User talk:NorCalHistory/Archive3

Changing History of Calif article titles

Title of the California history articles We will have to rename the two sections of the California history articles. Any suggestions?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Is there a WPedia reason for the "History of California" format as opposed to "California History"? Should we just keep the titles simple like "California History (to 1899)" and "California History (1900 to present)"? The blue category box already uses these terms. NorCalHistory 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a major discussion some time ago and consensus reached for across-the-board consistency for these types of articles, which is why they now begin with "History of ..." I believe if you go back far enough on the edit history that you will find the article was, at one time, entitled "California History."--Lord Kinbote 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - thank you. Should these two articles then simply be re-titled to "History of California (to 1899)" and "History of California (1900 to present)"? Again, as noted the blue box with the poppy already uses these terms. NorCalHistory 19:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes the most sense, with History of California then becoming a disambiguation page.--Lord Kinbote 19:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, there seems to be consensus that the articles should be re-titled. Lordkinbote or GeorgeLouis, would you like to do the honors? NorCalHistory 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Lord Kinbote 21:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

California gold rush

Thank you for some very kind responses to my review. I do decide on GA nominees pretty often. Once you think the article is ready to nominate, drop me a line on my talk page. I'll probably recuse myself from actually deciding on the candidacy, but I'd be glad to give it another once-over just prior to a GA try. Best wishes and keep up the good work, Durova 09:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Watching your progress; it's coming along. The reason I brought up Columbia, California was because of this (unreferenced) mention in its article: "... at its height it was California's second-largest city. It was even considered briefly as a site for the state capitol of California." That has always been a claim, but I've not seen a reference. On a similar note, "Mother Lode" isn't well defined in the article. If Columbia was the heart of the Mother Lode, and the population there was so great as to be considered the state capital, that's something that could be sorted out in the article, with "Mother Lode" better defined. On the other hand, maybe it's not even true :-) Best, Sandy 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy - it's been interesting and fun to keep working on this. One quick question - I've just started to get that 30 kb "large article" notice, but I've seen that a lot of the recent FAs are "large" (like today LoTR article). Am I right not to be too concerned about the size?

hmmmm, so perhaps it was never true after all? On the size thing, don't worry, you're fine. The 30KB is an older, technical restriction, no longer a concern with newer technology. With the higher inline referencing requirements, which chunk up the article size, reviewers now look at prose size compared to overall size. The concern is that the readable prose not get too large, so you have to calculate prose size (by taking out refs, images, etc.). If prose size gets up around 50, then you should worry. Your size is fine. Sandy 16:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate it if you would "weigh-in" on the current discussion at Talk:Hippolyte de Bouchard; it could use some objective, outside feedback. Regards, Lord Kinbote 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It definitely helped bring the issue to a reasonable conclusion.--Lord Kinbote 05:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

California Gold Rush GA/FA status

GA status has been graciously granted to the California Gold Rush article, and if it would be possible, I'd like to tinker with the article for another week or so, and get some additional voices involved, before considering an FA application. In addition, San Francisco was just the FA, and I'm not sure another California-themed FAC would be a good idea quite so soon. Any thoughts?NorCalHistory 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping up with the development of the article on and off, I don't think much work will be required to make it an FAC. I'll try to give it a once-over this weekend. I also share your concerns about a nomination too close on the heels of the San Francisco article, there ought to be no "rush" on this one (pun intended).--Lord Kinbote 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well written and researched (I did add one tidbit though). 2 suggestions: 1) a lot of the short paragraphs can be easily combined to help readability (thius will likley come up in the FAC process), and 2) structurally, "Path of the gold" might do better as a sub-heading to "Who were the Forty-Niners."--Lord Kinbote 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cortes

Yup, I saw that! You might not have noticed, the article was drastically vandalized a few hours before you started editing it. Since you were already manually editing it before I noticed the vandalism, I had to go back to an earlier version and copy & paste a big section. You would have had a much easier time of it if you had just started by reverting to the version prior to the vandalism. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

When you find that an article is completely trashed like that one was, chances are it was recently vandalized. So instead of editing it, look in the page history and compare diffs until you get back to an apparently unvandalized version and just restore it. Chances are the vandalism was the previous edit, and more often than not the last good version is from a registered user and the vandalism was from an IP (although that's not always the case). See WP:VANDAL and WP:REVERT for some helpful advice (or just ask!) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

moving articles

I just clicked on the "Move" tab at the top of the page, just to the right of "History."--Plainsong 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, belatedly

Welcome!

