Hello, Tripp155! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa Conversation04:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've certainly dove right in! Just wanted to recognize your contributions and to say if you have editing questions I'm hoping to help if I can.
I just spruced up Woodhull Lake (New York) a bit. I'd recommend copy-pasting the templates on the talk page on to new pages you create. Also adding the appropriate geo stubs is helpful too. See Category:New York geography stubs for some of the ones you can add.
Hi Tripp155, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized a trend I was doing. You seem to be about the rivers. I just realized I was working on nothing but local islands lately. That's kinda funny. If you need any more advice just drop me a line. Reb1981 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could you help me with the page Wright, New York. I'm trying to make a page for gallupville but it keeps redirecting to the main page. How can I undo the redirect? Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks on the river work
I appreciate your help in implementing the new "tributary" convention as well as the other great stuff you're doing. I didn't quite understand your suggestion on my talk page, and replied there. Dicklyon (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I didn't expect to write so much (and I'm not done yet ... I need to add some information on the fishing). I am quite familiar with the Spruceton Valley from all the hiking I've done up there, and I figured I'd just write a section on its course. But then I wanted to know if I could find information on what I call the three "vital statistics" of a watercourse we should endeavor to have in every article about one: length, watershed area and discharge. I looked around, expecting I might be lucky if I found two of those ... but then I found that and so much more. I guess I can thank it being part of the NYC water supply ... the DEP needs to know everything it can about the streams that feed its reservoirs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone will probably come around at some point and upgrade the assessment.
As for FA, yes, it has that potential. But ... first I have a bunch of pictures I took of the lower West Kill last year on Labor Day weekend, starting from the mouth (actually quite a popular swimming spot), with the goal of illustrating specific sections of the article that I'd like to add.
Then ... I'd like to get out there again this summer and photograph the upper stream, including the source (which is going to be a hike, although having climbed Southwest Hunter Mountain several times I am familiar with that area. My guess for How To Do It would be to hike up the Devil's Path from the falls to about 3,100' in elevation and then leave the trail to slab across the cirque until intersecting the stream somewhere below or near its source (I can't imagine, though, that there wouldn't be at least a couple of rivulet-size tributaries competing for the honor).
Alternatively, this could be combined with a hike up Southwest Hunter using the old railbed. After bagging the summit, one could just drop down into the cirque (steep, though) and try to reach the source that way.
Even more fun would be getting video, and putting together a montage showing the stream from its source to its mouth. We don't have anything like that in any of our articles on streams. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the GA nom; I'll try to print it out and copyedit it soon to keep that from being an issue. I would of course love to have gotten more pics into it but that's not essential for GA. FA, perhaps ... some day.
I am still hopeful that I can get up there (and you, if you still want to do this) to hike up to the source (and take some pics of the stream in the Spruceton Valley) sometime later this spring (Hell, we could even do it now; the Forest Preserve is still open and there's no reason you can't social-distance while hiking ... it sort of tends to occur naturally. But there's the fact that without a lot of income I don't feel like spending that much on gas, even at current prices).
Oh, regarding Route 5S, I'm not really the best person to ask. Maybe someone at NYSR, maybe Mitchazenia who among others knows more about these sources than I ever will, could help. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Yea Id still like to hike up there at some point soon, maybe when the leaves come out a bit to get really good pictures. Also like you had said before, it would be cool to add some videos of the creek. Also maybe a map of the creek and its tributaries would be a good addition too? Thanks, 420Traveler (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'd love to have a map ... see Moodna Creek. The guy who did that maps does great work (see also Esopus and Rondout creeks), but I don't know how active he is anymore.
