Talk:Salmon River (Connecticut)

Comments
I am writing to appeal the accusations of breaking the Self-Published Sources policy, specifically the middle paragraph in bold, regarding the articles with Connecticut Explorer’s Guide listed as a reference. Even though Connecticut Explorer’s Guide is a commercial website, it is free and a comprehensive outdoor recreation resource. About half of it’s content are links to difficult-to-find recreation maps. The other half of the content are original map data created using GPS and interfaced with National Geographic TOPO! map software (an extended user’s agreement with the National Geographic Society). These TOPO! maps were scanned versions of the USGS topographic maps and should be considered valid as a cited source. Even though the overlayed map data created using a GPS is a Self-Published Source, the remainder of the maps are unarguabley accurate. Even though the GPS data may have small errors resulting from technical limitations, the data should be considered as reliable and as accurate as reasonabley possible. These map pages have been linked from Wikipedia content as references by the author of both Connecticut Explorer’s Guide and the Wikipedia content. The geographic descriptions of the subject area is mostly derived from the USGS-sourced TOPO! maps used on the pages of Connecticut Explorer’s Guide. The Wikipedia content descriptions of the overlayed map data are mere mentions of existing recreational opportunities of that geographic area and not reliant on a 100% accurate map. Connecticut Explorer’s Guide has been used as a reference in good faith in order to increase Wikipedia’s content about these Connecticut locations. Additionally, Connecticut Explorer’s Guide has been indexed as a Digital Geodata resource on UCONN’s Magic Library website. This should help to validate Connecticut Explorer’s Guide as a valid resource.

Self-published sources (online and paper) Policy shortcut:WP:V#SELFWP:SPS Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[4] Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czimborbryan (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Salmon River as "largest stream and watershed entirely in Connecticut"
I reviewed the citation for this claim and discovered the CTDEEP does, in fact, state on their official website that: "[The Salmon River] is probably the largest stream and watershed whose sources and mouth are entirely within the limits of the State." However, I must take issue with this claim. The Naugatuck River in Western Connecticut is 40 miles long with a 311 square mile watershed that begins in the southern half of Norfolk and extends all the way to Derby, at which point the river empties into the Housatonic. So, to recap: Unless I'm missing something here, it would seem that CTDEEP is gravely mistaken with their claim that the Salmon River is the largest stream and watershed whose source and mouth are entirely within the limits of Connecticut.
 * the northernmost reaches of the Naugatuck River watershed are within Connecticut (in Norfolk)
 * the mouth of the Naugatuck is within Connecticut (in Derby)
 * the river cumulatively drains 311 square miles (twice as large an area as the 150 square mile watershed of the Salmon River)

I will leave the claim for the time being to give other interested parties a chance to possibly point out any errors in my logic here. If nobody seems to have any objection after some time, though, I'll go ahead and remove that information from the article on the grounds that it appears to be erroneous. —Jgcoleman (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding disambiguation of Pine Brook

 * I noticed that you've changed the tributary 'Pine Brook' to read as 'Pine Brook (Connecticut)' for the purpose of disambiguation. This seems to me to be a peculiar instance in which to do so, since this particular Pine Brook does not possess its own article here on Wikipedia and thus has no relevance to the Wikipedia disambiguation page for 'Pine Brook'.  Given that, I'm not really seeing how this effort towards disambiguation is relevent, especially in an article which already leads by noting that "the Salmon River...watershed [is] entirely within the limits of Connecticut".  If there was a dedicated Wikipedia page for Connecticut's Pine Brook, I could see the importance of disambiguation.  If there was a reasonable possibility that Connecticut's Pine Brook might be mistaken for another Pine Brook here on Wikipedia, I could see that as an important reason for disambiguation.  As it stands now, neither of those cases can be made convincingly.  Unless you believe that I am mistaken and/or can cite Wikipedia conventions that explicitly advise a disambiguation in an instance such as this one, I intend to undo the edit soon on the grounds that it serves no particular purpose and simply looks awkward in the context of a half-dozen other tributaries that aren't similarly followed by "(Connecticut)". —Jgcoleman (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The nature of the Geobox template causes that link to look like that. I can instead use "nowiki" markup so that there is no link to the Pine Brook disambiguation page, and the "(Connecticut)" is removed. Reverting the change restores a link to the disambiguation page, which is not a valid link target. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 06:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that "Pine Brook" could just be left as inert text; no link to a disambiguation page or otherwise. Just as I can write -"Pine Brook"- here in the talk page and it isn't a live link.  Maybe I'm mistaken?  Anyhow, if the "nowiki" markup would work as you've explained, then that would be a good solution.  I don't intend to nit-pick, but the "(Connecticut)" suffix on Pine Brook just ends up looking strange in this context.  If I was visiting this page with no prior knowledge of Salmon River, I would see "Pine Brook (Connecticut)" listed as tributary and wonder that was all about when none of the other tributaries are so-labelled. —Jgcoleman (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Geobox template links any tributary that has a page. Because of the disambiguation page, the link will show up. I have added the "nowiki" tags so that there is no link. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't know that geoboxes functioned in that fashion... you've taught me something new! The new markup looks perfect. —Jgcoleman (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)