Jump to content

Talk:Redwood National and State Parks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRedwood National and State Parks is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 17, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 21, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 27, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
March 16, 2024Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Sandbox needed

[edit]

I'm concerned about all of the substantive changes and continuous updates being made to this WP featured article. Making substantive changes directly to an article can lead to WP demotions and this can all be avoided by giving other contributors the opportunity for prior review. In some other WP featured articles I've working on, particularly in Scouting, contributors first create a sandbox for making significant changes and then add a pointer to the sandbox in the article's discussion page. Once the substantive changes have been reviewed and agreed upon, the article is updated. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the presence of a lot of detail in an article about a conservationist in the 1920's when this portion of the article is clearly a brief summary of major points leading up to the creation of a National park created in and after the 1960's. I have been watching and working on major errors in this article for a long time. As a person who is from the area with roots back to the arrival of the Europeans to the North Coast, I am quite able to see errors that others do not notice. After being featured the first time, there were errors beginning with the introduction that were glaring, but overlooked for months and years. Every so often I read this article after a break and find more of these issues, which I attend to. I understand that you have an interest, but it is the first I have seen in a long time. I would like to work in consensus with people in North Coast articles, but for the most part people do not stay around long enough to participate in the process. I am interested in seeing where this goes. Norcalal 04:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Your expertise in and contributions to this subject matter is much appreciated. Unlike you, I have never been to any of these parks so my knowledge of this topic is more limited. But since none of us contributing to this article was there in the early 1900's when these parks were first organized, we all must rely on historical records to support our contributions. Unfortunately, it is also true that even published documents can disagree on facts, and while some ommissions or contradictions can be revealed and overturned, other facts are not so clear. As a researcher I have encountered this problem on many occassions. Sometimes the best we can hope to achieve is a consensus of opinion and WP can be a useful forum for generating such a consensus. A Sandbox can be helpful for facilitating collaboration without subjecting the casual WP readers of this article to the mechanics of this collaborative process, and this is an especially important consideration when the subject under review is already a WP featured article. I have created a new Sandbox at the following location:
User:Ctatkinson/Redwood_National_and_State_Parks
While the History section of this article is under review, please limit your changes to this section the Sandbox article, but continue to comment on both the main article and the sandbox article here. Once conscensus is achieved, I will update the History section of the featured article and delete the Sandbox. Thanks. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my response in the section below....--MONGO 07:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective on the compact between the park systems

[edit]

To get perspective of the historic compact between the National and State Park Systems, one may want to remain able to see them as 4 distinct entities, which over time are being managed more and more in partnership. For many, many years the parks were united in that their property lines touched, but the underdevelopment of the National Park areas at first left them as large punctuation to the much more mature CA State Parks. My thesis work on this historic compact was of great interest to me as a person who lived in the area. There was barely any signage until the 1980's and that was slow. As many may realize, there is little development outside the State Parks to this day. As a result it seems to be odd how many people want to consider the history of these initially very different entities as though they were always together. I am very interested in seeing that the early history reflect the parks as separate as they were until approximately 20-30 years ago. Also, I am delighted to work with others on this article. As I said there were several errors in the article even after it was a Featured Article (the first time) that I had to address. Norcalal 05:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys...too much detail about a few conservationists is without merit..this article is about the park, not about those that founded or fought to create it. As mentioned above, expansion regarding Burnham and others is not necessary. I was asked to update this article by adding proper citiations and a few to those issues that don't have citiations and to correct a few other changes. We don't need a sandbox to do thses minor things that will help retain it as a featured article. As the primary author behind bringing this article to FA level, all I ask is that people have some patience and let me do the standardization updates as were requested from I do on my usertalk page [1]. My time is limited, so I can only work on this in short spurts. Furthermore, if we can't reference things, then we cannot add them. I will delete any monologue material I see, such as the unnecessary mention about the early conservationists that goes beyond what is needed to follow summary style.--MONGO 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree. I also think we could better spend our time updating some of the issues that are in arrears. Park business related to management and budget needs updating. Surely these matters can take precedence of another editor's zealous desire to place one conservationist prominently within the article. However, if that person would want to begin writing a main subarticle, I can see no reason to not include it there. But again, this is about the RNSP and primarily the National Park side of it, which comes primarily after the 1960s. Norcalal 09:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I should have the citations revamped and other issues done in a couple of days. More can be added, but I still am of the belief that the trees and the park itself are the priorities, though the struggle to create the park against a strong logging lobby is something that probably deserves more information, maybe even for someone interested in it, a subarticle.--MONGO 15:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Tree

