User talk:Hike395/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 23

Hetch Hetchy

Hey Hike395, I noticed you recently cleared the article on O'Shaughnessy Dam and merged the contents into the article for Hetch Hetchy Valley. I feel like there is way enough information about the dam to deserve a separate article; in fact I'd been planning to work on the dam article for some time now, but never got around to it (really busy irl, that kind of stuff). If you plan to expand the Hetch Hetchy article, that's awesome and I fully support – but not to sound like a nitpicky admin, again I don't think its very necessary to delete the page on the dam. Cheers, Shannon 04:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just a talk page stalker here, but there are a couple ways of looking at merging--"important enough" is one way, but another that I'm fond of in different circumstances is "what organization of the information helps our readers better?" I think it's hard to talk about many aspects of the dam without talking about the reservoir, and vice versa. Fragmenting up the information so that stuff that was applicable to both was only in one of the articles was actually, I feel, detrimental to the reader who came to one but didn't find the information they were looking for, knowing it was only in the other article. If it comes down to "what we had before" and "what we have after the merge" I like the latter better. A third option is to split, but duplicate a lot of material. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... well I can see we might not need separate articles on the valley, dam, reservoir, I think at the very most we should merge the dam and reservoir articles and leave the valley separate. Hetch Hetchy valley is a natural formation while O'Shaughnessy Dam and Hetch Hetchy Reservoir are man-made. The article on the valley would have information on geography, geology, flora and fauna etc. while an article on the dam would have information on construction, design, controversy, etc.; in other words each have separate and interesting histories that are, IMO, too broad to cover in a single page. Just as we would not merge Glen Canyon, Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam, because each has specific kinds of information you'd only expect to find in their respective articles.

I'm not gonna mess around with the Hetch Hetchy pages till Hike gets back to us on this, though. He's probably onto something interesting. Shannon 22:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Joe, for several reasons:

1. Right now, the merged article is on track to be B-class, or even GA, if more details are added. This reflects the utility to our readers, because we're giving them a set of related facts. As Joe says, the dam and reservoir are highly related.
2. The other California dam/reservoir articles that I checked are merged, e.g., Anderson Reservoir/Leroy Anderson Dam, Cherry Lake/Cherry Valley Dam, Crowley Lake/Long Valley Dam. I haven't done an exhaustive check, but there is certainly precedent for merging.
3. Hetch Hetchy Valley's floor is completely flooded by the reservoir: the majority of the information about the valley is actually about the reservoir and dam, and the controversy around them. If you look back at the pre-merged article on Hetch Hetchy Valley [1], there is only one paragraph about the geography of the valley. The rest of the material is about the reservoir and dam! I added another paragraph to the existing article about flora and fauna, but that's it. If we split the valley out now, it would just be a stub. In contrast, the example Shannon brings up of Glen Canyon has 10Kbytes of good non-dam related material. If we had that much, I would happily resurrect the Hetchy Hetchy Valley article.
4. I don't think duplicating the material about the dam and reservoir is a good idea. That would be a content fork, which makes WP more confusing for our readers, and makes it harder to maintain for the editors (two places to police for vandalism, to check for references, etc.). Instead, the guidelines direct us to use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, to have an overview article (which would be Hetch Hetchy?), with overview sections, and then link to a more detailed article on a subtopic.

It would be great if Shannon added material about O'Shaughnessy Dam! That would make the article better. If there's enough material, we could follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and resurrect the O'Shaugnessy Dam article. The more material we add, the happier I am.

Don't get me wrong -- I think that all of the subtopics are notable. In my opinion, there just isn't enough material on the individual subtopics to support their own independent articles. The overview article is at 20K now, which is still quite short as WP pages go (see, e.g., WP:splitting). —hike395 (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