I have some pics of the lower sections of the creek, including the mouth, that I took Labor Day weekend 2018 (I think ... it was really hot) that I should probably process now and get in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Prolly by the end of May would be a good time to meet up and hike the Kill, if weather and covid calms down lol. Also im guessing you have experience hiking parts of Platte Clove?420Traveler (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for West Kill
On 27 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article West Kill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the watershed of the West Kill (Diamond Notch Falls pictured) has the steepest slopes and highest overall elevation of any subbasin of New York's Schoharie Creek? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/West Kill. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, West Kill), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Great minds think alike; I was planning to add an article on this road this weekend. Three questions. First, do you have anything on the history of the road, particularly including its creation? I've been looking and have found very little. Second, were you planning on expanding it to include info on the 1968 Rio Arriba County Courthouse raid? It's historically significant, and the route of NM 162 includes the courthouse. Third, any interest in nominating it as a DYK? Thanks for putting this together. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a section on the Rio Arriba County Courthouse raid, probably the most significant thing that ever happened along this highway (it's ... kinda sleepy). Please wikify, as I am rather clumsy with use of the references template. (For starters, how to add the name of the second author, Robert Trapp?) Still looking for other historical bits.
So it doesn't look like this is happening. The affixing of the label "stub" to this article rather overlooks the point that there's not much to say about a 2.6-mile-long highway through a very tiny town. Unfortunately, once it's there, it's hard to get rid of. Want to help with an article on the Rio Arriba County Courthouse instead? There's enough history there for an actual article and DYK. I'll start it this weekend. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your excellent pages, edits, and pictures! I wanted to ask if it is alright to copy your picture of the Boiling Pot (in Canajoharie Creek) to the other Canajoharie pages (village, town, etc), to show the feature that gave the unique name. Trumblej1986 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have finally had the chance to sit down with a hard copy and red pen of this one. And while I will make such edits as I can, I strongly suggest we withdraw this nomination.
Basically, if I were reviewing it I'd fail it. It's got way too many paragraphs that end without footnotes. The overall referencing isn't too bad, but I would not consider this remotely ready for this kind of closeup.
I'd also like to expand the intro (it's still basically the one graf that it was as I expanded the article years ago ... I'm surprised I've never done this) to properly reflect the article, maybe put more detail and citation in the "description" section (some of which is really history, again reflecting how the article started out). It also needs material on Hurricane Irene, which had a major effect on the creek and occurred after I wrote the article. At the time I was just too busy to keep up.
Here's a view across highway 54 (new and old) at Fort Bliss, toward the Franklin mountains; my Mom still lives up there, a block from the William Beaumont Army Medical Center, near the mountains.This is exactly the same view (by construction), 100 years earlier.Fort Bliss's Sheridan Road cuts from lower left to upper right here, Dyer Street (old 54) beyond and partly parallel to it. The new 54 comes through just beyond the railroad tracks (beyond the red and white tower), and took over the part of Sheridan Road across the tracks. My Sugarloaf photo was from just about exactly where the red and white tower used to be, on the Gateway North entrance onto 54 from Cassidy Blvd.
420, thanks for helping with moving a bunch of articles to use the "tributary" convention in preference to the old way. I did about 900 of these a year or so ago, and another hundred or so yesterday and today, and could use more help if you're up for it. Maybe you can take on this cat.