[edit]

This dab links here, but I found no mention in the article. It is conceivable that a single has this name, perhaps even gazetted, or mentioned like this one, but I also see how it may have been removed by accident. I left the link up. cygnis insignis 10:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Tree is located just of the Drury Parkway in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, which is part of RNSP. Norcalal 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In Films: potential fact error

[edit]

At present, the "In Films" states that Redwood National Park was where Star Wars Return of the Jedi was filmed. I've read that elsewhere, and likewise Jedediah Smith redwoods. Knowing how touchy the parks service is about the groves, I thought that may be inaccurate. A reliable source said the movie was not filmed in those parks. I located more information, and my notes are are at: Redwood Information Page: Scroll for Star Wars notes

A north CA coast paper called the Triplicate ran a story some time ago with correct facts. From the Triplicate, and my source (who works in the redwood forests), is where I acquired the info. It was not state or national park land where the movie was made. Its possible a commercial was filmed in the parks, but not the movie.

Hopefully we can find and agree upon a reference source that substantiates the Triplicate artical. Mdvaden (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RNSP is only a designation for 3 State of CA Parks and one National Park

[edit]

"Redwood National and State Parks" is a VERY specific name for only REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK and the three state parks (Prarie Creek, Del Norte Coast, and Jedediah Smith) that are located adjacent to (actually touching) Redwood National Park. Any CATEGORY that goes beyond these 4 parks will be in error and confuse readers. No other parks are included in the historic management compact that exists in between only the three listed state parks and Redwood National Park. Disagree? See Redwood National and State Parks Visitor Guide: National or State Park? section AND [2] or Call Redwood National Park Headquarters in Crescent City, CA... Norcalal (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography error!

[edit]

In the Recreation section it is stated that the park is 340 mi north of San Fransisco. 340 Mi north of San Fransisco is in Oregon; the park is supposed to be in California. I measured it and the real distance is about 240 mi. The person who stated the length of 340 Mi has also not left a citation for their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agaly (talk • contribs) 05:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this driving along the major roads or as the crow flies? If it is major highways, it is 313 miles from San Francisco to Orick where the southern RNP visitor center is located. It is 333 miles from Portland to Crescent City where the northern RNP visitor center is located. I used Google Maps for the distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.140.218 (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Hyperion (Tallest Tree)

Change 124 E to be 124 W —72.11.140.229 (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed, good catch, thanks. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

burl poaching

[edit]

The park has a significant problem with poachers, who vandalize and destroy trees to steal burls for decorative wood carvings. The park had to close one park road for night time access due to this issue: http://www.nps.gov/redw/parknews/newton-drury-parkway-will-be-closed-at-night-due-to-increased-wood-poaching.htm - is that an issue for the article? --h-stt !? 17:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this in the news too...but I loathe news sources for articles such as this. It is worth including though. This article needs a major update now anyway.--MONGO 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the release by the park as source, if you don't want to base the edit on some local news website. Or you send an e-mail to Jeff at the park and ask him for any more reliable publication, maybe from law enforcement. He's very approachable and provided me with the picture --> within a few hours. --h-stt !? 10:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Redwood National and State Parks. 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:

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) 16:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

URFA/2020

[edit]

This one's in decent shape, but needs a little bit of tune-up. There's smatterings of uncited text throughout, and the detailed information is from 2008, and needs a check to make sure it's still in date. For instance, the camping rights details quite possibly could have changed since 2008, etc. This shouldn't be too hard to fix, if someone has the time (I don't really). Also gonna place a note and WP:CALIFORNIA. This one's an important article; hopefully it doesn't fall by the wayside. Hog Farm Bacon 17:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review needed

[edit]

The issues noted above have not been addressed, and several marginal sources have been introduced since the last notice. This article needs a featured article review to be restored to current standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:I have been very much sidetracked but intend to start cleaning up this article in the near term.--MONGO (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plans are to update this article in 2022.--MONGO (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Update commenced but submit to FAR so everyone there can pick it over like vultures and fail it no matter how much effort is put into it.--MONGO (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singular and plural

[edit]

The state of California calls its parks ...Redwoods.. plural. That applies to the three plus Humboldt. The NPS calls its park singular ...Redwood.... California calls its parks ...Park.... and the NPS calls the whole shebang ...Parks.... Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Save the redwoods! Fire management!

