User talk:Pfly/Archive 1

Trail of Tears
You make a good point about the Trail of Tears article. I'll make a compromise. I’ll remove the Tribal names from the sentence until I can provide a good resource and replace them near the end of the paragraph after Five Civilized Tribes. I’m new to Wikipedia, and I’m just learning the trade. Some advice would be appreciated.

Thanks --Lojah

Erie (tribe)
hi Pfly,

could you site your reference to the Westo theory on the Erie (tribe) page? I'm interested in research about the topic.

Thanks! --Erielhonan 06:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the compliment on Larrys Creek. Since you feel this way, would you mind sharing your opinion at its FAC page: Featured article candidates/Larrys Creek? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your support of Larrys Creek's FAC and your kind words. Take care, Ruhrfisch 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Boone National Forest
I now have the article watchlisted. I added the protected areas infobox to it along with a link to the forest servcie webpage on that forest...it's a good webpage, so if you care to reference from it, it has some excellent links.--MONGO 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your copyedit and citation fix on P. G. T. Beauregard. I'm still just now learning how to do citations/footnotes/etc properly. Pfly 17:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. If you have any questions about Wikipedia editing in the American Civil War space, pop me an e-mail. I maintain a page that has editing recommendations for Civil War articles, if you are interested: User:Hlj/CWediting. Hal Jespersen 18:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice job
... on State Plane Coordinate System. I can't believe we didn't have it yet. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a really good article straight out of the box with no additional edits! I wish I'd seen it 3 years ago when I was trying to figure out what "State Plane Coordinates" were. --A. B. 12:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Appalachia -- POV and recent edits
Hi. You discussed the Appalachia article's POV issues back in September with Allen. I finally got around to making substantial changes to the article to fix what I thought was very POV material. I'm always a bit wary of making big wholesale edits unilaterally, however the issue of neutrality had been around for many weeks. Please feel free to look at what I did and the comments I left on the talk page, making changes or additions as you think fit. Thanks, --A. B. 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Catskills map
Thanks! But what I would really like to see would be a map like that one, but showing just the Catskills or somehow highlighting them within the Allegheny Plateau. As it is the reader has to look around a bit and match letters to spots on the map if they aren't already familiar with the region. It should be obvious, like the state maps highlighting individual counties. Daniel Case 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Upland-South-map.jpg
I submitted it for deletion at commons due to potential OR and imprecision. - crz crztalk 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you in luck. As how should one map regions that inherently do not have precisely defined boundaries, check out today's featured article, Macedonia (terminology).  The definition of Macedonia is a major source of confusion because of the overlapping use of the term to describe geographical, political and historical areas, languages and peoples. -- Jreferee 14:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota
Thanks for your additions to Minnesota, however could you move them to History of Minnesota? The Minnesota article is intended to be an overview. Thanks! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the move and the babyname suggestion -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maps
Hi, I saw that you had made a map for the Upland South and was wondering if you could show me how to do this as well. Thank you.

Sunlight07 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Sunlight07

Priest Rapids
Thanks for clarifying the location and removing the WikiProject Oregon tag. —EncMstr 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kudos on minor Oregon edit.
Very slick word crafting. Tip of the hat, and all that. -- &quot;J-M&quot; (Jgilhousen) 23:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the river maps (plus a quibble)
Hi Pfly, thank you for the impressive maps of rivers you've been adding! I think they are immensely helpful to the project. I do have a concern about the map of the Great Miami River watershed, which seems not to include the area of the Whitewater River (Indiana), which flows into the Great Miami shortly above the Miami's mouth... this would add a substantially larger area of southeast Indiana to the map. Maybe you'd want to check it? Thanks again, and I hope you'll keep adding maps as possible. --Malepheasant 06:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction --Malepheasant 06:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thanks for the river maps, I'm glad I don't have to do all of them :-) Kmusser 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Flint River map
Pfly: on article for Flint River in Georgia, on the map, the wrong river is highlighted - it should be the one to the east/right. Abby Jordan, Southern Conservation Trust