An aside: GA. Hmm, interesting.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I would be happy to help on bringing the Hetch Hetchy article up to GA status. The thing that bothers me is that there's something like 5 different infoboxes resulting from all the merging, which is why I thought it was overkill. I'll see if I can split off an article about the dam, but I guess we should keep the rest of the information on the primary page. Shannon 19:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think if the three of us collaborated on this article, we would have a good chance of getting to GA. Could you add the dam information to the overview article directly? For better or for worse, people often look at the length of an article to judge GA quality --- if we split the article too early, we cannot reach GA, I think. —hike395 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing some work on the Hetch Hetchy article. Sorry about the reference formatting, I will get to that later. Shannon 23:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow! What a great expansion! Thanks, Shannon! I went ahead and cleaned up the refs. —hike395 (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! There's still a heck of a lot of stuff out there regarding history, geology, etc. We should get around to that eventually. Also what do you think is still missing? I can only think of recreation, but there must be more. Shannon 17:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we need more engineering and construction details about the dam and aqueduct. Recreation in that area is largely hiking, which should be easy to add. —hike395 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

One expansion suggestion: I've seen some suggestions that there is interest in replacing the dam in place for seismic concerns: [2],[3]. I haven't seen much about this, but if you have, that would be interesting to include. It'll be a day or two before I can help out more, but I'm definitely game to help you folks collaborate on the article/articles. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just found O'Shaughnessy Dam (California). If we wanted to build a GA with reasonable potential for FA, we could combine Hetch Hetchy with O'Shaughnessy Dam (California). Right now, we have two reasonably good (B-class?) articles, with some overlap. If we combined them, we would have an excellent article that covers every topic of Hetch Hetchy. What do you think, should we combine? —hike395 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth a shot, personally. I've never helped with an FA, I think it'd be a great experience. As far as length, I don't really have a sense that GA requires as much as you do, my GA is probably smaller than either Hetch Hetchy or the dam article. but you likely have more experience with audited content than I do. And I know I know nothing about what it takes to get to FA. But I wouldn't let that stop me. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I still think many of the details on the Dam article are too specific to all be put into a single overarching article, at least in comparison with the current length of the Hetch Hetchy article. The section on Construction alone is longer than the entire History section on the Hetch Hetchy article, which I can probably expand with a lot more material both related and unrelated to the dam.

Although my section on Controversy in O'Shaughnessy Dam probably unintentionally repeats a lot of what is said in Hetch Hetchy, so those details could be put into the main article.Shannon 22:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit

Would you please mark your removal of empty non-functional parameters from infobox as minor. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello there /AD 79 eruption

Thanks for so quickly making the note about Tacitus at the Vesuvius 79 eruption page more specific (I have the 1977 edition but didn't have it at hand right now). The implications of variants in textual tradition in two different ancient writers isn't something you can expect the ordinary WP reader or student to grasp without a bit of explanation, especially not when one of the two texts in question has been lost for more than a thousand years. The section needed to be made a bit more acessible for people who haven't studied classics (though I have) and a bit less hellbent on pushing the idea that Oct/Nov 24 is the date that almost all serious researchers accept these days. Even the Smithsonian Volcanism Program site (http://volcano.si..edu), which is one key player but not the only one, adds a '(?)' after that date, and many others still support August. I'll be looking up a few refs for it over the next couple of days.83.254.151.33 (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the article to make it more neutral! —hike395 (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why did you revert the change

I am trying to understand why did you revert the change on the "Badwater Ultramarathon" page. The website did change and i just added the new URL Thanks Bogie (bogdandumitrescu)

Geobox

A small number of articles on mountains/ ranges have had {{Geobox}} added (see Category:Geobox usage tracking. Could I trouble you to deal with them, please? I've prodded a few people to get the mountain/ range code removed from the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

None of these are in article space, just in User space or part of the Geobox template. (There is one in Article for Creation that I'll cope with). I don't want to reach into someone's personal User space and muck with their stuff. —hike395 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Doh! I should have spotted that. Thanks, anyway. You may also be interested in Template talk:Infobox river#‎Geobox, again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:The Garden Wall.jpg
• File:Pineapple weed.jpg
• File:MtMcLoughlin Medford 300px.jpg
• File:Wenatchee Mountains.png
• File:Mammoth Mountain from east.jpg
• File:Negit Island.jpg
• File:Mount Lyell Painting.jpg

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mount Lyell Painting.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mount Lyell Painting.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —hike395 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Backcountry skiing page

Dear Hike395,

Following your edit (or, revert of mine), I left a comment on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Backcountry_skiing . I don't know if you monitor it, so please have a look!