[edit]

Can I find an alternate source for the fire management stuff, you think, @Firefangledfeathers? Or should we try to find that specific page? Are we certain that statement about the Douglas firs is even accurate? Andre🚐 23:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of a full rewrite of that section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now posted! A question for SusanLesch, did you come across anything directly linking the USFS policy change with the parks? It's interesting and important info, and it makes sense that the park authorities were following federal lead, but I couldn't easily find a source linking it all together. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My source discussed only national policy since 1905, a turnaround in 1970 or so, and did not discuss these parks. I like your new section name. Added one {{cn}} because I'm not sure that stopping large fires was really the Tolowa's main reason for starting fires. (P. 158 would have it food (acorns) and pest control.) I miss the progression of intensity that Jenner gives us (ground, surface, crown). And I maybe made a mistake citing Dr. Norman's recommendation. (Was that Brown and Baxter?) -SusanLesch (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that stopping large fires was their main reason. How about "The Tolowa and other tribes in the area used small fires to improve hunting grounds and protected the tanoak acorn food supply from pests. These surface fires reduced the likelihood of larger fires."
I left out ground fires since they didn't seem to come up later, but I wouldn't fight reintroducing them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that Tolowa wording is better. One new {{cn}}: If you are sure the Tolowa set "surface" fires, never mind, Wikipedia's article on wildfire is better than Jenner. .
I gave two tightly worded and cited paragraphs on "fire management," and called you because you had another source and were confident you could cite uncited material. You've changed the topic to "fire," so Dr. Norman's recommendation is moot (even so, I expect it informed the NPS) and sort of covered here by the word "traditional". You're doing fine. Good luck. P.S. Yes, Andrevan, Douglas fir would take over. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Jenner says "low-lying fire". Do you think "surface fire" is too far a reach? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Maybe we could either find a new source or word it to skirt the distinction. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, sorry I cannot find on Jenner page 159 that these trees need surface and crown fires. Surface, I imagine yes. Crown I imagine would burn them down. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I was making an assumption about what kind of fire can "clear out some of the heavy canopy", but lower fires could of course fell trees and thin the canopy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced the new version reflects the best sources available. For one, Burns & Honkala's "Silvics of North America" says In its northern range, in and around Redwood National Park, CA, fire has a moderate ecological role in redwood stands. Your new version scares me and appears to go overboard on fire. Sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's tone it down! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, we lucked in at the Internet Archive for some specific or rare books. Humboldt State appears to have donated one of them. No worries and thank you for your version and the new section name. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, maybe you can help. I'll be away for a day or two. We probably don't need to show all of the proclamation and legislation (in 1793, 1850, 2018, and 2022). When I get back I'll try to add 2018: SB1260 acknowledged indigenous experience, and authorized prescribed burns. Vox has some links to add (for example, the Karuk Endowment for Eco-Cultural Revitalization, which I hope can replace Ron Goode because his parts lean a bit too much into the Sierra redwood for our purpose—although he is a published reliable source). I have several papers specifically on RNSP and cultural burns remaining to read. Should mention I have encountered one dissenting voice to the thrust of what we have now. (Also Emanuel Fritz 1932 whose pamphlet read like a lumberman's.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Today ProPublica has a story about a lawsuit for a USFS prescribed burn in New Mexico. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SusanLesch, I'll do what I can! I have some visitors in town. What am I looking for at the Chaparral page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The chaparral guy has problems with prescribed fires, he disputes Native American burning, and is suing Cal Fire.
The developing thrust here is whites tried to control Native Americans, and made fires illegal (since 1793). Then the government came around in the 1970s and as of about 1993 planned burning is California policy. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's too much disconnect between that site and the parks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help. What is "that site"? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I meant californiachaparral.org. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yes, he's out there. Is there anything else you'd like this article to cover? I am pretty much done with the fire section. Can you improve it? The details on fire frequency went into a footnote. Tomorrow I am going to start at the top of the article and work down, and try to catch every little typo I can find, even in the refs. Hope you find the time to do the same. Then I guess we ask for a review by a FAR coordinator. Thank you, Firefangledfeathers. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a full review too! Maybe next weekend we can ask for reviewers? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens, Firefangledfeathers. Beautiful job! Yes, you could go ahead and ask. Sorry IRL took me by surprise. Thank you for your careful reading! -SusanLesch (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, I found one paragraph that either fails verification or needs citing in Fauna while trying to combine those refs. Is that something you can fix? The rest of that section looks fine. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IRL is getting to me too right now. Will probably have time in the next 24h. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you. I found another poorly sourced section and am working on it (formerly Geology). -SusanLesch (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about animals that mainly reside above ground, even if we did find a source, feels a bit trivial. Would you object to removal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, just please acknowledge small mammals somehow. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You are welcome to turn this in if you think we're ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if MONGO might have input at this point? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change