ps. I enjoyed you highways of New Mexico. I've done Highway 54 from El Paso (my hometown) to Alamagordo and then up to Cloudcroft a lot, and famously got a speeding ticket near Oro Grande last time, to the delight of my wife (who is from Los Alamos). Did you spend time around there? Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: I will help you with changing them over and will do that category, I've slowly been doing them as I come across them. And oh boy hope you got out of that ticket, I have always been interested in visiting there and got into making road articles there, but I would like to this year sometime. I live in upstate New York, but I have drove to Denver multiple times and have always wanted to drop further south to New Mexico. What part if the country are you living in now? 420Traveler (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had to pay it. I was going about 90 on that straight boring road, heading to a family reunion in Cloudcroft; my wife kept saying slow down. There's a lot of fun stuff to see all over New Mexico. My family goes way back in west Texas; my Dad was born in El Paso in 1922 (see him here). I've been in California since 1970, raised a couple of California natives who got to hang out with us for the Mother's Day weekend in spite of lockdown. Thanks for your help. See my river work at User:Dicklyon#Creeks,_rivers,_lakes,_and_reservoirs. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ps. As a kid, I lived less than a mile from highway 54, which ran on Dyer Street before the North-South freeway went in. From age 11 to 17 or thereabouts I'd cross it daily on bike, delivering newspapers. That stretch hasn't changed too much; still pawn shops, fast food, strip malls, etc. But it's no longer highway 54. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: It sucks I feel like most of the flat straight roads out west should have no speed limit like the autobahn in Germany, i got a ticket in new york for going 82 in a 55 after I had just passed someome going 30 a few years ago lol. I really really appreciate your dads service for our country, all our veterans and service members mean so much to me and my family too. Thats pretty cool about living right near the highway, maybe you can help me add details about the former alignment and when it was moved. I seem to switch back and forth from working on roads to working on rivers and lakes often.
The article West Kill you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:West Kill for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article West Kill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:West Kill for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New development in WP Lakes - SIA and Redirect classes
Given your hard work in NY lakes I wanted to give a heads up that the WP Lakes template now supports SIA and Redirect classes. Setting the WP Lakes on redirects as {{WikiProject Lakes}} is sufficient to let the project track what redirects. Just noticed the Lower Siamese Pond move which the talk page was left as stub. Keep up the work, check out the updates on WP:LAKES home if you haven't seen the latest updates. :) Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... I am now in a position where this looks more doable soon, maybe even next week. Send me an email; I'd rather discuss it privately.. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go over to my user page and either click on the link in the box at the top that says "this user can be reached by email" or the "email this user" link at the left. Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: It occurred to me that you might be using a phone or mobile device instead of a desktop. I decided to see how my user page looks on my phone ... and if that's the case I understood your confusion. The userbox with the link is bright red; it's the second one below the language userboxes, between the admin one and the one with the times my user page got vandalized. Unfortunately the mobile interface does not include all those things at the left side of the page.
Anyway, on Wednesday, I went up to the Catskills with my camera, my phone and my son's camcorder. Starting from Winnisook Lake I took videos and photos of the Esopus wherever I could (mostly from bridges and streamside fishing access points) all the way down to Phoenicia (I hope to return later and complete the upper Esopus to the reservoir (which will require some hiking along the rail trail and/or the paths on city land from Route 28A, although that's all level ground)). And I also might want to get back to the headwaters and try to find those waterfalls if it's possible to get to them without too much trespassing (Might even be worth it to see if we can get permission from the landowner).
As you can probably tell, I added some of the pics to the article already. I will be editing the videos when I can upload them to my hard drive ... I got some really great footage at the Portal. It wasn't the highest I've ever seen (that would be that picture of the discharge in the spring that's already in the article) but there was enough coming through to make it frothy and white when it hit the creek, plus there was enough turbidity in the Schoharie water for the difference to be visible. I took takes from multiple angles and the light was just great ... it was late enough in the afternoon for it to be mostly behind me or raking, depending on whether I shot from the adjoining bank or the bridge. At the very least that can make a good short video in itself.
I also got some shots of Japanese knotweed groves on the banks and bars. However, I was not able to find any rock snot, which is maybe a good thing.
So it was a good learning experience for the sort of thing I eventually want to do for the whole stream, and the West Kill (and any other stream we can). Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures look great that you just took. I bet the Schoharie and other creeks are very turbid right now, not sure how much rain you got down that way but the past week we have had a total of about 7 inches of rain from what I measured. I did get the email through to you just now, let me know here if it didnt go through. Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It did. Thanks.
Turbidity in the tunnel is actually the result of the intake being near the bottom of the reservoir. I've seen that stream a lot worse than it was.