Mathias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathias.bavay (talk • contribs) 10:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Limber Pine -> Pinus flexilis

I suppose we need to go through the debate process all over again for that move? Famartin (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Limber Pine -> Pinus flexilis

Can we move it back now? Or at least start a debate on the subject? Famartin (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond earlier --- I think we need to discuss it. (I support the move). Please feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Limber pine. —hike395 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

NP, I hope I did that correctly. Thanks for the compliments about the photos, I have more I need to add to the page ;) Famartin (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating List of drying lakes, and for improving Wikipedia's coverage of geography- and environment-related topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! —hike395 (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Help

I once started the Template:Infobox glacier but its different now (and better) than when I first set it up...can we add a width parameter to the template? Some of the glaciers I stub out are wider than they are long. I know you're far better than I am at these sorts of things. If not, no bigger.--MONGO 15:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --- I was taking a Wikibreak, but I'm back now. I added a {{{width}}} parameter to the infobox. —hike395 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Very good...and thank you! Glacier width is far less commonly listed than length but I have encountered it and to be honest, have taken a few liberties by adding width and length gleemed from measurements using Google Earth...which anyone can double check, but if anything, I err on the side of understatement to be fair when I do add my own guesstimates. Thanks again!--MONGO 21:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, oops! I misinterpreted your request. I thought you wanted the infobox width set, not the glacier width. Let me revise. —hike395 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries...looks good...will try it on existing article later. Nice to have folks around that understand these types of wikimarkups.--MONGO 01:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DOI in Elliott Bay

Hi, I wanted to update you on the DOI for the reference #5 on the Elliott Bay article. I manage the online version of WHQ and I can tell you that the DOI will never work because it hasn't actually been registered with CrossRef and due to metadata errors probably won't be. I understand the preference is to use the doi where possible but I since it doesn't actually lead anywhere, it should be removed.

I'm happy to go in and make that change again.

128.208.76.229 (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC) User:Diginiti ohboy

 Done --- That DOI was restored when I ran Citation Bot. I didn't realize it was broken. I deleted it. Thanks for telling me. —hike395 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

The first Wikipedia edit on 2014! Greetings Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's cool. I wish it had been something more significant than correcting a typo! —hike395 (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice

So that I'll know in future - which of the tweaks that you applied yesterday to Miszabot in Talk:Himalayas brought the automatic archiver back to life? Despite algo requesting archiving of sections more than 180 days old, it hadn't even dealt with stuff 4 years old. I couldn't find out how to fix it - hence my laborious manual archiving. Apuldram (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a tweak: I added

{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |maxarchivesize = 40K |counter = 3 |minthreadsleft = 7 |minthreadstoarchive = 2 |algo = old(180d) |archive = Talk:Himalayas/Archive %(counter)d }}

to the top of the Talk page: previously, there was nothing there to tell the bot to archive. Then, I waited until the bot ran (which happens once a day).

I thought your edit to keep the first two threads was a good idea. My tweaks then filled up Archive 2, which was kind of short; I marked the first 2 section with {{subst:DNAU}} to keep them from being archived; I allowed 7 threads instead of 5 to make space for those 2 threads.

Hope this helps! —hike395 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Apuldram (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WP Mountains in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Mountains for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: California Fourteeners Template seems incorrect

Left you a message here. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting to wonder if there were some misunderstandings with our last couple posts after all. Regardless, are you still planning on editing the lists? I could do it, but I thought the the greeter weight of your moniker directly attached would help the change stick. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry: I haven't had a lot of time for WP, and it has mostly be spent on a dispute at California Water Wars. I will try to get to the fourteener edits this weekend. —hike395 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Big Hole Pass

How about re-reading Big Hole Pass?....and a thank for unscrewing this up? Mini Mart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericshawwhite (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hwy 395

Does your name, hike395, refer to Hwy 395? It is one of the best places drive up or down, then to branch off of, for a hike. CSAA disappointingly stopped publishing its "Hwy 395" map. The Bristlecone Chapter of the California Native Plant Society leads very good hikes starting from Hwy 395.[4] FloraWilde (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed,yes! I love exploring the subalpine zone of the eastern Sierra Nevada, from trail heads off US 395. Looking forward to working with you on montane ecology articles. —hike395 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Allan A. Schoenherr