[edit]

If anyone has time or interest, yesterday Associated Press has a story about "assisted migration" for climate change; they mention a non-profit PropagationNation. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence, maybe two, can be added to the climate change paragraph. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native American habitation

[edit]

SusanLesch, I'm worried we're implying that each of the thirty groups has inhabited the area for millennia. Could we reword or move up the later bit about inhabitation of Jedediah for 8.5k years? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. We could separate the two thoughts. Start with millennia. Then quote Stannard and Jenner. Trask says, "untold number of Native tribes that occupied this area for over 20,000 years" however we state that the Tolowa arrived around 1300, so maybe:
Modern day Native American nations such as the Yurok, Tolowa, Karuk, Chilula, and Wiyot have historical ties to the region, which has had [various] indigenous occupants for millennia. Describing "a diversity in an area that size that has probably has never been equaled anywhere else in the world", historian David Stannard accounts for more than thirty native nations that lived in northwestern California. Scholar Gail L. Jenner estimates that "at least fifteen" tribal groups inhabited the coastline.
Any wording you'd like here is fine by me. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Norman writes:
Archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests that like most Native peoples of the northern redwood forest, the Tolowa arrived relatively recently, around A.D.1300 (Frederickson 1984).
Frederickson writes:
Tolowa-Tututni did not arrive in California until after the Algic populations were more or less in place, that is, later than circa A.D. 1200 and possibly as late as A.D. 1300.
Norman's source is Frederickson, D.A., 1984. The north coast region. In M.J. Moratto, California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. pp.471-527. Moratto is widely cited in Wikipedia (and hundreds of times elsewhere).
Jenner writes:
Historically, the Tolowa (Taa-laa-wa Dee-ni) were located along the Smith River and today's Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park, whose "occupational history" most likely spans 8,500 years.
She doesn't exactly say that the Tolowa lived there for 8,500 years, does she? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. She's referring to the area, not the people. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenner's bibliography is impenetrable to me, no pages, no footnotes, just a list. Do you have any idea where she got that quote "occupational history"? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a clue. It is a disappointingly opaque bibliography. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I got lucky with Google. Probably it's from here, which is cited in Jenner's bibliography. Page ix. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this proposed wording a lot. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for finding that source. I don't think there's really much significance about "8,500" years. It seems to just be a record of how much work they've done so far. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History jump

[edit]

