Talk:South Fork Eel River
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The Eel River is just one river!
[edit]There is no such thing as "South Fork Eel River." Richardson Grove IS on the Eel River on its south fork. Clearly this is the work of an editor who has no idea or personal experience of the Eel River. 05:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about Richardson Grove, but the South Fork Eel River certainly exists: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: South Fork Eel River Pfly (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you say "on the Eel River on its south fork" then you have "no idea or personal experience" with rivers, because a "fork" of a river is a tributary and is therefore not the mainstem. In this case, this river is over 100 miles long and deserves an article in its own right. Shannon1talk contribs 15:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- If we decided to just include mainstem rivers and not their tributaries we wouldn't have articles for rivers like Missouri River, Arkansas River, Snake River, etc. There is a limit to the extent to which you can cover info about the South Fork Eel River on the Eel River article.Shannon1talk contribs 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are, of course, many rivers whose forks are small and not very notable. Sometimes it is better, or at least easier, to describe tributaries on the main river's page. But if a tributary is important enough in its own right, or editors write enough text about it, it might as well have its own page. The South Fork Eel River seems like a large and important river, so it makes sense to make a page about it. Another obvious example I thought of last night is the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River. On the other hand, the Middle Fork Hoquiam River is short and not very notable, so it made sense to me to include its description on the Hoquiam River page. Whether or not to make separate pages seems best decided on a case by case basis, depending on a number of factors, including whether any editors care to write about a given stream! There are even some cases where totally separate rivers might best be described in a single article. I've been thinking about making a page for the North, Middle, and South Nemah Rivers in Washington. Technically the three are separate, but their mouths are so close and their names are the same, and none are long or of much note. A single page for all three seems appropriate in this case. Anyway, just some thoughts. 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... If you were to make a page for all three, what would you title it? (I have trouble deciding on a uniform name for two or more things...) Shannon1talk contribs 22:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, well that is one of the reasons I haven't made it yet. Perhaps it could be Nemah River, with the three pages North Nemah River etc being redirects. Seems non-ideal though. Maybe it would just be better to make three very similar pages--there seems to be so little to say about any of the three, so making three pages seems...silly? redundant? I don't know.. I haven't given it much thought yet. You can see how close they come to joining in this Google Maps view (terrain mode anyway). And Willapa Bay right there is very estuary-like with huge sand bars and such. It seems like they ought to be considered three branches of one river, joining at the very mouth. But I guess that's not for me to decide. What do you think? In any case, there seems to be very little to say about the rivers, so making the page(s) is kinda a backburner thing--part of my slow plan to at least make stubs for all Washington streams named "River", even those that barely seem worthy of the term. Pfly (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I'd never have known that the rivers are actually separate rivers; they seem to just all flow into the bay. I'd thought that they flow into a mainstem called the Nemah River... I don't really think you can just assign the name "Nemah River" to all three... yet as you said, they each aren't notable enough for an article. Maybe you could make an article for the estuary, and include the three rivers in that? Shannon1talk contribs 03:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, well that is one of the reasons I haven't made it yet. Perhaps it could be Nemah River, with the three pages North Nemah River etc being redirects. Seems non-ideal though. Maybe it would just be better to make three very similar pages--there seems to be so little to say about any of the three, so making three pages seems...silly? redundant? I don't know.. I haven't given it much thought yet. You can see how close they come to joining in this Google Maps view (terrain mode anyway). And Willapa Bay right there is very estuary-like with huge sand bars and such. It seems like they ought to be considered three branches of one river, joining at the very mouth. But I guess that's not for me to decide. What do you think? In any case, there seems to be very little to say about the rivers, so making the page(s) is kinda a backburner thing--part of my slow plan to at least make stubs for all Washington streams named "River", even those that barely seem worthy of the term. Pfly (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... If you were to make a page for all three, what would you title it? (I have trouble deciding on a uniform name for two or more things...) Shannon1talk contribs 22:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are, of course, many rivers whose forks are small and not very notable. Sometimes it is better, or at least easier, to describe tributaries on the main river's page. But if a tributary is important enough in its own right, or editors write enough text about it, it might as well have its own page. The South Fork Eel River seems like a large and important river, so it makes sense to make a page about it. Another obvious example I thought of last night is the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River. On the other hand, the Middle Fork Hoquiam River is short and not very notable, so it made sense to me to include its description on the Hoquiam River page. Whether or not to make separate pages seems best decided on a case by case basis, depending on a number of factors, including whether any editors care to write about a given stream! There are even some cases where totally separate rivers might best be described in a single article. I've been thinking about making a page for the North, Middle, and South Nemah Rivers in Washington. Technically the three are separate, but their mouths are so close and their names are the same, and none are long or of much note. A single page for all three seems appropriate in this case. Anyway, just some thoughts. 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- If we decided to just include mainstem rivers and not their tributaries we wouldn't have articles for rivers like Missouri River, Arkansas River, Snake River, etc. There is a limit to the extent to which you can cover info about the South Fork Eel River on the Eel River article.Shannon1talk contribs 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you say "on the Eel River on its south fork" then you have "no idea or personal experience" with rivers, because a "fork" of a river is a tributary and is therefore not the mainstem. In this case, this river is over 100 miles long and deserves an article in its own right. Shannon1talk contribs 15:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Franciscan Formation
[edit]I find myself wanting to dispute the Geology section. The Franciscan Assemblage is not a product of the San Andreas Fault. It certainly plays a large factor in the current configuration, but the Franciscan is a product of the subduction of the Farallon Plate, and following Juan de Fuca Gorda Plate remnants. This subduction terminates with the Mendocino Triple Junction, which also terminates the San Andreas Fault. Terrain accreted first, triple junction can't be subducted, transform fault forms to relieve shear stress. That fault just happens to bisect the Franciscan. Rvassar (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)