I saw you use Schoenherr as a reference on the ponderosa pine forest article. I am guessing he is getting up there in years, but he taught a field class at the Desert Institute last spring 2014, "Ecology of Joshua Tree National Park", on the north side. But they scheduled it for the same date as another class I wanted to take on the south side, so I did not get to meet him and take his field class. I am guessing he may teach the same class 2015 (and they hopefully will not double book again). His book is so widely used that "Schoenherr" is almost an English language word, e.g., "its in Schoenherr". But I can't find any secondary sources to establish his notability, in order to write a Wikipedia article on him. I also cannot find any biographical information. Do you know any sources with biographical info and to establish notability? FloraWilde (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that the Los Angeles Times has written several articles that mention him. —hike395 (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) FloraWilde (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hwy 395 and Hwy 168

Thought you might want to know -

October 4, Saturday, CNPS Field Trip: Mollie Gibson area (White Mountains), Leader: Michèle Slaton, and

OCT 3 -5 South Coast Geological Society annual field trip - The Geology of the Eastern Parts of the White Mountains. :) FloraWilde (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert of my edit on Sierra Nevada (US)

Hi Hike395, I see you reverted me on Sierra Nevada (US). But perhaps next time you could message me first, I'd appreciate it. You reasoning is that mountain ranges are usually referred to as singular. So are you saying that we don't normally say "the Rockies", "the Cascades", "Appalachians", or "Himalayas"? For sure all of these examples the common appellation is in the plural. The entry for Appalachian Mountains is also plural. Mistakefinder (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not my reasoning. This particular range is usually referred to in the singular, not all ranges. See, e.g., this article from the 1947 Sierra Club Bulletin and the number of times the singular and plural are used in English books. —hike395 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. Mistakefinder (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you help the poor orphans?

;-)

• 
  Mono Lake viewed from Las Vegas bound Southwest flight
• 
  Areal view of Mono Lake
• 
  Areal view of the Sierra Nevada mountain range.
• 

--Mark Miller (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

They could use a home...poor puppies.

 Done -- I put them in Commons galleries: Mono Lake, Sierra Nevada, Yosemite Valley —hike395 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! I opened a discussion here to try to get an NPOV resolution. So add your arguments --Cs california (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hiking at Greys Peak, Nevada

i noticed you hiked to Greys Peak in the East Humbolts Mtn. in Elko County Nevada. I was wondering if you can give me some advise as to where I should start to hike there. Is there a trailhead that will lead you to the peak?

please email me.

Wes wesleypete@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.28 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Wes. I've never hiked Greys Peak -- it's too far east for me. Perhaps you saw me edit someone else's file at Commons? —hike395 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

California Fires

Heyo! Wanted to drop you a line on your talk page. I'm really enjoying our dialogue about redoing the List of California wildfires. Hope we can continue to work together! I'm curious, do you have an interest in fire stuff in general or just an interest in this particular page? I've done a ton of work around fire department pages and am always looking for people to collaborate with. Anyway, won't ramble on here just yet but let me know what your level of interest is and perhaps we can work together? Something for you to just take a quick look at that might appeal to you is a page I have under construction at the moment... User:Zackmann08/2015 Fires. If it has even a remote appeal to you, I will explain my thought process with it. As I said, would really love to have someone to work with! Hope you are having a great Monday! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Zackmann. I tend to work on articles related to the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), Cascade Range, and lately the Great Basin Desert. Unfortunately, wildfires occur in those areas, so I do occasionally work on wildfire articles (e.g., Angora Fire, Moonlight Fire). It's not one of my main focus areas.

I see you included the Round Fire in your list -- every time I go up Sherwin Grade this year, I look over and feel bad for the people who lived in Swall Meadows. —hike395 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up the feedback! I just knocked out this template: {{Infobox California wildfires}}. Any thoughts? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: It's so similar in style and intent to {{Infobox wildfire}} that I think editors will suggest merging the two (much like {{Infobox mountain}} and {{Infobox mountain range}}). Instead, how about taking the unique parameters and adding them back to {{Infobox wildfire}}? —hike395 (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)