Talk:Priestly's Hydraulic Ram

Coordinates
, the description "6 miles south of Hagerman at Thousand Springs" looks like it could be in Thousand Springs State Park. But the coords in the infobox are about 30 miles west of Hagerman, nowhere near the Snake River. This may be difficult to figure out the correct coords. MB 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes i agree, i noticed the far distance, that the coords must be wrong. This one seems really interesting, actually.  I wonder if it is gone though. :{ --Doncram (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * MB, thanks for bringing my attention back here, and for your pointing out coords must be wrong, and for your edit. As you have seen i did find a source about the bad news, so I guess i was right to judge it was probably gone based on non-availability of info, given this would be a high-interest type thing to be highlighted at Thousand Springs.  I gather you are okay with the article being developed by long quotes.  I think that here, where the resource no longer exists, and there seems to be no other sourcing describing it available (unless that encyclopedia article can be found), and the unusual, technical nature of the resource, that long quoting is most appropriate.  I am sure a lot would be lost if I or anyone tried to put it into our own words, because it is so technical and strange.  I don't completely understand it myself.  By the way, i did add mention of it at the hydraulic ram article, which otherwise was asserting a hydraulic ram has to have moving parts, to which this is a counter-example.
 * It remains to change the coordinates in this article to some point in Thousand Springs, and to note at wp:NRIS info issues ID that the coordinates from NRIS2013a (42.74444°N, -114.25694°W) are clearly far wrong. I dunno how to change them and properly present that.  We have to indicate an approximate location, and convey it is approximate, but any coordinates point to an exactly specific point.  It would be better to point to a general area, somehow.  Do you think a coordinates point should be given?  Or have any idea how to present?  I would be happy if you made any such attempt.  thanks, --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , we need to have a coord to show the map, which I think is a good thing. I picked a point close to the river (which we known is right) and near a dam (which may or may not be right) and added a note to say it is intended to show the vicinity. Are you ok with this? I think it's the best we can do at the moment. MB 00:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, that looks good, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the coords a bit, moving them closer to Thousand Springs. Did you update wp:NRIS info issues ID?


 * I found a few more sources and added what I could to the article. I found that there is a writeup in the 1976 (around the time of the NRHP nom) issue of Idaho Historical Society journal but can't find the issue online. That would be the best source. I also found this that says there is a 1901 USGS photo, but I couldn't find that in USGS image library either. MB 03:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , forgot to ping you about the above. MB 03:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes, thanks. I did start a note at wp:NRIS info issues ID and I will revisit it now.  Thank you for finding and adding more.  And, great, about your developing a DYK nomination, apparently (i see notice below).  Thank you for including me!   I have just been documenting the loss of yet another NRHP-listed place, the really neat-looking Weeks-Kimbrough House in Talbot County, Georgia, which was photographed in 1979.  Per User:TheCatalyst31's helpful reply at wt:NRHP discussion section about photos, the NRHP photos for the Priestly Hydraulic Ram, and for this other place, should be in the public domain and therefore uploadable (the Ram's ones even more clearly; the W-K House ones also because it is certain that there was no copyright filing done about its photos). --Doncram (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

development, continuing

 * Wow, you really developed the article. And apparently understood how the thing worked, to be able to put it into your own words.  No way could i have done that. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

User:MB, hey, i see you removed from the lede the assertion that water was lifted 110 feet. However "110 feet" now appears nowhere. At some point, I saw you had added "According to an alternate account, Priestly built the ram in 1894 and was successful raising water 75 feet (23 m) ..." as, indeed, an alternate account, but now it is the only assertion of height, i think. Probably the 110 feet assertion needs to be added back somewhere? --Doncram (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

see also type link(s)
Hey, i added, in a "See also" section, a wikilink to another article for another unusual device for lifting water for use in irrigation in the American West, which also survived long after its time and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. User:Wtshymanski reverted with edit summary stated as a question about relevance. Well, they seem quite similar in many ways to me. I think a reader interested in one would likely be interested in the other. I suppose both could possibly be items in a navigation template grouping with more others like them, but I don't happen to know of more others right at the mome a "See also" link is quick and fine IMO. What's ur beef? Seems pretty harsh to revert my addition, like one might for vandalism. --Doncram (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles are about their subjects. A hydraulic ram is a very specific kind of water pump, with no operating principles in common with a water wheel. This is not Wikitravel with a list of interesting landmarks in Colorado. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The See also section is for related articles. The water wheel also moves water uphill for irrigation using only the energy of the falling water itself. I would call that related. Furthermore, two different editors have reverted your removal - you do not have consensus for this change. If you want to get other opinions, go ahead but until then it should stay in the article. MOS:ALSO cautions against too many links. Since this is the only one, it is not excessive. MB 20:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)