Talk:Nesika Beach, Oregon

Is Nesika Beach a "Beach"?

Should Nesika Beach be categorized as a beach? According to one quote, it does not qualify as a beach because GNIS does not list it as a beach. I am not certain what on this page disqualifies Nesika Beach from belonging into a category of a beach. I suspect there is confusion about the populated unincorporated area called Nesika Beach and the portion of the shoreline called Nesika Beach. According to another website, there is a beach area called Nesika Beach. Based on the map on this website, this article does belong under the category of beaches of Oregon. Perhaps the article needs to be clarified that there are two separate entities: The unincorporated area and the shoreline? Lhammer610 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As currently titled, the article properly refers to a community. If it were a physical beach, the correct title would be a either Nesika Beach, or Nesika Beach (Oregon), Nesika Beach (Curry County, Oregon), etc. as needed to be unambiguous. There are only two GNIS entries containing Nesika in Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Nesika Beach and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Nesika County Park. I tried looking at USGS topographic maps near the community, but terraserver isn't working at the moment. —EncMstr (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"According to one quote"? Do you mean my edit summary? Yes, I've been maintaining Category:Beaches of Oregon, and I've made a distinction between features termed beaches per GNIS (here's a link to the search page for folks who don't know what we're talking about: http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/index.html) and communities with "beach" in their names. Because of marketing/promotion, there are several coastal communities in Oregon with "beach" in their name that aren't named after an actual beach. Although GNIS does have mistakes in it, I stand firm that GNIS is a reliable source, and thus only communities named after beaches that don't have a separate article about the beach, such as Cannon Beach, Oregon, belong in the beaches category. An example of the sort of marketing I'm talking about is the community of Rockaway Beach, Oregon, which was called simply Rockaway for years. Per GNIS there is no beach named "Rockaway Beach", just the community and a couple associated parks and a post office. I wouldn't consider goldbeachoregon.com a reliable source. I checked TopoQuest (now available if you click through the coords in the article) and I see Bailey Beach south of Otter Point, and Wakeman Beach just south of the community of Neskia Beach, but the beach west of the community doesn't seem to have a name. Katr67 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ToppQuest is definitely a great site. But you are correct, there is not a name for that beach there. I have the US Forest Service map in front of me and many of the beaches on this portion of the coast do not have a name listed. But I can attest, a beach does exist north of the community of Nesika Beach to the point labeled Devils Backbone (Wikipedia ban on originally research is acknowledged). The state has a "Ophir Safety Rest Area" in the middle of that beach, but it does not seem to be named after the beach. I understand the concern about marketing/promotion, but I doubt this tiny unincorporated area is guilty of that transgression. The reliable source call is tough. We have accepted Chamber of Commerce sites as reliable on the Oregon Coast article, and the goldbeachoregon site is similar. Based on EncMstr's comments, would it be appropriate to start a article Nesika Beach (Oregon) and identify it based on its physical location between the community and Devils Backbone? Lhammer610 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be misleading (and yes original research) to make an article on a beach named "Nesika Beach", unless better references can be found. I'm pretty sure I checked Oregon Geographic Names and nothing named "Nesika" is in there.

As far as CoC sites go, I haven't looked at how they are cited in the Oregon Coast article, but since they are quasi-governmental, despite being rather blatantly commercial, on Wikipedia they tend to be treated as reliable sources more than other blatantly commercial .com websites. Personally, because of the commercial bent, I try to find additional sources to back up cites to CoCs. As a further suggestion, it's a lot harder than citing goldbeachoregon.com, but not impossible, to suggest to the Oregon Geographic Names Board that the unnamed beach be named Nesika Beach! Check out Talk:Lake Creek, Oregon for how a Wikikpedian got USGS to change the name of something. See also Coburg Hills. BTW, I don't necessarily consider marketing/promotion, except on Wikipedia, a "transgression", it's a just a fact about the naming of communities. Would you rather visit Gouge Eye or Drewsey? Skinner's Mudhole or Eugene? Katr67 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the government recognized name for that beach is Ophir Beach (http://geonames.usgs.gov/) which is interesting because I know of no one in the area that refers to it by that name. So we can go about starting an article on Ophir Beach (Oregon) if we choose to do so.

My comment about original research was not meant to be taken literally. Driving along US Route 101 and looking west hardly constitutes research.

As to reliability of sites, accepting a Chamber of Commerce claim that "world's smallest navigable harbor at Depoe Bay." as reliable while rejecting the Gold Beach site as unreliable does not seem to be consistent. The Chamber of Commerce is not a "quasi-governmental" organization. It is non-profit, (http://www.uschamber.com/about/faqs/) but that is for tax purposes only and does not make it a more reliable source. The site exists to promote the commercial activities of its members, and its goal is not that different from the commercial Gold Beach website, making both similarly suspect. Either they should both be accepted or both rejected in terms of reliability. Lhammer610 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Great, thanks for figuring that out! The article would be at Ophir Beach, as there isn't anything else so-named in the U.S., so no need for the qualifier "(Oregon)". U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ophir Beach. Sorry if you thought I was taking you literally about original research, you did acknowledge that you understood the concept, and I was acknowleding that acknowledgement.