 * I was vague with the word "highlighted"-- clarified the map caption at Flint River (Georgia), hope that helps. Thanks for pointing it out. Pfly 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Big Bend
reply on my talkpage; I gave it a section heading - "Big Bend - BC vs. WA" so look for that on the pageindex.Skookum1 (Talk) 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Map Request
Noticed the neat ecoregion maps you've been adding, if you get a chance can you make one for Arabian Desert, it's been on our requested maps list for ages and I think that style of map would really complement it. Kmusser 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also Amazon Rainforest could really use one as well. Kmusser 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Glady Fork/Laurel Fork/Cheat River/Mon River
Hi Pfly, thanks for the compliments on the new articles! As for naming, I've moved Laurel Fork to Laurel Fork (Cheat River), and started a disambig page at Laurel Fork -- I almost always pre-disambiguate when writing new articles, but I just wanted to get those articles up while I was thinking about it, and I have a tendency to become badly distracted by hemming-and-hawing over disambiguation challenges. The biggest difficulty for me in this case is that there's no easy way of knowing how many of the dozens of streams called "Laurel Fork" actually merit articles, since in Appalachia every little five-mile trickle coming down off a ridge is called "foo branch" or "foo fork", and there are thousands of them, and most of them would probably be best discussed within the context of the larger streams they flow into, if need be. So I think I might be inclined (but definitely not firmly so) to leave the Glady Fork article where it is for now, and just wait and see if anything else comes along (which I'd be happy to have happen!)

Thank you for your work on the maps of the Monongahela River basin! I think they look really, really good, and I'm especially delighted by the one for the Black Fork, which frankly is something I never thought I'd ever see anybody make for Wikipedia, so I'm overjoyed to see it (and it's also accurate and useful, and well-done overall). I can see that the Glady and Laurel forks wouldn't really fit in there, so just for a future reference, in case you someday feel like making a map that "zooms in" a bit on the Cheat River watershed, you might be interested in this description of the Cheat River headwaters from the (paper) 2006 West Virginia Encyclopedia article on the Cheat River (it's one of the references in both of the above-mentioned articles): "The five forks -- the Blackwater River and the Dry, Laurel, Glady, and Shavers Forks, are arranged like a human hand with its wrist at Parsons, where the main Cheat officially begins." I've heard this turn of phrase before while growing up in WV (about the supposed hand shape), and more generally the conceptualization of the Cheat River as forming from "five forks", so I think it does seem to be a local and regional means of understanding the topography and watershed of the area, which is why I suggested that they might all be included. But again, that's just an idea for a future map, and I say full speed ahead on the ones you've started. Thanks again! --Malepheasant 05:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Williamsville, New York
The reason that I changed it originally was that I couldn't see how a water mill could be set high up, given the way that it works... Is there a picture of it anywhere? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info &mdash I get it now. Sounds spectacular. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 10:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediterranean climate
These matters have been a bone of contention at Talk:Mediterranean climate and Talk:Victoria, British Columbia, where some people are insisting that Victoria, B.C. and/or S.E. Vancouver Island have Mediterranean microclimates, "sub-mediterranean", "semi-mediterranean" climates (etc). Until I came across the relevant Wikipedia articles, I would have assumed the northern part of the Pacific Northweat to have a kind of Oceanic climate or a kind of Temperate climate. From the perspective of my residence in an undisputed Mediterranean climate (Perth, Western Australia) I haven't seen anything yet to change my mind. I would say "modified Mediterranean", sub-mediterranean", "semi-mediterranean" (etc) are not Mediterranean climates per se. They are also not Köppen climate classifications.

