Jump to content

Talk:Stanislaus River

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stanisławów

[edit]

What is this "hetman" nonsense? This has nothing to do with the river, and the true source of the river's name is Estanislao.

Mistakenly inserted from another article. I've removed it. Kortoso (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the sidebar has the words "River Kingstone" in large type at the top. There is no mention in the article that this name is associated with this river. LittlePortion (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been vandalism from late last year. Do you want to edit it back the original...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stanislaus River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanislaus River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanislaus River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mnnlaxer (talk · contribs) 19:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing immediate pass. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shannon1: great work. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Shouldn't the lead state its full 150-mile length?
  2. In discharge, why is 1941 to 2013 reported when the flow changed significantly in 1978?
Thanks for picking this review up! I've gone and addressed the comments so far. Shannon [ Talk ] 22:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the article is great. I'm ready to go, but will leave this open a couple of weekdays for others to chime in. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really made the hydro dam map? What's the source file and/or what did you add? Not trying to police copyright, rather I'm very impressed and would like to see how it's done. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I used GIS data from the US Geological Survey (National Map) and put it together using Adobe Illustrator. Thanks, haha- I do make all my maps myself. Shannon [ Talk ] 05:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for discussion. The History section doesn't have anything in it after 1900. I know there is history told through the following sections. But I wonder if there is some 20th century history that doesn't fit in these categories. Was there any native population in the area in the 20th century? Any noteworthy people have a connection? I don't think a long or detailed sub-section is needed. But it feels like the History section ends prematurely. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now I notice that omission - I think the fate of the Native Americans after 1900 is worth discussing, I'm fairly certain some still live in the area (there are places called Mi-wuk Village and the like). I'll do some research and add that to the Native Americans section. Shannon [ Talk ] 05:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would add a fourth section, 20th Century, contemporary, or some descriptive phrase if you find a good theme. But make it a separate chrono section rather than add material to the end of the other three. You could start by pulling some sentences about dams and water resource fights, just focus it on the history rather than technical details. And there has to be an interesting person or two that lived there or was involved with the river country in some way or another. My preference would be to give a brief overview of the current "history" of the area rather than dig into a specific topic. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'm going to pass it now. Great work. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry for the late reply; I've been busy. This will probably take a while since there's a lot of research to be done, but I'll have it up soon... hopefully. Cheers, Shannon [ Talk ] 01:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's still a GA without the addition. Take your time. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon1: any luck finding any interesting people or events in the 20th century for the History section? I wouldn't worry about well-connected long paragraphs with copious references. Even one or two sentences for each interesting item that basically use wikilinks to people, events, or things to act like references would be good additions. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mnnlaxer: Hey there- my apologies as I've been very busy over the holiday season, haven't been on Wikipedia much. I am planning to update the article soon. And a belated happy new year! Shannon [ Talk ] 05:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanislaus_River&oldid=1205432249"