As far as I understand, and I believe EncMstr has argued this elsewhere, some CoC sites are quasi-governmental. They often work closely with the economic development office of the regional government. In fact, some cities don't have their own websites, and the next best thing we can find is the regional chamber of commerce website. I don't know about the CoC websites used as references in the articles you've seen. But in my three years working with Oregon-related articles, WikiProject Oregon members have reached a general consensus that CoCs are reliable sources. They tend to be under more scrutiny than some random person's commercial website, though again, since their primary aim is promotional, I feel that other sources should be used when available. If you think CoC websites should not be used, then feel free to bring that up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon or on the individual talk pages of the articles in which they are used as refs. I don't think something like goldbeachoregon.com should ever be considered a reliable source, especially since they are apparently wrong about the name of the beach. That's not just my personal opinion--see WP:EL and WP:RS for what I've based my opinion on. Just because one type of site shouldn't be used for citations doesn't necessarily mean that both should be accepted or both should be rejected. A similar argument is often made about articles--see: WP:OTHERSTUFF. In any case, I'm curious why you are so invested in considering goldbeachoregon.com a reliable source. I'm sort of baffled why this seems to have risen to the tone of an argument. Maybe we need to discuss the relative reliability of CoC links with the larger community of Oregon editors.

Getting back to this article, we have a reliable source, GNIS, that has one name for the community--Nesika Beach--and another name for the beach on which the community is situated--Ophir Beach. Unless we can come up with some conflicting alternate reliable sources, that settles the matter for me--Nesika Beach, Oregon should not be included in Category:Beaches of Oregon. Should we solicit some other opinions? Let me know and I can drop a note on the project talk page, or maybe at the Village Pump. Katr67 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Unindent. These postings do get too narrow with time! "I'm curious why you are so invested in considering goldbeachoregon.com a reliable source." I don't consider that site a reliable source. At best, it is an indication that the "locals" have a different name for the beach and it might be useful for that purpose. My point was that relying on CoC to justify the claim of "world's smallest navigable harbor at Depoe Bay." is equally suspect. I would feel better if we had some other source to support that claim.

Based on the GNIS, I agree it would be OK to go ahead with a Ophir Beach article and Nesika Beach does not belong in Category:Beaches of Oregon. I suspect there are people who refer to Ophir Beach as Nesika Beach. What is the Wikipedia mechanism for someone who does a "Go" under search, to direct that search to the proposed Ophir Beach page? Lhammer610 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While a chamber of commerce isn't without bias, it's way better than the statements of any particular business. Statements by a CofC are typically agreed upon by all the commercial enterprises in a community, and that is almost certainly more balanced than any subset of them. You're free to write Ophir Beach, but I don't see much useful information published about it. —EncMstr (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Statements by a CofC are typically agreed upon by all the commercial enterprises in a community". I belong to a CoC and there are several marketing comments that have been made by this chamber that have not been voted on nor agreed to by the members. Continued, "that is almost certainly more balanced than any subset of them". I agree. The CoC site has more to lose by being inaccurate than any single member. I would be more likely to accept quantitative information from a CoC site than an individual site. But the Depoe Bay site claim of being the "world's smallest navigable harbor at Depoe Bay" smacks of marketing and not a verifiable claim on a non-quantitative subject (see: Navigability). I wish we could transfer this portion of the discussion to the Oregon Coast page since it belongs there. I will stop now and promise to no longer belabor this point. Thank you for your patience. Lhammer610 (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Lhammer:

{{sofixit}} Katr67 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

I removed the addition of "Oregon Coast" from the see also section again, as I linked it in the text instead. As much as possible, we try to work "see also" items into the text and not repeat them in a see also section, esepecially in an article as short as this. You can see the explanation of my initial reversion in the page history. Let me know if you need me to find the relevant manual of style guideline. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct. I missed it (understandable since it is such a long involved article) - dry sense of humor intended here. Lhammer610 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuss

I'M NOT SURE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT OR WHO REALLY CARES? "YES" - THE BEACH FROM THE OPHIR REST AREA SOUTH TO THE POINT AT HUBBARD MOUND IS "NESIKA BEACH" AND HAS BEEN CALLED THAT BY THE LOCALS FOR LONGER THAN I HAVE LIVED HERE - 1965. SO WEATHER IT IS ON A LIST, OR ON AN OFFICIAL MAP...OR NOT! IT IS WHAT IT IS! (Nesika101 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC))