaries, a spring, etcetera? Shannon^talk _contribs

99.99% but there are those exceptions. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See distributary. Like the Atchafalaya River or the many named sections of the mouth of the Amazon. Rmhermen (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Distributary is a good example but the Atchafalaya isn't. There's the Red River flowing in from the north, then the canal between there and the Mississippi, which carries water bidirectionally depending on high or low water in the Mississippi... the Atchafalaya supposedly starts south of there and then there's the Upper and Lower Old Rivers... Rivers that don't originate from another river are still a lot more common than those that do. Shannon^talk _contribs 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"The Atchafalaya River is a 170-mile (270 km) distributary of the Mississippi River and Red River in south central Louisiana (U.S.)." is the first line of the article. Rmhermen (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You can tell I'm trying and failing at an argument to defend my blind devotion to river-related topics on Wikipedia. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Iberia-07.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Iberia-07.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Iberia-07.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Iberia-07.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont get this, should I make the image size even smaller or something? Shannon^talk _contribs 19:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I watch your talk page, I noticed this. You have included the licensing information for the image, but what's missing is the required fair-use rationale for using the image in SS Iberia (1954). See how File:SG1-10x06 wizard of oz spoof.png has been done, for example. There are some handy templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The bar is pretty high for non-free images. Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so that's what was missing. I remember filling out one of those once. Thanks for reminding me where that was, I'd completely forgotten about those.Shann_ºn^Talk 20:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP Help

Hello im trying to make a task force for the Empire of Brazil with some people but we dont know how to make the actually task force stuff like the banner and how to make the quality chart template to see what class each article is. Im asking if you can help make it since i saw you made WikiProject Dam? Spongie555 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see... I think I kind of forgot how. Don't worry I'll deal with it, I think I can figure it out. Just give me the category name you want to use (e.g. Category:GA-Class Empire of Brazil articles) and I'll see if I can... Shann_ºn^Talk 04:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

After checking the WP:DAMS page history I found that I wasn't the one who made the stats summary thing. You might want to ask Pfly for something about that, he was mainly responsible :P I also found this page on the dam wikiproject, which I didn't know existed. My apology for not knowing ;} Shann_ºn^Talk 04:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I helped as well and boy 'o boy was it a PITA because we had two different sets of cats. If you set it up with the assessment team and get the category names right, it should be easier. See the conversations here and especially here; the other part to the conversation is here. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have contacted Pfly and will wait for a responses. Mostly we just need the assessment and banner made the rest isn't that hard. Spongie555 (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Moran Dam

Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mexico river list

Thought you'd like to know that I moved List of longest rivers of Mexico into article space just now. It's less complete than the U.S. main stem, Oregon stream, and Canada rivers lists, but it's got quite a bit of sortable data in one handy place. Please improve it if you're so inclined. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll take a look. Just got back from a nice trip to the Sierra, ahh! I feel like I've lazed off too long. ;] Shann_ºn^Talk 01:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

usoi dam

Hi Shannon,

I notice you made a change to the usoi dam page - have you got a map or something showing the lakes and explaining what that earth section between the lakes is. I had assumed it was the Usoi dam but I could see that it might just be part of the landslide with all the earthwork forming the dam - and holding back both lakes ? or is it set up differently again ? I just had a look at google maps to see if I could answer my own question - but it's really not clear to me, and the satellite images seems to be very dark. EdwardLane (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

also the Sarez lake article uses the same picture but implies the opposite EdwardLane (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking on Google Maps, the river valley is running east to west and Sarez Lake is to the east of the dam. Then to the south of the dam there is another smaller lake backing up the valley of a tributary, which is for some reason separated from Sarez by an earth barrier; it isn't labelled but I'm assuming it's the Shadau Lake talked about in the original caption. IDK the origin of the smaller barrier; maybe it was created in the same earthquake and fell across the mouth of the tributary valley damming it? I don't really know for sure... but I'm pretty sure that the land between the two lakes isn't the dam. The dam's further in the back of the picture; you can only see the back face of it. Shannon⁺º^! 17:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I have noticed your hard work on the Missouri River article to make it featured. Don't give up and thanks for the hard work! JetBlast (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :D I'll get that article featured even if its the last thing I do here. Shannon⁺º^! 22:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

When you do please let me know, best of luck! --JetBlast (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fort Peck Lake

Hey, I've left a reply at T:TDYK. Please ping me on my talk page if you reply, as I may forget to check back. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've got it now, similarly, I replied on DYK too. I believe it's long enough now. Shannon⁺º^! 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Another barnstar!

