Talk:Feather River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rivers (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Upper watershed and other things[edit]

Apologies for earlier edits of mine focusing on the upper basin so much--got caught up and more or less forgot there's more river below Oroville! Also, I added lots of info about the various upper forks and tributaries with the idea that they could be split off into pages of their own, in time. Something like you did, Shannon, with the Eel River, South Fork Eel River, etc. I was a bit heavy on the statistics for that reason. Perhaps sometime it would be good to split off some of the upper watershed info and add a bit more about the Feather below Oroville. Pfly (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough[edit]

I've done my best to help improve this page and address the stream of requests to fix things from the IP editor. Every time I try to, however, the IP editor adds a whole new series of "citiation needed", "specify", "verify source", "multiple issues", "contradiction", "nonspecific", "clarify me", "where"...and these multiple times in just the last edit. Also, comments in these templates and the edit summaries have a fairly hostile tone. None of the many complex issues are brought up on the talk page, where we could have a human discussion. Instead they are presented in wikicode within the article, which comes off as confrontation and makes the page look ugly and broken. I've tried several times to address the many templates. But even when I do supply an answer for a request, the IP immediately slaps several more templates of a different nature onto the same thing (eg, a photo's caption for which the IP used "specify" to ask for what headwater tributary source was shown; I answered--the steam is apparently unnamed; now there's another "specify" template in the caption).

IP editor, you've been added and re-adding so many templates like this that it has become extremely hard to continue working on the page. I'd like to address whatever concerns you have, but it is very hard to even figure out what your concerns are when they are encased in scores of templates scattered over the page, with comments you can't even see without editing the page. It would be so much better to list your concerns on the talk page, which would serve not only to make the concerns easier to see, all in one place, and would allow others to ask questions or ask for further clarification about what you want. Using templates the way you do is, for me at least, frustrating. It makes the page look ugly and often breaks code in various ways. I've tried multiple times to provide the many things you've requested. I've tried to be nice. Yet you continue to reject my efforts, always adding or re-adding additional templates, with an unfriendly tone. So okay, I get the point. You may do as you please here. Feel free to make the page you want. Goodluck. I'm leaving. Bye. Pfly (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Pfly I've been considering to take this guy to the block requests -- AGAIN. I ran into him before. See the argument on Talk:Owens River. It's the same guy but he got blocked. He also went under 208.255.156.66, 71.219.172.174 and US40AL-01. Yeah the page looks extremely ugly now… but I must admit I must suppress a laugh to look at it. This is so ridiculous that he could do the same thing with a featured article. I'm putting my hopes on that he's not going to attack Sacramento River and make one of the FAC directors think about knocking it off FAC. I'll try to rewrite one of the sections COMPLETELY perfect and see what he does about that, lol. I'm really sad you left though Pfly. I tried to make the page better in the past but you actually did it and I greatly thank yer efforts. Now to see if what can't be done can be done… Shannontalk contribs 22:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I believe he has also taken to pure vandalization. In This old revision the watershed size was changed to 681 square miles… any explanations IP?? A river's watershed is the total amount of land whose runoff drains into it before it reaches its mouth… and yes tributaries DO COUNT. Shannontalk contribs 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This entire article is getting ugly with numbers - massively over-detailed. It's simply wankage, and needs to be cut back on.Kmmontandon (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why they added the pending revisions, but no one is caring about the quality of those edits and it's practically useless... Shannontalk contribs 05:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To all reviewers—careful[edit]

Please, whoever is accepting the edits on this page, take a look at the edit before you accept it, just because it’s not about the Afghanistan war or Justin Bieber means you can slack in taking a look at how reasonable the edit is. There IS AN IP making disruptive edits to this page. Shannontalk contribs 20:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Feather River[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Feather River's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GNIS":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 18:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Restored version[edit]

I have restored the article to the version before the IP contributions began, per this talk page for the WikiProject Rivers and its ongoing discussion. Please discuss any issues you have with this there, thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for start of Feather River, North Fork.


69.232.199.137 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, I think. Is that typo what you meant? Deor (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)