Talk:Steamboats of the Oregon Coast

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steamboats of the Oregon Coast article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Start of project

I've taken this little project about as far as I can without engaging in extensive digging through primary records. The steamboats we're talking about here were small and little notice was taken of them, so finding details and photos may prove difficult. Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about Siuslaw Bay

The Siuslaw River flows past Florence, which is south of Lincoln City, not north. Though the bridge there is sometimes called the Siuslaw Bay bridge, there really isn't a "Siuslaw Bay". Is Siletz Bay meant here? Katr67 (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't know, will recheck authorities, thought Siuslaw, could be Siletz, maybe got too much egg nog and was confused. Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, problem fixed, was confusing Siuslaw with Siletz. Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I didn't go through the page history, but I don't see what you fixed. I commented out the questionable section. Let me make it clear--there is no natural feature called "Siuslaw Bay". See: http://nwdata.geol.pdx.edu/OR-GIS/PlaceNames/S.html Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that Siuslaw Bay and Siuslaw River pretty much the same thing, at least down by the ocean. A number of refs to Siuslaw Bay including official ones, such as Oregon Secretary of State, Oregon Department of Agriculture (shellfish safety warning and Oregon Administrative Rules. This is a common name for this area, as shown by this photo of the well-known "Suislaw Bay Bridge". "Siuslaw bay and river" or something like that works for me for this topic but clearly there's an area near the mouth of the river called "Siuslaw Bay" and it might be confusing to omit "bay" from the subtitle of the subtopic, and certainly it should be in the article whether it's called a bay or a river or both. Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steamboat Graveyard

Shouldn't the photo links to the abandoned sternwheelers be right under the discussion of the steamboat graveyard? The Salem Public Library doesn't identify the abandoned boats, but Marshall in his book does, and they are clearly the same boats. Separating them from the discussion doesn't allow ready identification of which boats are shown. Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an effort to address this concern, by moving the on-page image, and moving the description of the linked images into the "external links" section. I think maybe the section needs a little more text though, to make it clear how the image fits in. What do you think? -Pete (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this looks like a good solution, if I get some time tonight I can put the names of the boats in just above the links. Having the names will make the links more interesting. Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I know you would like to have the links to the photos near each section where the boats are described, but every article I've seen has the external links in a separate external links section, per Wikipedia:EL#External links section. I'm kind of surprised to see that after I moved the first batch of links to the external links section, more showed up within the article. Perhaps we could add a field to the table and put the image links in there, or else they could be used with <ref> tags to place them in the refs section. See also my post below. Katr67 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference cleanup

Would it be terrible to consolidate the refs section using <ref name=> tags (see here for example) and eliminate the page numbers so that there was only one listing in the reference section for McCurdy? There are a couple other duplicate references (without page numbers) that could definitely use that format. Katr67 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the Victor West collection references, does what I did look good to you guys? Not sure how to handle the book stuff. Without having the books, it's tough to say. If the books are not very well indexed, it seems worthwhile to preserve the page info; but if they have good indexes (indices?), it doesn't seem that important. Another option might be to reference things by chapter, which would be a kind of compromise between the extremes…all links, for instance, to Chapter 5 of the Timmen book could be combined. Not sure. Mtsmallwood, I think you're the only one with ready access to the books -- what do you think? -Pete (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's much better, I took a whack at combining some of the other notes, let us hope that's an improvement. I'm hoping to get a good source pretty soon which may help give a more comprehensive picture of the Coos Bay and Coquille operations.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

split-off articles

I like the new articles about Coquille and Coos Bay. The sections in this article should, I think, have a paragraph or two, in addition to the "main" links. Mtsmallwood, is that something you're working on? Should I try to summarize them? Happy to, if that would help. -Pete (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please go ahead on the summaries in the main articles, and make any other changes you wish. I starting finding so much stuff on Coos and Coquille that I needed new pages for them, and I didn't have time to draft summary articles in the main section, but clearly that is needed. I'm working on getting some more sources for these new pages. Also, I have a new source which will help support a spin-off of the Yaquina Bay subsection, for which I've obtained a wonderful photo of the rather dubious waterborne contraptions that people used to ride around on. Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date for end of Coos Bay mosquito fleet

This is a bit of a mystery for me, the sources I have are vague. Also, if you count gasoline powered or diesel boats, well, maybe things are still going on, so there's something of an arbitrariness to the fixing of any particular date. I've located what could be a good source on the whole Coquille/Coos Bay inland boat history, which may clear this up, but I haven't been able to get my hands on it yet. Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off page roster

Spin offs from this page are

Steamboats of the Coquille River
Steamboats of Coos Bay
Steamboats of Yaquina Bay and Yaquina River (contains lots of new material)Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]