But I think direct quotes saying such things are fine, as long as it is spelled out that the these are informal terms and that the area concerned does not meet the technical definition of a Mediterranean climate. Grant | Talk 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Coosa River Flora and Fauna Bio-Diversity Highlights
Pfly, I just about finished the work on the proposed new table. What do you think? I've been trying to work on a consolidated Georgia/Alabama set of facts for the details sections, but its a slug! Also, I intend to include some discussion of the Longleaf Pine forests bordering the river in the Plants section. I see you are from the Seattle area. Lived in Tacoma twice in the early 1970s and late 1970s and did a bit of work in the Ballard area in the spring of 1980.--Mike Cline 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Democracy and ethical values
I appreciate your comments on my recent query on the Humanities Reference Desk regarding the "sanctity of life" as a consideration for conscripts facing compulsory military service and particularly combat duty, in a society that ostensibly promotes humanitarian values. Israel is regularly touted as a democracy (typically as "the sole democratic state in the Middle East") though it lacks a constitution, has a system of parliamentary government whose coalition-forming process often grants disproportionate influence to small political parties, etc. While I wouldn't dismiss the benefits of democracy presently enjoyed by its inhabitants, it certainly raises dilemmas in practice. (These have been widely noted elsewhere, and I'm not suggesting a discussion of them in Wikipedia.) I've added a few more remarks in response to Clio the Muse's reply just above yours, if you'd like to follow the discussion there, particularly as I suppose the query is about to be Archived. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 04:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Appalachian English
" I get the message and will leave this page alone." -- Please don't. You are an excellent editor and we can use your help on this article. Please don't let one person's uncivil, bizarre comment scare you off. Besides, you're quite right about the Scotch-Irish influence. --A. B. (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Song Dynasty Article
Awesome! Thank you for your edits to the introduction of the Chinese Song Dynasty article. I could really use your skills in editing the rest of the article, as your rewording in the introduction made everything sound so much better!--PericlesofAthens 14:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seattle
Hi, I just read your reply to “Virtue theory” on the reference desk, and, upon checking your user page; I see that you live near Seattle. Hey, me too. Nice to meet another Seattleite! (Sorry this message is so pointless; I just thought that was really random and cool.) S.dedalus 02:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry
Please forgive me if my comments were over the edge, on the black belt page. I got a little upset when I felt as though user 70/Gator had disregaurded my entire argument just to emphasize the Kentucky's black population was only 8% of the population. Now the article is much better, and I agree with the things he has edited in.74.128.200.135 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegheny National Forest
Hi Pfly, I cleaned up the external links in Allegheny National Forest but you might want to check the chnges made before mine here. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 12:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Skookumchuck in East Kootenay
I'm breaking my "absence" from Wiki (see my userpage) to respond quickly to your query about this; the Skookumchuck referred to there is the rapids in the Columbia River; the creek was named after the rapids, i.e. it was the creek where the rapids - the skookumchuck - are. Name goes back to David Thompson's time and is one of the first known instances of CJ usage in the upper Columbia....Skookum1 23:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Lillooet" is correct, though in history it's been Liloet, Lilloet, Lilooett, Littlewhite and was originally (in st'at'imcets) "Lil'wat" (wild onion) which is the name for Mt Currie; Lil'wat-ul is "people/nation of the wild onion". I'm so used to seeing BC-style native names that they're not alien at all, unless rendered into "modern"/p.c. spellings or in IPA; Nanaimo and Coquitlam and Lillooet and Squamish I grew up with as part of the normal landscape/nomenclature.  As for why there's a Skookumchuck River in Washington, see Skookumchuck, and if there's no article on that river feel free to add one and mention it on that page; there's an Alaskan one, just a saltwater rapid (i.e. if you say "the Skookumchuck" it means that particular rapids, although it can still be a generic term for a rapid, especially a saltwater one at the mouth of a fjord/inlet, though in Alaska it's largely obsolete; still in use on the BC coast with that meaning among fishermen and local residents; "the Skookumchuck" in BC is usually taken to be the Sechelt Rapids as you probably know, as Skookumchuck Narrows Provincial Park]]; but it's only the largest and most powerful of at least a hunred other similar phenomena between there and Prince Rupert/the Tongass; you've seen List of Chinook Jargon placenames, right; if you do the river article, dab whatever link for it may already be there if it's not already linked.  There, that's it, gotta sign off; don't tell the BC Wikipedians I dropped in but I was probably the only one who could answer that among the group, and most of them know why I'm gone....Anyway, later, except that re the Columbia there's things like Duncan Lake and the rivers up that end of Kootenay Lake that need writeups; and the article on IJC water and fisheries cross-border/joint management body needs PacNW content, both Columbia and maritime, as it currently was written by people "East of the Rockies" though I did add a bit on the Columbia and salmon fishery issues, though maybe I only put that on the talkpgage.  G'nite.Skookum1 06:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Skookumchuck River page already existed, so I linked. It is an extreme stub though. Perhaps I'll try to add to it. In the southern Puget Sound region the word "Skookumchuck" means, by default, that river. I had forgotten about Skookumchuck Narrows Prov Park until you mentioned it -- the name "Sechelt" is more familiar. Just goes to show that nearby things loom larger. I guess there is a Chehalis River in BC too. Funny how different rivers are spelled the same but single rivers change spellings at the border. Night. Pfly 06:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