I live south of the Catskills, in Orange County. I chose Wednesday because there has been enough recent rain, especially there. We've had our share of storms lately down here, but only one real rainy day in the last few weeks, which of course is typical for this time of year. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you think I've let this get past me ... In terms of time available to me this summer has been great; I actually have gotten more time to do some real hiking than the last two summers, including my first deep trip into the Catskills in a while.
That said, of course, other factors like the price of gas and the heat (I know it's cooler in the mountains, but still ...) have worked against this. Most significantly, the drought has made it less likely that any attempt to reach the source high on Hunter will have running water to follow ... I checked the USGS stream gauges and, indeed, the West Kill is running at very low levels, near the bottom of its range.
But ... some serious rain late in the summer (which IME often happens) could turn that around, and there might still be some time. Do you still have this in mind as a possibility? Is this something you'd still be able to do? Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would still like to hike it this fall when we get some good rain. I've never seen the creeks as dry as they've been this summer. It's been a horrible year to visit waterfalls with there being no water lol. I'm guessing diamond notch is dry right now. Just let me know. Thanks -420Traveler (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... it is almost summertime again, and I may have the time available soon. And we may have a wetter summer this year. Let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trip report
Yesterday I decided I would go up there and give it a go myself.
It was nice to get high up in the Catskills again, walking through the boreal forest patch around Geiger Point (and I got a decent phone photo of the view of Southwest Hunter from there, so we can have that in the article instead of just that photo of the summit canister I found on Flickr. There were some deep mudwallows up there; I realized (seriously) how much I have missed hiking through them!
About a hundred yards or so east of the point is the area where the trail levels out that I had identified from the maps and satellite photos as the likeliest place for the West Kill to cross.
There is a brief break in the boreal forest at that point, but no streambed. The ground clearly gets a lot of moisture, judging by the nettle bed on both sides of the trail. There was at the time no flowing water. I did, however, discover a functioning spring deep in a small grotto on the north side of the trail; in the absence of anything better I consider that the source of the West Kill. So I took some pictures of it.
It was much better than last summer would have been in terms of water on the trail. The falls weren't at their full volume but there was more than last summer. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Esopus Creek going forward
I just finished attending to the last unaddressed item on the GAR punch list ... I won't bother Hog Farm about it yet as he seems to be fairly busy with a lot of other GA-related things. I believe it will pass.
But I am now thinking ahead to what we can do going forward ... I'm sure you have greater things in mind , and I've started to see the possibility too, thanks to this experience (and thanks, again, for initiating it).
For starters I will be trying to put together, now that I have the time and the capability, the videos I took of the upper stream in July. I think having them as section illustrations would be better than the photos as we can show more of the river that way. I also shot a lot of footage of the Portal pumping turbid water into the creek ... I think that could be used in the tunnel article as well.
As you may have noticed I also put some of the phone pics I took in July into the article. I am thinking we might want to change the lead image, too, as it's now 12 years out of date and that view today looks very different thanks to Irene. Once the GAR is closed I will put some candidates on the talk page.
I am sorry that we never got the chance to hike up Hunter and find the West Kill source. Maybe it's a good thing the census intervened for me when it did (besides the money I got paid), because it was right around August that it started getting drier. Oh well, count it among the many things from the 2020 that could have been. And think about late next spring, maybe.
But, in that vein, I am thinking that Saturday might be a good day for me to go to Olive Bridge and start working up the lower Esopus to get some photos and video to go with what I got from the upper stream. It's supposed to rain tomorrow, so the creek should look good the day after.
I also, on that trip, want to get some pics of the levees and flood control at Kingston that I wrote about. I think there's been enough added to the article, along with stuff I found in other sources, to have a separate section on the creek's flood and flood-control history. I just don't want to add anything substantial while it's being reviewed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was able to get those pictures, at least as far up as Leggs Mill Road (it is much easier to take pics of the upper Esopus than the lower stream as there are fewer bridges and less public access). The most important one, really, was from Marbletown Town Park since that's where the stream changes character ... also got some nice ones from just aside Route 209 south of Hurley where we can see bedrock and the more open, meandering section of stream to the north.