		The Geography Barnstar
		For all your hard work on articles about bodies of water, rivers in particular. Keep it flowing at a high discharge! You don't seem to be affected by this summer's great drought. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jsayre - thanks for the support! Though where I live, we're having one superb water year :D Shannon⁺º^! 18:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And another

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work on Willamette River, which advanced to Good Article today. Finetooth (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why thanks Finetooth – only that the amount of work I did on the Willamette seems to have disappeared into the rest of all the great content that the various river wizards and others have contributed to it. Shannon⁺º^! 04:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on all these barnstars! You're on fire!--NortyNort (Holla) 06:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I feel that way too. Now to see how many FACs I can fail before I get blocked from FAC altogether... Shannon⁺º^! 06:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've already failed one. I've gotten Willamette River set for another shot at FAC, however; I'm just waiting now for the couple remaining days of the two-week period to pass and I'm seeking others' feedback about the article on its talk page, in case you're interested. I have fixed all problems I spotted in the prose, but I may be overlooking some things. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Santiago Dam

Hi,

The flow rate in Santiago Dame is described as '30,000 cubic feet per second (850 m³/s)'. Within the note, it has "61,700 cfs". Although, it's just a note invisible to readers, it's appropriate to change it to '61,700 cubic feet per second (1,750 m³/s)' in case another editor finds out the value and moves it into the body in that format. I recommend accepting the Lightbot edit. Hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think leaving it at something like "61,700 cfs (1,750 m3/s)" (without the conversion) is good enough. Because the editor can't see the result of the conversion in the editing box, the conversion template itself seems pretty useless there... the purpose is to also illustrate the flow in m3/s correct? Shannon⁺º^! 17:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. The note won't last forever, the content of the note will be addressed or forgotten. Lightmouse (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Stream length calculations

Hi Shannon, I noticed that you are one of the few editors who understand and know how to use the National Hydrography Dataset to calculate stream lengths. I've tried to figure it out myself on multiple occasions, and I've failed every time. I'm on the brink of giving up entirely. (The only reason I've kept at it this long is because it would be so helpful! I'm not willing to pay hundreds of dollars for the full version of ArcGIS, however.) If it's not too much trouble—and I mean that sincerely—would you give me a brief description of how to calculate them? Thanks, LittleMountain5 23:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It’s kind of hard to explain, and I haven’t really mastered it myself, but I’ll try. You go to “overlays” and check “hydrography”. Then uncheck everything inside Hydrography except Flowline inside Features inside Medium Resolution. Then if you zoom in you should see the light blue lines that stand for streams or the thicker blue rivers, which are split into predefined sections. and to find the length of the sections use Identify under GIS Toolbox, and using that select a portion of the screen by clicking and dragging and it should identify stream segments selected under that box using letters, and when you click on each letter it should give you the length of that stream segment. Then the tedious part is adding up all the small segment lengths until you reach the end of the river. In my case I usually start at the mouth and work up to the headwaters. Sometimes the map shows the stream splitting into multiple channels and it’s kinda hard for me to figure out which length to use (so I just estimate) and also sometimes the method stated above won’t work for measuring the length of washes. I heard Ken Gallager has a way of selecting the whole watercourse in some external software but thus far I haven’t been able to figure it out... Hope that helps. Shannon⁺º^! 17:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I think my tricks require the full version of Arc (where you can query and summarize lengths by attribute and the attribute table includes GNIS id, much easier than picking out the segments individually). As for the multiple channels problem, usually I'll try to bring up a topo map of the same spot and often which of them is the main channel will be clear. Another option, but I believe also requiring Arc is to open the attribute table separately and export it out to open in something else like Excel, the NHD as a whole is too large to do that with, but a state is possible. Kmusser (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I already knew how to add up each stream segment manually... for longer streams, it's just too monotonous. (For me, at least.) I found something called StreamStats, and I can figure out the total length of streams fairly easy using it, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. Have either of you heard of it before? Sincerely, LittleMountain5 15:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)