More rivers
Thanks for the compliments. If you want a hydrologic muddle try figgering out how all the Finger Lakes are connected :-) I don't know what I was thinking. I should have a map for them soon though. Kmusser 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arkansas River cite
Hey, thanks for that source. I almost didn't put that tag in there because I didn't want to be seen as a jerk, but I was actually curious when I saw that the pronounciation was actually in law somewhere. Thanks :-) ----Steve 19:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dam good!
Great work on the Snake River Dams articles. I am attempting to find photos for them as you create the articles. In your opinion (and it doesn't have to be humble) should the reservoirs created by these dams have separate articles if the lake has no specific name other than (dam-name) Reservoir? Thanks again for the good work. --Robbie Giles 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River
Hi Pfly, thanks for your contributions to North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River. I just added some content and noticed that all the references referred to it as North Fork of the Middle Fork Willamette River or (yikes) North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Willamette River. Where did you see that it was officially named the new article name? —EncMstr 07:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I see it's on the talk page.  —EncMstr 07:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Upload photo of Mount Baring?
Hi, Pfly. I'm guessing that you are also Pfly on Flickr? Would you mind if I uploaded Your photo of Mount Baring to Commons? We don't have a photo of that peak at all. Thanks! hike395 05:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your permission! The Flickr upload bot is broken right now, so I cannot upload it with the correct provenance. If you have a chance, could you upload it? Otherwise, I will get to it when the bot is fixed. Thanks a lot! hike395 16:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for squeezing in the time for uploading and editing the article! The Flickr upload bot is at . There is a whole process to make sure that images uploaded from Flickr have their license captured and verified. But, if you upload your own image, Commons believes you when you choose your license. Strange, huh? Thanks again! hike395 12:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Henry Woodward (colonist)
Hi Pfly. You are off to such a great start on the article Henry Woodward (colonist) that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudos!
Hey, good job on the expansion of so many of the Rivers of Washington that are on my watchlist, and I always mean to get around to expanding. Cheers! Murderbike 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, feel free to work on Sequim Bay, I've kind of got a lot on my plate right now, that'll prevent me from getting to it for awhile. I think I have some pics of the bay, if you get it done, let me know so i can throw one in there. Murderbike 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Twin Sisters Mountain
Mount Baker Wilderness was on my watchlist, so I saw your link to the new article. Great job on that article -- nice to see a new mountain article that is better than a stub.

(Are the Twin Sisters the two bumps to the left of Baker as seen from Seattle?)

hike395 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * re: geology --- the geology of the North Cascades is really complex, see []. I don't think that people even agree on the terminology! One of these days, I'll attempt to write a WP article about this. hike395 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

category work
well, thank you very much

Mowich River
Hi Pfly. You are off to such a great start on the article Mowich River that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 21:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Caribbean: India and the Caribbean
FYI (and I apologize for not making a link; I am seldom successful at them as there is too much accuracy required in the copy-typing, somthing at which I lack any skill whatsoever), The Indo-Caribbean -that link was easy- article defines the grouping to apply only to peoples from India, or who have their roots there, and but who live in the Caribbean. I also thought, prior to reading the article, that the reference would have to be to North American or Carib "Indians". Bielle 23:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

D.W. Meining's Map
Hello Pfly I was wondering if you can post the D.W. Meining cultural map of the U.S.? You posted it a while back on the Southern U.S. article's talk page through a web site, sometimes however the website will not go through, and sometimes it will. If you can't repost it can you tell me where I can find the same map I'd really appreciate the Help, BTW Great job on the Upland South Article.

Louisvillian 04:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for info. Louisvillian 05:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good edit on Appalachia
Thanks for the good edit on the Muscogean source of the Apalachee Indians; I was trying to maintain too much of the existing language of that section. Dwalls 15:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pfly Sorry about accidentally deleting your question on Wiki Ref - science. As SteveBaker suggested, it was an editing mistake on my part. Noticed that amongst your largely American interests, you happen to be interested in echidnas, which are sort of around these parts. I'm a platypus man myself. Fabulous animals that would make any creationist go pale. And surprisingly playful too.

Your being gassed in California during Reagan's time, reminds me that I was a draft resister here in Australia during Nixon's time, and twice arrested then. Thanks for your input into my little questions. Myles325a 03:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry, accidental deletion of your q on Wiki Ref
Pfly - Sorry I accidentally deleted your question on Wiki Reference – Science. As SteveBaker suggested, it was an editing mistake on my part, and has been rectified.

Amongst all your American interests, I see you are fond of the echidna, an animal around these parts, sort of. I’m particularly fond of the fabulous platypus, an animal which is bound to make creationists pale. Surprisingly playful too. Oh, and I was twice arrested as a draft resister in Nixon’s time, here in Australia, so I know how it feels. Myles325a 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyre River
Hey, I've been working on this article for a bit, and feel I'm running out of sources for good info. I figured I'd go ahead and publish, but thought maybe you would have some hints for ways to make it better, and types of sources for that info. Right now it's in my secondary sandbox if ya could take a look at it. Cheers! Murderbike 02:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, I'd like to throw in a map, but I don't really know how to make them. I've got a portion of the Olympic National Park map that shows its course, and figured I could just alter that, but it might be kinda ugly. Advice? Murderbike 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind on the map. I found a weird gov't source that I could manipulate. Murderbike 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, enjoy the coast! Murderbike 04:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That all looks good. I don't know the difference in the coordinates, so can't really give an opinion on that. I definitely didn't know how to add citations to the geobox, so that's cool. I'll figure out where I got those numbers. I'm actually kind of confused about the length number, as it totally conflicts with the 5 mile number I've seen other places. Oh, and the elevation for the source, I just took from the elevation of the lake. Though I think there might be conflicting numbers on that. Maybe I'll just use yours since it's sourced already;) Anyway, thanks for taking a look at it. I think I'm just gonna try to elaborate on the history section a tiny bit, and publish it. Cheers! Murderbike 07:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, if you don't mind, I'm gonna go ahead and move your geobox into my sandbox. Thanks a ton for the input! Murderbike 18:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So, maybe you have some insight to this. The document here says: "The Lyre River has a total length of 16.8 miles, with a basin covering 66.1 square miles. The Lyre is the only watershed in the region that is fed by a natural lake, Lake Crescent, resulting in a unique flow, temperature and water chemistry regime. Lake Crescent, located at RM 5.2, is a large, deep lake of 4,700 acres with a depth of 640 feet." So, if the river has a total length of 16.8 miles, how can Lake Crescent, it's source, be located at River Mile 5.2? Murderbike 19:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, curious if you know any good non-online sources for Washington river stuff that might be helpful in expanding this article. Cheers! Murderbike 02:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sacramento River and Pit River