Hello, NorCalHistory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -Will Beback • † • 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: This is absurdly late, but everyone should get one. Thanks for your contributions. They are noted even when not acknowledged. -Will Beback • † • 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

California

I've archived 2005. It's not rocket science. Your assignment is to archive the first half of 2006. Also, it's nice to have a user page, no matter how simple. Editors who click on the redlinked "User:NorCalHistory" may get stuck trying to reach you. (try it). Anyway, keep up the good work and don't sweat it. Cheers, -Will Beback • † • 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done. -Will Beback • † • 08:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gold Rush

Will read it soon, but the first thing I noticed is that a lot of the image placement is messing up formatting on section headings, etc., and that if you'll reduce the first image from 500px to 400, the layout will be much nicer with respect to the Table of Contents and the large white space left. With your permission, can I move around some of the images, and then if you don't like it, I'll revert it back ? Sandy (Talk) 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, wondering why all biblio, footnote entries correctly have author last name, first name listed first, except the Google buys Youtube entry, which doesn't list author first? Can you put author last name first on all for consistency? Sandy (Talk) 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

On my monitor/browser, a lot of the images cut into the section below them, so I was going to move them up and down a bit. And, the TOC is a thin column with a bunch of white space below the main pic, so I was going to reduce it a tad. I'll do it now, and if you don't like it, let me know, and I'll put it back. Sandy (Talk) 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Printed hard copy and finished reading it: I think it *definitely* can be featured, and is almost there, but I do have a big list of things that need attention. (The smallest, easiest, quickest is you need to eliminate the blank spaces between the entries in References and Further reading - those don't usually have spaces between them, and the spaces extend the number of pages in the printable version. You also have extra blank space after each section heading: the text should follow straight after the heading.) Do you want me to put my list here, on the article talk page, or on the FAC? Sandy (Talk) 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gold Rush FAC from Sandy

Of course, I love it. These are some ideas to make it even better:

• Table of Contents: I don't like the section headings with question marks. Special characters should be avoided in section headings, and they aren't "encyclopedic". I also don't understand why "Path of the gold" is a sub-section of the Forty-Niners - not entirely related, shouldn't be a sub-section. I also have a problem that some of numbers that should be discussed in the Path of the gold are included later under Development of gold recovery techniques - a better discussion of those overall numbers would be included in Path of the gold, *after* the techniques for extraction/mining are discussed. I also have a problem with some of the repeated words in some of the sections (you should avoid repeating words in TOC). So ... I suggest the following order of sections:
  • Overview
  • Forty-Niners
  • Legal Rights
  • Development of gold recovery methods
  • Profits
    • Path of the gold
  • Effects (on California and elsewhere is redundant - that's everywhere)
    • Immediate
    • Longer-term
  • Modern-day (missing section - to be discussed) ???
  • Geology etcetera

By doing this, you can discuss the methods, and then move the numbers that are currently (mis) listed under Techniques to Profits, where they are a better fit. I'd like to see the profits section expanded to give a better overview of all of the money/gold taken out of CA.

Modern-day - not sure what to do with this. The article tells us when the Gold Rush began, but it never defines or explains when it ended. Did it end? Gold is mined today in California with increasingly aggressive methods. Where should/does the article end? Either 1) deal with current gold mining, or 2) define the scope of the article by detailing when the Gold Rush petered out. Remember, there are contemporary events such as the Ironstone Vineyards in Murphy's (the very successful conversion of a gold mine to a tourist trap), and the fact that the largest piece of gold ever was taken out of Jamestown in the last decade -- do you want to cover modern-day "gold rush" in CA, or better define the scope of the article?

Now, line by line ...