I added one paragraph to European American history. Does anyone think the jump from 1543 to 1775 is too abrupt? According to Bearss, the people who came between those dates seem to have maybe looked at the coast as they sailed by. Corrections welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't bother me! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK that one is solved. Now I hope you will see if you can improve the new section! Robert Hemsted of the Cher-Ae Heights Tribe said, "You're only as sovereign as you act." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fixes. Do you think this IMSA might more accurately be said to be near the parks? Little River (Mendocino County) seems to be outside, not in. This also affects the 1775 claim of the first European visitors at Tsurai. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"near" is better in a conservative sense. I'm not sure if it's more accurate. Tsurai is definitely just 'near', and that's probably worth saying on first mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I finally found a PDF map that I can search sort of. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done except I'd like to mention indigenous reliance on salmon. The Klamath dam removal is a big deal but upstream and outside the parks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That salmon bit was a great addition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question. What are you talking about here? Edit summary is Lewis supports acorns being a primary food supply, but I couldn't find in scanning through any support for use of fire to manage that supply (linked version is not searchable and has no index); add a citation to support fire management of tanoak (full source coming soon) and add tribes mentioned in source. The linked version is searchable and supports the use of fire to enhance acorn harvest on several pages. Search for "acorns" and read the snippets. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what happened! Maybe I was searching for "tanoak", which Lewis breaks apart? No idea. Added a page range with fire use content. If you know of other, better parts to cite, feel free to tweak. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak made. The Halpern et al. paper is excellent, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Hog Farm would like to see clearcutting mentioned sooner. It's a bit abrupt in the section on Europeans. The article is correct now, that clearcutting happened for the most part after World War II. I have looked and don't find anything to defend the statement that miners became loggers after the gold rush (that's been in here uncited since 2006).

I am searching for sources. The first lumber was shipped from Humboldt Bay in 1855[1] Early loggers could take a week to saw down a coast redwood.[2] Still looking for a source for mechanization which sped up logging and would be a natural transition.

References

  1. ^ Dolezal, Robert J. (1974). Exploring Redwood National Park. Interface California Corporation. p. 67. ISBN 0-911518-28-2. OCLC 1280850483 – via Internet Archive.
  2. ^ Rohde, Jerry (2017). Redwoods sawed and saved: What happened to the redwoods of Humboldt County? (Technical report). US Department of Agriculture. Retrieved February 5, 2024.

-SusanLesch (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 51% sure that Jenner covers that miner/logger bit, but I won't be able to confirm until later. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenner pp 80–81 surveys mechanization. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem then is After many decades of unrestricted clear-cut logging, serious efforts toward conservation began. In the 1920s, the work of the Save the Redwoods League, founded to preserve remaining old-growth redwoods, resulted in the establishment of Prairie Creek, Del Norte Coast, and Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Parks among others. which implies that mechanized clearcutting had been occurring for decades before 1920. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, the lead. Back later. First draft text (from Jenner) that might fit in front of what FFF added today: Two handled saws were men's primary tools for felling the coast redwoods until after WWII.p77 Teams of oxen transported logs until 1881 when the steam donkey was invented—and the need to fell intervening trees spawned clearcutting pp80-81 and Caterpillar tractors began work in the late 1920s p81 (at least this will explain the chronology). -SusanLesch (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the problem solved? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this is better. Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

[edit]

Hi, דולב חולב. What source did you use for the climate info added in these edits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[3]
Although It is clear to see from the climate chart. דולב חולב (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of that source supports "Csb warm summer mediterranean" or that such a description is "surprising"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t make fun of me. It’s not respectful. I’ve meant it’s surprising because it has a very wet climate overall, but still has a dry summer which fits the mediterranean climate designation. If you knew something about climate classifications, you would knew it’s obvious that the chart showing a graph of a warm summer mediterranean climate. דולב חולב (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making fun of you, and I did not mean to disrespect you. I don't know anything about climate classifications. Are the criteria for Csb warm summer mediterranean listed somewhere for review? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Should be Here it basically like the hot summer Mediterranean (featuring at least one dry summer month with precipitation below 30mm) just with warm and not hot summer (averages below 22°C) דולב חולב (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that but it's uncited. Is there something official? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://skybrary.aero/articles/warm-summer-mediterranean-climate-csb-0 דולב חולב (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: any thoughts on the climate categorization? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FFF. I am working the presidential primary and cannot research anything until after March 7. דולב חולב, I do think calling climate "surprising" is not a neutral statement per WP:POV. Over and out. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that. It’s just a matter of wording. דולב חולב (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers The climate classification provided by @דולב חולב is indeed correct per the Köppen classification. This can be sourced to either Beck et. al. or the rules of Köppen, considering the climate chart. The wording would need to be changed, but a full revert may not be necessary. Uness232 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had reworded earlier and neglected to mention it here. Source looks good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great guys. Happy to contribute דולב חולב (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Division of labor