 * Can you point me to the USGS source? I've searched for it but failed to find a list like this. I'm curious why the Sacramento River and its main tributary the Pit River aren't listed. Unless I'm mistaken their combined length would be 382 + 110 = 492 miles, all in California. Anyway, just curious to see the source (and I'm assuming "World Facts and Figures" is a book.. perhaps I'll look for it next time I'm at the library). Thanks! Pfly 21:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice catch on the "longest river entirely in one state" bit under discussion under Altamaha River. Virtually every legitimate list of river lengths around the world goes with a route from the mouth to the source of the longest tributary.....Note the Nile - Kagera (starting in Burundi) and the Mississippi-Missouri starting in Montana.  Yes, that World Facts and Figures (John Wiley and Sons) is a hard copy book (check the library) and I got the list from there and they follow the same scheme*  So does National Geographic.  USGS usually does, but also has a list of lengths for just the stem of the river that carries the actual name (MN to the Gulf in the case of the MS R.)
 * A quick check (which I should have done earlier or I shouldn't call myself a geographer!) shows the Pit - Sacramento River to be over 500 miles, as the S. Fork of the Pit starts way east of Tule Lake Res. Let me do a more detailed check a get back to you here.  Thanks again for catching this.  I'll definitely edit the Altamaha entry.
 * (Just in case you're interested, I got onto this when the editor of Chesapeake Life magazine wrote an article and published it saying that Virginia's James River was the longest entirely in one state. The esteemed editor had copied it verbatim out of an old Wikipedia entry that had been corrected (the James is #12 or so!)  She sent me a letter apologizing for the mistake.)DLinth 18:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Old business
I had a family emergency back in April and only just now noticed the comments at User talk:A. B./April 2007. I want to emphasize that the odd, unfriendly comments there were made by an anon (I just now tagged it with an unsigned2 template). When I saw this in the archives, I thought, "Oh my, Pfly must think I went off my meds." I really don't care where you or your kin come from -- just please keep up all your high quality edits and ignore those anonymous comments!

I'm sorry to be so late in catching this. -- A. B. (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RD/S
Excellent answer! —Steve Summit (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JS Bach at Song of Songs
Thank you very much for this. Love Bach, love the Song. Never knew this before. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Washington rivers
Hey, I started working on Salmon River (Washington), and was curious of you know any good books that focus on rivers in Washington that would have some decent info. Online info is pretty slim. Hope you're well! Murderbike (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Akokisa, Arkokisa
Wow! If you are not a specialist, that was impressive. Even if you are a specialist, I am still impressed. I spent half an hour on a fruitless search. I am glad I passed by the Ref Desk on my way back to bed after topping up the wood stove (25 cm of snow and it is still falling, and worse, blowing.) Thanks for that new bit of information. Bielle 05:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what happened to your answer? Did someone not care for it? It seems to have vanished off the Ref Desk. I've re-inserted it. Bielle 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

deliberate colonization patterns, from refdesk
There are the Anglo-Irish settlements in the middle (Virginia [includes Maryland & Pennsylvania]/New Albion or New England [includes New York & New Jersey]), surrounded by the Scottish (Carolina/Nova Scotia), surrounded by the German (Georgia/New Brunswick), surrounded by the French (Louisiana/New France); all of them being surrounded by the Iberian and Scandinavian colonies that had no impact in the foundation of a single United States, but which perhaps had cultural ambience with respect to the Civil War between Slave and Free states. I think the division of toponymy between royal homages in the south and ethnic names in the north, had to do with the types of settlement: the south was primarily the living of (Black) slaves and thus, the monarch's ultimate property...while the north was primarily where (White) free settlers went and thus, named their habitations after their homelands.

