Talk:New Almaden

California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance

	California portal 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance).

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copied text

Copied text, whether from Public Domain source or not, needs to be set aside in quotatation marks or quotes. This per WP:REF and common sense. Yes, it is not a copyright violation if the text is public domain. However, to allow general application of in-line citations, to bring towards good article or featured article status, it is necessary to track sources, including the sources of wording. General credit to one source does not provide specific credit for wording, that is what quotations do. if u want to remove quotation crediting, then reword all the material u wish to remove from quotes, please! sincerely, doncram (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific need to give credit for wording here; we normally do so because quoting other people's work is a copyright violation and using quotations to make specific point is legitimate fair use. But because this is public domain text, that's not a problem. If we are going to set aside copied text in quotes, then every article that comes from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (see {{1911}} and WP:1911) or the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships ({{DANFS}}) would have to be redone. That's simply not how things work around here. Furthermore, having big sections of quoted text specifically discourages people from editing those blocks because they don't feel they are allowed to. Does that make sense? Also, WP:REF says nothing about public domain text. howcheng {chat} 05:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to see WP:CP#Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright. We have to attribute the text to the source, but that's what the {{NPS}} template is for here. howcheng {chat} 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely familiar with the distinction between copyright violation (which does not apply for public domain text) and improper referencing (which is what i am concerned with). WP:REF and WP:CITE#HOW are style guidelines that are more apropos, although they are not as clear as i would like them to be. There is a discussion ongoing now in talk page for WP:REF, which i am not happy to anticipate you joining, but perhaps you should in fact take a look at it. Not to be glib, but you point me to the section titled "Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright". I happen to think that copying text and not putting it in quotes is a form of plagiarism, which is to be avoided, and can be avoided easily by using the quote marks at the time you copy it in. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looong quotes removed, summarize rather than quote the whole thing. Vsmith (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bricks

The bricks in Almaden valley have a significant history. More specifically a few of the white bricks found in the historic section of sidewalk along Almaden road were made in Scotland in the 1830s! These bricks pre-date both the civil war and gold rush of 1849. Miners report that these bricks made there way to Americal by sailing around the southern tip of South America. Early ships would use bricks for ballast.

This ballast was replaced with flasks of mercury from the mines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCandice10 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Almaden. 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) 20:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]