That will be really cool to see a video of the creek. The article came out very good, I am looking forward to seeing the new pictures. I will be ready when the time is good to hike to the west kill source. 420Traveler (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I went on a small ride with my grandparents the other day. Got a picture of Broadstreet Hollow and Esopus Creek. Was going to take some pictures of the tribs between NY 28 and the source but they were all dried up so I dodnt bother stopping. Let me know anytime you would want to meet up to hike. 420Traveler (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it happened, on a trip down to Westchester yesterday I noticed that a lot of the brooks flowing from the Hudson Highlands down to the river were higher than I've seen them for a while, If I had been able to stop and take a few pictures, I would have. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To update you on our hopes of getting to the West Kill source: I still want to do that. But I'm not yet sure when. I am actually now working full time as a contact tracer, and the contract was renewed through August. That doesn't mean all of us will be working that whole time, of course, or necessarily full time. So at the moment I'm thinking maybe June at the earliest. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finally have the time available. We could go sometime later this month, presumably when this rainforest weather system (well, that's how I describe it) ends and we might have a sunny, dry, spectacular day. I am glad it has been raining so much, actually; that will make it more likely the stream will be flowing from its source (Basically, it's New York City's highest tap). I'll see how my next couple of weeks work out. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I was finally able to get that picture I had wanted last summer of Otter Falls, the day after I made this last comment. It makes a nice addition to the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do also think we have been put in the middle of the rainforest climate haha. Ill be able to go next week if the weather is good and if you are able to. The picture looks great! -420Traveler (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
External Links
Forgive me if I'm not doing this right, I am the noobiest of noobs trying to figure out how to contact you! I was reading the entry on K-7 Highway in Kansas and discovered the great external links in the references. Wondering if you're the one that provided them, and if so, where did you find the references to the individual links? I'm looking at the Kansas State Highway Commission resolutions from the 1930's. There's one from May 1934 that I want to find, but have been unable to locate a catalog or reference source for the collection. Any help appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedygreen (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@420Traveler: Thank you! The town is Paola. My reference to the resolution comes from a court record to my property. It says, "That on the 14th day of May, 1934, the State Highway Commission of Kansas, in regular session, found that in order to" [build K-7, we must exercise eminent domain]. It's engineering drawings from that project I'm ultimately trying to find. I saw that several of the State Highway Commission documents you linked actually had the drawings included in the scan.
@420Traveler: That map is pretty awesome. I wasn't able to find a 1934 resolution involving Paola either tho. The one that shows up when you click on Paola is from 1969. The drawing that I referenced as an example comes from reference #19 on the Wikipedia article for K-7. State Highway Commission of Kansas (June 13, 1938). "Resolution for Relocation and Redesignation of Road in Miami County". Topeka: State Highway Commission of Kansas. Retrieved October 1, 2019. The linked PDF is only two pages long, but the second page is a blueprint. Hey, I really appreciate that you've taken the time to help me out, wasn't my intention to drag you into a long hunt. I'll keep looking at sources and if I find what I'm looking for, I'll let you know!
The article K-111 (Kansas highway) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:K-111 (Kansas highway) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re my response to you on my talk page about Schoharie Creek: I now do not think it would be necessary to hike to the source ... like Esopus Creek, you can probably park right next to the source although it may be necessary to hunt around a bit to get the photo (and probably ask for permission from the nearby landowner).
It seems now that the USGS maps, since 2016, have decided that the unnamed tributary that flows down from Jimmy Dolan Notch is, in fact, the uppermost portion of the Schoharie. Google has followed this. I could do that hike—I recall once in winter going up there and hearing all the water gurgling under the rocks near the trail in the steep section and thinking, that's going to Schoharie Creek—but I don't think that's the source, and I'm not alone, as it turns out.