More examination on the constitutive nature of the non-Anglo-Irish southern colonies:
 * Louisiana (named for the Bourbon king and inc. Haiti) is as famous for its Octaroon Creoles as its White Acadians; the original royal name for French colonial efforts was Francesca, under the Valois dynasty (they originally settled in between Virginia and Florida).
 * Georgia was named for the Hanoverian king and was a temperance and penal colony that although intitially denied slavery, came to be totally dependent upon it; the German nature in this case, could be the later settlement of Germans in Texas. Otherwise, there aren't many Germans down south.
 * Carolina (which pretty much included Barbados), was founded after the Stuart dynasty moved in and had the first significant population of non-English, including on Barbados itself. King Charles pretty much stood for the essential Scottish invasion of the English government and whatever lack of control they had in dealing with the English, was instead taken to the slaves.  Most of the Whites were Scots speaking Lowlanders, who had "just yesterday", been fighting in French fields against the English, as well as coming over Hadrian's Wall.

Then there is the southern Anglo-Irish group of colonies, in the orbit of the London Company:
 * Virginia (inc. Bermuda) was a holdover from the Tudor era, with the interruption we call the Spanish Armada, over the right of King Philip (the origin of the name for King Philip's War in New England, his name given to the Indian boogieman) to continue the Anglo-Spanish alliance against the French and Scottish Auld Alliance. Maryland was a holdover from the Yorkist-Catholic insurrections in both England and Ireland, since Ulster was a chief stronghold of the Duke of York, later King Edward IV.  It was natural for a Hispanophile Englishman like Calvert to retreat there for safe religious expression, with Irish servants.  It is highly doubtful that Terra Maria was simply named for the present queen, when she was Henriette-Marie, like Jean-Paul or Juan-Carlos.  The underlying reason is for Queen Mary Tudor as well as the Virgin Mary, the official explanation is a cover-up to avoid attacks by the Puritans and a Soviet style purge of Papists.  Pennsylvania's founders were Protestant gentry from the south, rather than north of England unlike the Calverts.  The Penns were Bristolians who held land in County Cork, while the Calverts were Dalesman with land in County Longford.  It is clear that these are Anglo-Irish in true Tudor (and earlier Norman) tradition, rather than the later "Scotch-Irish".

Then there is the northern Anglo-Irish group of colonies, in the orbit of the Plymouth Company:
 * The Dominion of New England's primary attachments were to Hampshire (S. England), Yorkshire (N. England) and the Channel Islands (Normandy), which was hardly different in orientation from Virginia, because both were founded for and by the Kingdom of England, which included Wales and had a puppet state called the Kingdom of Ireland. These colonies were much more diverse than most remember and although initially filled with Protestant English, now has many Catholic Irish (e.g. President JFK).  This is no different than the present situation in the UK.  Non-rhotic pronunciation of English is traditionally endemic to both New England and Virginia.  Inasmuch as New York and New Jersey were once considered extensions of New England (e.g. Upstate Leathernecks and New York Yankees), so too were Maryland and Pennsylvania (Mason-Dixon line notwithstanding, since it was only a real estate boundary at first) more of a Virginia attitude, in its Cavalier proprietary basis and those such politics that Greater New England never really had, as free settlements without explicit headright basis.

Then there is the constitutive nature of the non-Anglo-Irish northern colonies:
 * Nova Scotia was founded by the Earl of Stirling, in much the same nature as the Calvert and Penn properties. Stirling was made to plant Scottish baronets, like the way the Carolina colony had lords proprietor grant headrights...all of which was to butress the Anglo-Irish colonies and buffer the French colonies.  It was later resettled, mostly of Highlanders who kept the "Mac" in their surnames.  E.G. William Lyon MacKenzie, Donald and Kiefer Sutherland, Natalie MacMaster, Sarah McLachlan.  Even if Virginia English were the first in what later became Carolina after the Scots moved in and New England English were the first in what later became Nova Scotia after the Scots moved in likewise, it is fair to say that the constitutional requirements of separate colonies was due to ethnic and dynastic or political differences.  For instance, the Spaniards had missions in the Chesapeake, but Virginia wasn't founded for the Spaniards.
 * That leads to the next point; New Brunswick was so named after the Foreign Protestants moved into Nova Scotia and their German patriotism brought about the name of their homeland. Some of these folks were Hessian and "Pennsylvania Dutch" Loyalists.
 * New France is obviously self-explanatory, but little slavery predominated there as with the rest of the northern colonies, which were suited to the everyday lives of ethnic Europeans, just as they were used to across the pond.