[edit]

Firefangledfeathers, I put numbers 1,2,3,5 in my sandbox. I wonder if you would have time to work on the last batch of FAR comments 4,6,7. Thanks. Back soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, thank you kindly. Here's hoping you will have at the new lead. I'm away for Super Tuesday. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, SusanLesch! Mind if I update the FARC folks? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still have to do number 5. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, please see if you can do your magic on the new section for Coast redwoods. Packing up election today. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it went well. New section looks good to me. I did some copy-editing, re-arranging, light trimming. The biggest change was probably dropping the "easily found on the internet" Hyperion bit. Hope that's okay with you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, can you have a look at the sentence near the end of Coast redwoods? 96/45 percent. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SusanLesch, I suppose it could be a bit clearer. Is that what you're thinking? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like this maybe? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine. I have looked at it too long! I wondered about 45 percent yesterday, and found an excellent source saying they mean in the world. Now I can't find a source to say 96 percent in the world (vs in California). Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident it's referring to global totals, which are confined to California and a tiny sliver of Oregon anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thank you again. Now I am back to Climate in my sandbox. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We got some climate help from Timothy2b. Table is updated to 2020 (the most recent normals data). -SusanLesch (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I'm feeling ready to post a "keep" comment at FARC, but I want to make sure you're ready too, SusanLesch. I'm hopeful we'll get more reviewers and have some poking to do, but other than that, anything else on your docket? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I have no more to do on this one. Proud of our work here. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Very grateful you showed up! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FFF, you are the best editor I ever worked with. (And that's coming from an unstoppable WikiProject Minnesota 10 years ago.) KUTGW. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's so kind! It has been a pleasure working with you too! Jealous of your strong WikiProject experience. They're a vanishing breed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Amphitheaters

[edit]
  • Redwood Amphitheater, Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park, Redwood National Park, California
  • Prairie Creek Amphitheater, Prairie Creek Redwood State Park, California
  • Redwood Forest Theater, Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Reserve, California
  • Redwood Amphitheater, Armstrong Woods State Park, Guerneville, California
  • Redwood Amphitheater, Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park, Redwood National Park, California
  • Sinsheimer-Stanley Festival Glen, Amphitheater, UC Santa Cruz
  • Quarry Amphitheater, UC Santa Cruz
  • Redwood Grove Amphitheatre, or, Stephen J. Mather Redwood Grove and Amphitheatre, or, Townsend Amphitheater, at University of California Botanical Garden
  • The Kreitzburg Amphitheater, or the Redwood Amphitheater, or, Mount Tamalpais Amphitheater, where the Mountain Play is usually held.
  • Redwood Amphitheater, Great America, Santa Clara, California
  • Amphitheater of the Redwoods, Pema Osel Ling Retreat Center, Watsonville, California
  • Redwood Amphitheater, River Valley Church, Grants Pass, OR
  • Redwood Amphitheater, 1440 Multiversity, Scotts Valley
  • Redwood Amphitheater, Marin Art and Garden Center, Ross, California
  • Amphitheater, Old Mill Park, Mill Valley, California
  • Loma Prieta Redwood Amphitheatre, 23845 Summit Road, Los Gatos, California
  • Coventry Grove, 300-seat redwood grove amphitheater, 500 Coventry Road, Kensington, California
  • Fire Circle, Alliance Redwoods, 6250 Bohemian Highway, Occidental, California
  • Redwood Amphitheatre, Amphitheater, Ben Lomond Redwoods, 11737 Alba Rd, Ben Lomond, California
  • Amphitheater, Redwood Glen Christian Camp and Conference Center, Loma Mar, San Mateo County, California
  • Redwood Amphitheater, Koinonia Conference Grounds, Corralitos, California
  • Redwood Amphitheater, Sequoia Retreat Center, Soquel, Santa Cruz County, California
  • Amphitheater, Henry Miller Memorial Library, Big Sur, California
  • Amphitheater, Kennolyn Stone Creek Village, Soquel, Santa Cruz Mountains, California
  • related: National Park Amphitheaters

2601:646:201:57F0:3F2F:7DDB:7B94:977A (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Redwood_National_and_State_Parks&oldid=1241347105"