Older USGS maps (at the historicaerials link, go back to 1964) depict the creek's main stem continuing past the tributary. The terrain around the headwaters has changed a bit since then, but I don't think it has significantly altered the stream's flow. To me the confluence of Jimmy Dolan Brook (that's what I'll call it here) is clearly a tributary joining the main stream.
Now, that version doesn't depict Prediger Road at all, even though I'm pretty sure it was there at the time. And clearly, to me, the headwaters of the Schoharie, as depicted there, are just a cartographer's best guess. So we can look to the most recent paper-only version, from 2001, used at ACME Mapper. And compare it to the Google satellite view, where what seems to be the main stem (to the extent it still exists) continues due east past that pond that has now largely become wetlands. On the topo map, the 1,900-foot contour becomes a narrow crease, clearly looking like the head of a stream valley. Beyond that, the ground doesn't reach the next contour, and there's not too much further you can go before you reach the watershed divide ... that small pond about 0.4 mi WSW drains to is arguably the source of Plattekill Creek.
The pond is not on any topo maps, but it seems from the aerial photos to have been there, at least in its present size, since at least 2004. This will require some investigation on the ground (The Street View image of 2122 Platte Clove Road is from 2012, when it seems like a vacant lot; I do not know if it has been built on now).
But I have additional authority in placing the source of the Schoharie around Prediger Road rather than below Jimmy Dolan Notch: the New York City DEP, which has a greater interest in having more definite knowledge of the Schoharie than the USGS.
First, they own about 67 acres just downstream, from the road to the state land boundary, that they call the Schoharie Headwaters Unit, a name it wouldn't have if they followed the USGS's current convention. Second, in the management plan for the stream (a definite source for the article, at least re the upper Schoharie), Management Unit 1 is basically the source to the Dale Lane bridge.
The master map, on page 2, puts station 159225, the highest numbered of the stations otherwise marking thousand-foot intervals along the stream from (I would guess) the reservoir, and thus the source, slightly south of the marsh, along the property line right where that big cairn is in the Street View image (which may be why that cairn is there ... while there are some sculptures on the property closer to the road, I can't imagine any other reason for that cairn), at the end of a wider but shorter channel. To me, though, that channel is the remnant of an otherwise buried upper tributary, and from some photos it may not even connect to the main stem.
But another map, on page 4, is overlaid on the topo map and shows station 159225 right at the curve on Prediger Road. This seems to me to make more sense based on the above-noted photo images.
I've noticed that the article infobox doesn't currently have coords for the source. For now, pending a chance (which I hope I can get in the next month or so) to look at that pond and the cairn, I am comfortable giving the spot just next to that tree nestled in the curve on Prediger as the source. Do you have any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I looked at all the maps you mentioned and I have to agree with you that it's source is at the marsh next to Prediger Road. Let me know when you do go, maybe ill be able to meet you there. -420Traveler (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ... as it happens, I went up there just yesterday; I had some time I could use and I had to be in that general area for other reasons. Given the recent rain I knew it would be easier to see which streams flowed where. And I took pictures that I'll eventually be uploading.
For now I think we can feel good about this spot, next to the single pine tree opposite the north end of that little pullout (which is now overgrown enough that I chose to park next to the two trees just to the south, which also frame a possible source stream). It seems in line with the main stem.
The problem is that there are indeed a lot of narrow tributaries in the area (as with many streams). And both the two potential sources at the head of the marsh come out of culverts and it was possible to find their continuations (such as they were) at the edge of the scrubland on the pullout opposite. The northerly one, the one I like for the main stem, is maybe two feet wide at best at that point and the brush was so thick I could not visually follow it for any real distance—no, not even 10 feet.
It's certainly on course to get to that pond ... but it's also possible that it's a tributary that flows down from the High Peak side of the valley. There's one that crosses under Platte Clove Road just before Prediger, although I can't find it on Street View, which raises the question of how much development (such as it has been) in that area has impacted the stream's headwaters and muddled the question of where the source is. Someone may have expanded it to make their property look more salable.
The southerly streamlet could have been followed a bit had I been wearing boots instead of sneakers ... it did look like it wasn't far back to the pond. And it received some other small tributaries right at that point. I followed one, which looked like it had been channelized at some points to serve as a drainage ditch, along the east side of Prediger to where it literally rose from a wet spot at the edge of someone's lawn. It would be cute if you could say that was the source, but it's not.
Now about that pond itself ... there is now a house across the street, so I didn't trespass on the property down to the pond (I had to walk there from Prediger as the gravel area you can see on Google is now roped and coned off). From where I was, though, it didn't look like any water was draining from either end, and it honestly looks like the pond was somehow artificially expanded: the sides look banked, particularly at the western end, as if someone wanted to make sure no water escaped (I was able to see the wooden bridge in the ACME mapper photo, but it seems overgrown, like no one's used it in years).
And actually, from the ground, you could make a case that maybe that pond drains to the east ... looking down those dirt road driveways in that direction, the land visibly dips and then rises midway at a plant-surrounded strip before you reach that pond opposite the Bruderhof. (Also on ACME Mapper, I can discern a very thin watercourse in that wetland just east of the pond that corresponds to about the dip in the land that I noticed).
I do think another visit might be a good idea, in the wintertime when it's easier to see, and maybe walk, through the woods from Prediger Road. And also into the marsh ... I wouldn't have dared yesterday; the growth is up to my hips, which is saying something. But it might be arguable that the best source is a confluence near the eastern end. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNIS
Did you see the recent RfC which determined that GNIS is unreliable for "Feature Class" designations and can't be used to establish notability? I wanted to make sure you're aware since you've created a few articles that only cite GNIS. –dlthewave☎04:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article K-98 (Kansas highway) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ncchild -- Ncchild (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable island that is little more than a sandbar off of Nashawena Island. It does not meet WP:GEOLAND requirements, and does not have any significant coverage.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
420Traveler, do you intend to respond to this review? It's been over three weeks since it was posted. Posting to a review lets the reviewer know that you're still planning to complete the work—the general expectation is that you'll deal with review comments in seven days unless you let the reviewer know it's going to be longer, which may be why K-101 was closed when it was. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article K-61 (Kansas highway) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article K-61 (Kansas highway) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:K-61 (Kansas highway) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article K-32 (Kansas highway) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article K-32 (Kansas highway) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:K-32 (Kansas highway) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article K-98 (Kansas highway) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:K-98 (Kansas highway) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ncchild -- Ncchild (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article K-42 (Kansas highway) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:K-42 (Kansas highway) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otsego County high point until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Non-notable creek with a single source pointing to a database entry that only contains minor stats and coordinates. Does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Non-notable creek with a single source pointing to a database entry that only contains minor stats and coordinates. Does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Non-notable creek with a single source pointing to a database entry that only contains minor stats and coordinates. Does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You've done it again, started a GA review and then disappeared for an entire month. This has become a pattern of yours, and every time it happens we have to waste time identifying it and then finding someone else to take over your neglected reviews. Please do not start a review you do not intend to finish in a timely manner. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Highway FAs
Hello, I see you have a good bit of experience with getting highway articles to GA status. That being said, do you have much experience with FAs? I ask because I am trying to get Interstate 40 in Tennessee to FA status, yet the nominations have struggle to attract reviewers. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bneu2013 the main way to get reviews at FAC is either 1) pick a topic likely to interest FAC regulars or 2) review other FACs and hope that their nominators return the favor. (t · c) buidhe03:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Lake (Fulton County, New York) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Knob (New York) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balls Island until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article. Search hits are about the settlement.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". This hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Does not cite any sources. Shows no notability. 1-sentence stub. Article topic is a tributary of another river whose article is also a 2-sentence stub.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Rock Creek (Republican River tributary) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