The inner core's basic templates are Anglo-Irish. Who cares about New Sweden or New Netherland, when they were illegal squatters anyways. It's like considering Vinland and Greenland as viable colonies, after Columbus. At least England had a treaty with Spain that allowed them to claim land in the New World, with the marriage of Catherine to Arthur and Henry VIII. It was only with the Franco-Spanish rapproachment (the Navarrese Bourbons took over France, then the Borbons took over Spain) that the Spaniards recognized the French settlements (e.g. Louisiana being traded back and forth), because they had previously wiped out the Valois ones. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it is the usual case that people have stereotypical impressions on this type of history and see little of the intricate complexities behind the times. My intention is to distinguish between the various peoples, rather than simply consider them the hodgepodge they became much later, as the basis of the USA.  They all came with their own reasons, some of which were in common, but most often for selfish ideals that only carried superficial connections with the others.  Yes, the southern colonies were overwhelmingly Black and the northern colonies overwhelmingly White--with the exceptions of a polar minority scattered here and there.  I am mostly interested in this north-south dichotomy that began in the choice of settlement and economic patterns in the Triangular Trade, leading up to the Civil War.  I think that the toponymic practice could have happened halfway by accident, but became a tradition somehow.  Four different homelands & dynasties were laid down in this pattern, with the Mediterranean (Spain had land in Italy and Portugal had land in Africa) and Nordic (inc. Russian) colonies at the polar extremities, but each related to the south and north of the colonies in very natural, European attitudes about order vs freedom and ecumenism vs dissent.  With all this, one must recall that the sailors and captains knew degrees of longitude and latitude.  The Delaware River is parallel with the central area of the Mediterranean Sea (just south of Rome and Constantinople), straight across the Atlantic.  Africa is south and Europe is north, just as the colonization pattern of slave and free.  Plus, the French and German colonies are on the interior, the "Middle America" of reknown, while the Anglo-Irish and Scottish colonies are on the coast and exposed to the Atlantic, just as in Europe.  All of this is evidence to why these cultures have their sort of pecking order in the modern world.  In the Napoleonic era, the British Isles were considered extraperipheral to the Continent (France and Germany, as well as the Iberian and Scandinavian peninsulas under their influence)...this was the basis of British ambiguity between Europe and America and Tony Blair's policy of a Third Way.  The Anglosphere is entirely Atlanticist in its roots.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. well I've read through this a few times. You have a much better and broader understanding of European history, at the very least, than I do. You also know a lot more about Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (I am woefully lacking there). We're perhaps closer when it comes to the middle and southern colonies. I've delved into early Virginia history (got ancestral roots there) and lately been learning a lot about the early history of South Carolina (a rather amazing history that seems sadly overlooked by many people). And I'm a fan of the kind of large scale "grand" models or narratives like you've outlined and have enjoyed reading some examples over time (Meinig's book sometimes veers into the "grand scope"). But I don't think I've ever come across a description of the colonization of America quite like yours, although certain aspects are quite familiar. The notion of the British colonies being surrounded by the French in the early-mid 1700s, for example (illustrated and hyped up so well on the Mitchell Map). But I don't think I'd heard the notion of an Anglo-Irish "core", established relatively early, surrounded by protective "buffer" colonies populated by Scottish and other "foreigners". Not that the establishment of Carolina and Georgia, and perhaps New Hampshire and other areas north of New England (a region I'm less knowledgeable about) were not clearly meant to act as frontier blocks to the French and Spanish -- that much is obvious. But that they were colonized by far fewer Anglo-Irish and many Scots, Germans, and so on -- that is an idea I had not considered before. I wasn't sure how true it was at first, but in thinking about it and looking up stuff, it seems to hold up and make sense. It reminds me of what little I know about events in northwestern Europe during this period. I can't pretend to have more than a cursory grasp of the complexities of that history, but I have the sense that as England shifted from a feudal to a more capitalistic modern system there was a series of major social upheavals with large numbers of people ending up desperate and pushed to the edges of the new English prosperity. Forgive my mangling of the history, I'm probably oversimplifying and mixing up my ethnicities, but my understanding is that a lot of these desperate, unemployed, and dangerous people were encouraged to migrate to the frontiers within the British Isles -- Ulster, the Scottish borderlands, and I don't know where else. In short, if I am not totally mistaken, there developed a relatively stable and well-off English "core" as well as another group, or groups, quite numerous, who were not so well-off, who were relatively poor and oppressed, and who were increasingly used to frontier violence. So in reading your take on history, I could not help but connect the English (Anglo-Irish) core of Britain with your middle colonies, and that other group of "pushed aside" people with a reputation for the ability to carve out footholds in hostile frontier as being the very people encouraged to try their luck in the American frontiers around the old core -- Carolina and Georgia being the most obvious examples for me.