• This sentence is awkward: "The Gold Rush laid the foundation of the “California Dream” as a place to begin again, a place where untold wealth was just waiting to be found." The "dream" isn't the place to begin again - California is. You handled this well in the text - can you do the same in the lead? Also, you repeated the same twice in the text: the California Dream is first mentioned in Effects, and then the text is repeated in Longer-term effects - need to say it only once.
• Tailrace needs to be defined or wiki-linked the first time it's used - it's here in the lead: "found shiny pieces of metal in the tailrace of a sawmill he was building; ..."
• I'm not comfortable with "Stories of the fabulous "Golden State" and shiploads of California gold spread to every corner of the world," shiploads: were the entire ships really loaded with gold ? Or was gold spread by ship ...
• Something wrong here with punctuation, not sure how to fix: As Sutter had feared, he was ruined as his workers left in search of gold and squatters invaded his land and stole his crops and cattle.[
• Short, choppy sentence should be better merged into surrounding text: The then-tiny settlement of San Francisco at first became a ghost town of abandoned ships and businesses whose owners joined the Gold Rush.[8] Then, it boomed as merchants and new people arrived.
• infrastructure ... was (not were)? Like many boom towns, the infrastructure of San Francisco and other towns near the fields were strained
• Something wrong here with change in tense: An alternative route was to sail to the Isthmus of Panama, take canoes and mules for a week through the jungle, and then on the Pacific side, wait for a ship sailing for San Francisco.
• Towards the end of overview, when you begin to talk about Southern California (blick), you should start a new paragraph. "Gold was also discovered in Southern California ... "
• Caption: Native Americans strike back at miners
• Expand the entire Path of the gold section by 1) including some of the numbers later given in the Development section, and 2) giving a better summary of the overall numbers.
• There are terms throughout that need to be defined or wiki-linked: I suggest starting the wiki link articles on each. "However, panning cannot be done on a large scale, and industrious miners and groups of miners graduated to "cradles," "rockers," and "long-toms" to process larger volumes of gravel ...
• Development section - move numbers out (they aren't "development"), and include them in the Profits/Path sections
• "Eventually, hard-rock mining wound up being the single largest source of gold produced in the Gold Country." I think (not sure?) this sentence is what brings you into contemporary mining, as this is the method used now - this is the sentence that leads me to feel the scope (time) of the article isn't well-defined and needs to be better dealt with.
• In Effects, this needs to be sourced: "In addition, the environment suffered as gravel, silt and toxic chemicals from prospecting operations killed fish and destroyed habitats." Without a source, it reads like POV and OR.
• Awkward grammar, not sure how to fix: "Within a few years thereafter, in 1863, the groundbreaking ceremony for the western leg of the First Transcontinental Railroad was held in Sacramento." Don't know what "within a few years thereafter" means.
• Don't know what he is referring to here with "more benevolent" - needs better explanation or expansion: "or at least been born to a "more benevolent group of founding fathers."
• This sentence is unencylopedic - I think it could be completely eliminated, if not completely reworded: How the gold came to be uniquely in California, and not elsewhere, so that the "first world-class gold rush"[92] could take place there, is a story involving global forces.
  • Still awkward, but I don't really know how to fix it - "Why the gold was in California involves global forces, and hundreds of millions of years. " I'm not a great grammarian, but maybe something like, "Global forces operating over millions of years resulted in the large concentration of gold in California. Sandy (Talk) 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope that isn't overwhelming - I can't wait to see it FA. Sandy (Talk) 00:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. On re-reading this, I just noticed that refs 1 and 91 (referring to "first world class gold rush" are the same ref - do you know how to use named refs for repeat refs? I'll fix that one for you so you'll have a sample, in case there are others. Sandy (Talk)

If some of it came from other editors, it may be better for me to put my review on the actual FAC, for broader discussion - let me know, whatever is easiest for you. Sandy (Talk) 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, hope this list doesn't overwhelm you - I think you're very close to FA. What is insurmountable on FA is poor referencing, and I only saw one cite needed, so you should get there easily. Sandy (Talk) 00:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll check in later. Sandy (Talk) 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

I've been snooping around Wiki for a geologist - there is no Geology WikiProject, but on another project, I found listed Rolinator (talk · contribs). From other FAs, I know that Maveric149 (talk · contribs) is familiar with California and Geology - maybe one of them will help if you ask. Don't be discouraged by the comments: it should be easy to de-Californify the lead to a more neutral tone. Sandy (Talk) 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone sure has an ax to grind. I'd say leave out any conversions that may be bordering on original research, unless you can find a cite elsewhere for current (converted) data, or put the converted/calculated amounts into a footnote, and not directly into the text. Andrew Levine seems helpful. Sandy (Talk) 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations !!! Sandy (Talk) 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gold in California

No worries, I actually ran across the article in Special:Newpages while on the hunt for decent articles to fill out Did you know. It's a shame that it's just a split-off from a larger article, or it'd probably have merited a place there. :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice sought re potential California Gold Rush map

Following up on a FAC process suggestion, two California Gold Rush maps are available - please let me know which one of these two you prefer (or if you know of a better map!):

California goldfields in the Sierra Nevada and in Northern California.

California goldfields in the Sierra Nevada and in Northern California.

Please leave a comment here, letting me know your thoughts - thanks! NorCalHistory 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The first one really shows that most of the gold was in very mountainous terrain, and fairly removed from any major cities (although it loads pretty slowly on a dial-up connection). Of course you could always use one for the California Gold Rush article, and the other in the Gold in California article. ^BlankVerse 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• My first impression was to favor the image on the right because it looks simpler and clearer, but BlankVerse has a good point about the terrain. Durova^Charge! 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like the one showing the relief/terrain. Sandy (Talk) 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I stuck in a reference to a map of Hwy 49: feel absolutely free to remove it if you don't find it helpful. Sandy (Talk) 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like left better: for California Gold Rush; right can go in Gold in California, as indicated above. Hmains 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Was most of the travel during the Gold Rush era by river, or ??? If most travel was by stage coach or horse, but followed trails that followed the rivers, then it really dosn't matter, but the trails were away from the rivers, it may be worth showing their locations. ^BlankVerse 13:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)