Talk:Nestucca River

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Upgrade

Put on some pretty good detailed and referenced info that should upgrade this article from Stub status. --Bendavis97140 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm curious whether any of the waterfalls merit their own articles, however? Katr67 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Hey Bendavis, I just skimmed all the stuff you added, and I see there's a bit of a fishing guide feel to it, and some use of 2nd person voice, so that will need to be cleaned up, since Wikipedia is not a how-to or tourism guide. The new material also needs to have some wikilinks added. Let me know if you need help with the cleanup. Thanks! Katr67 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what the correct format for this type of article should be. Since the subject of the article (the river) is primarily notable for it's fishing and waterfall viewing, I've included those as more detailed entried into the page. I'm not sure how to make the fishing section more encyclopedic without including information about the actual fish that are only in the river during certain portions of the year. I've removed most references to "best time to fish", or "pu in your boat here",etc that are 'fishing-guidish', but I'm having a hard time fiding numerous reputable sources of information that are non-biased since the function of the river is almost primarily a fishing destination.

I've left out any reference to local businesses per the "wiki is not a travel guide", but the varying fish and falls are the eiffel tower of this area.

I could use some unbiased eyes to help me sort out this one, or even to determine if it merits it's own page.

I was just looking for info on the river, found much elsewhere, and found the wiki-page to be rather bare, and wanted to wikify it for the generations of the future. --Bendavis97140 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, are the waterfall entries appropriate. Since they are sights to be seen, and not businesses, do they merit desrciptions and driving directions (especially since navigation to them otherwise might be impossible?) I'm not finding much in the way of clarification from wikipedia style guides since they aren't the norm. --Bendavis97140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendavis97140 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "primary function" of the river is to move water to the ocean, not provide fishing. :-) The fishing information has a place in an article like this: I'd like to know how many fish run, what time of year they are best observed (or caught if you must), what the historic minimum and maximum runs were like. Maybe an external link to an in-depth article describing fishing in the river. Do kayaks or canoes run the river? What about rafting? Ski-doos? How far up river is it navigable in a power boat?

As for the waterfalls, the location and description is good enough. Anyone seeking them out will solve logistics themselves now that the coordinates are wikified—which links to a huge library of maps. The main issue might be notability: one would not want to list every bit of rapids unless it were worthy of reading about for some reason. —EncMstr 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfalls

The waterfalls section is a copypaste from the Waterfalls of the Pacific Northwest site. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've moved the waterfalls info here: Talk:Nestucca River/Waterfalls pending discussion. Katr67 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shannon1 is right. In addition, none of these waterfalls is on the Nestucca; they are all on tributaries. Generally, tributaries are not described in detail in mainstem articles, although many are notable enough for separate articles; e.g., Columbia River, Willamette River. I think the Nestucca waterfall material should be deleted from the encyclopedia on grounds of extreme plagiarism (direct copying). If the waterfalls are important, they should be re-researched and, starting from scratch, written about in a separate article or articles.

Furthermore, much of the remaining text in the "Fishing" section appears to be copy-and-pasted from the given sources. For example, the first paragraph of the existing article section begins, "Only the headwaters are in public ownership - being managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management - with most of the primary fishing areas located on private lands. The river offers a variety of boat fishing opportunities - from easy to difficult - and has two boat ramps and about eight bank slides." The source says, "Only the headwaters are in public ownership - being managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management - with most of the primary fishing areas located on private lands. The river offers a variety of boat fishing opportunities - from easy to difficult - and has 2 boat ramps and about 8 bank slides." Although slight variation occurs in the next passages between the source text and the encyclopedia text, this still amounts to gross plagiarism and has to go.

I'll work up something much shorter, three or four sentences that give basic information without becoming a fishing guide. I think this could be part of a "Recreation" section that could include kayaking, camping, and parks, if any. "Recreation" sections are a fairly normal part of stream articles. Finetooth (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the legwork Finetooth. Shall I request the waterfalls subpage simply be deleted? EncMstr, do you have any input? Wanna save your coords? Back in the day, when Bendavis added all that stuff, I assumed more good faith than I would now. Katr67 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plunged ahead today and re-wrote the "Fishing" section as a "Recreation" section with some kayaking stuff as well as fishing info and a brief nod to camping. My research was certainly not exhaustive, so there might be other worthy material about parks, for example. After I added the new stuff, I removed the "tone" tag. I'll try to write a more complete course description later this week and look for an RS for the stream length. Sheehan says the river is 55 miles long, but I'd like to look for corroborating sources before I change the 50 to anything else. And, yes, if you could file a request for deletion of the subpage, that would be great. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete the subpage whenever you are ready. It looks like it would be a fine nucleus of a Nestucca River watershed, or even a watershed subsection of this article. Has anyone checked to see if it was plagiarism too? —EncMstr (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait, wait, why write a separate article Nestucca River watershed when the current page is already so short? I'm currently having the same problem with Bull Run River (Oregon). I'm going to try and find out who invented the idea of splitting watershed info onto a separate page; In fact, I added "watershed" section guidelines to WP:RIVER. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 03:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, hey, hey, I think Enc was just making a suggestion for the future. We're all here trying to improve the encyclopedia, so let's try to work together, rather than disparaging what may or may not be a good idea but was suggested in good faith. And FYI the Bull Run watershed article came first, and Bull Run River was a redirect to it, which I thought was kind of backwards so I started the stub on the river. If any of us is to "blame" for this sad state of affairs, let's figure out how to get on the same page about it. Personally I'd look to Finetooth for guidance as he's helped get several river articles to GA and FA status. Thanks for your attention to the river articles--it's always good to have more eyes on things. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This article might accommodate the waterfalls in a "Watershed" subsection, but the text would have to be completely re-done. The parts that I checked have been copied verbatim from the Northwest Waterfall Survey. Finetooth (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's deleted. If I see a place to put them, I'll check and add the coordinate information for the waterfalls. —EncMstr (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias for the deletion. Also, Shannon1, not to worry about a separate watershed article for the Nestucca. The usual thing is to include a watershed section in the river article. Bull Run is a special case because of its watershed's unusual importance. As far as I know, there's no trend to make separate watershed articles for rivers. Finetooth (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]