Talk:Fort Stevens (Oregon)

Disambiguation

I think this should be a disambiguation, there's also a Fort Stevens in Washington, DC, where a Civil War battle was fought. I don't know how to do that though. Awiseman 04:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. --dm ^(talk) 20:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There really needs to be more information on Fort Stevens. I dont know much about it, but Im really interested in it. Im doing a report on Fort Stevens, and I always come to Wikipedia for help, but it needs more info! Help please and thank you! - Colton

Needs more cowbell

I worked at Ft. Steven for 4 summers. I'll see if I can find anything to add 198.6.46.11 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, going to need to break it into timeframes. Civil War, WW1, WW2, the sink into disrepair, fire at Mishler, reconstruction by the state parks and current situation including the annual civil war reenactment (Labor Day Weekend) 198.6.46.11 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Linkfarm}}

Yes, it is a little excessive on the External links. Granted. The design, hope and desire is that they can be converted into references through continued and widened editing, especially through the visibility that the {{Expand}} tag hopefully garners. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dream on. Honestly that almost never happens, unless you plan to do it yourself. When I want to stash links, I usually put them on the talkpage, or comment them out if I plan to get back to them myself (also unlikely, so I just keep them on one of my subpages now). I just noticed some of those links are a little spammy, like Great Schools instead of the actual school webpage if they have one (though what the school has to do with the fort, I'm not sure), and the Stateparks.com instead of the actual link to the official park page, etc. I see you have your reasons, but linkfarms tend to breed more links and will soon overwhelm the article. I'd suggest some judicious weeding at least. I'm sure you've seen the guidelines about what are considered good external links. Katr67 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll dream tonight. I do plan on working a bunch out myself, but have planned on it for awhile with the links on a userpage. I figured (hoped?) that if I moved them over 1. I might be more motivated to incorporate them and 2. maybe someone else might take note of one or two. Also, yes I did go all-out looking for links awhile back and will weed through as I work. Feel free to weed some yourself if you want as well; I totally am not trying to take ownership of the article or anything! (Just the opposite; I want and hope others will help this article out!) VigilancePrime (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fort Stevens (Oregon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309021822/http://www.cdsg.org/HDCRdata/stevensx.htm to http://www.cdsg.org/HDCRdata/stevensx.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Out of range?

During the bombardment, no fire was returned because the attacking submarine was judged to be out of range 14,700 yards? Although the submarine's range was not much better at 17,000 yards. Does this indicate that the more modern 6 inch guns were added after this? Presumably they'd have had enough range to engage. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)