Anyway, I'll have to explore this idea some more. One interesting tangent it reminds me of is the large number of Scottish "Indian traders" operating out of South Carolina. From what I've read the unification of Scotland and England around 1710 or so resulted in many Scots becoming quite enthusiastic about the new "imperial" Britain, and putting personal gain aside in order to work towards the growth of British power. In Carolina this often meant getting into the Indian trade, which essentially became a sub-empire of its own, seriously challenging the French in ways Virginia never came close to even trying. As far as I know these Carolina traders were mainly Scottish. One consequence was that, as Indian traders they often took Indian wives, and since social identity among the Indians was matrilineal (and since traders often left their children with the Indians) there arose a notable number of mixed Indian-Scottish Native Americans in the southeast. And since traders were usually seen as people of high social rank, they often married Indians of similarly high presige, resulting in a growing number of Indian leaders with Scottish ancestry and Scottish surnames. There is a journal written around 1810 by a Mohawk chief named Norton. He was half Scottish and half Cherokee (taken to Scotland as a boy and later ending up with the Mohawks in Canada). He describes a trip he took to Cherokee lands in great detail. And one recurring theme that I found curious was how he often related the noble qualities of the Natives Americans with the Scottish. He often noted meeting Indians with Scottish backgrounds and commented on how well the two cultures could merge in the deep backcountry (lands still in the hands of Indians -- at least one step beyond the "Scotch-Irish" frontier!).

Anyway, I meant to write a short comment, saying only that I liked the "grand" history you outlined and feel inclined to try to learn more about some of the things you mentioned. But as usual I rambled on for too long. I saw that you appear to have had some recent problems with wikipedia and admins and so on. I didn't look closely and don't know what happened, but I hope it worked out ok! Take it easy, fighting on wikipedia is no fun. Pfly (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Anglo-Irish core is simply the Tudor standard that all of British events and history since then is molded upon. The Stuart and Hanoverian takeovers were natural progressions, as the "Picts" and "Saxons" of the Arthurian times had supplanted the new Arthurian standard heralded in by Henry VII at the end of the Wars of the Roses. History repeats itself very dramatically! Consider Vortigern and Oliver Cromwell. Not much difference, is there? Anyways, I would have to disagree with the whole Indian thing. There wasn't much intermarriage at all, unless one was a "mountain man" in the Rockies, without a White woman. Until the 20th Century, there really wasn't any interracial relationship between Protestant Whites (WASPs) and other races, apart from slavemongers' perverse "needs". While the naive Yankees lauded the fallen "noble savages", everybody else in America thought they were nuts until about the time Calvin Coolidge hired an Indian for his administration. Until then, Indians were the traditional scalping boogiemen. There is a lot of mythologization due to regret over the "Trail of Tears", but even though Okie was founded for the Indians, there existed a "separate but equal" society there with Whites and a smattering of Blacks. This melting pot "Latino/Hispanic dream" of Creole mixtures like Pocahontas is just a fable. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I was told this story about Cherokees in my own family and it didn't hold up. I got great-grandparents from Appalachian Georgia and Kentucky (amongst others), but they are stereotypical "white trash". For instance, coal miners who want a fantasy to save them from ridicule and poverty, so claim to be Indian, no matter how insulting it is to everybody. I love them dearly, but facts are facts. My inlaws are trailer folk, so carefully consider these words. Thanks for understanding the "grand scope", but I am interested in other things you have studied. BTW, have you heard of David Hackett Fischer? He has a very Yankee take on our history that I don't particularly agree with, although it is seductively alluring. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

The Tudor->Stuart->Hanoverian relation to English->Picts->Saxons is an interesting comparison (I hesitated to say English for Tudor there, is there a better term?). Until this talk with you I hadn't quite realized that the Stuarts of Scotland ended up with the Crown of England, and the import of Charles I. What a long and tangled relationship Scotland and England have. I've been mainly a student of American history, early colonial especially -- but in order to understand it I find myself repeatedly drawn back in time to earlier events in Europe. Starting from an woeful ignorance I've slowly gained some grasp of the era centered on the Commonwealth and Cromwell and all that (which I was led to by trying to understand Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia). But going back further in time I quickly get lost. I don't know who Vortigern was and barely know about the War of the Roses. It seems one could spend years trying to understand just the events of the 1600s in Britain. That there are centuries of equally complex history before that is a daunting thought. ... Here's a random placename-related question for you, since you mentioned having Kentucky roots. "Cumberland" is very common name in Greater Appalachia. I know the American name is supposed to be more about the Duke of Cumberland and Culloden and all that, but I wonder whether people from Cumberland County, on the English-Scottish borderlands, migrated to the colonial backcountry of America (perhaps via Ulster, becoming tagged "Scotch-Irish" in the process?). Perhaps some of the American Cumberland placenames link back to the county of Cumberland than old Augustus. I've read that Kentucky's Daniel Boone National Forest was originally called Cumberland NF, but there was much protest about the name. When the Forest Service changed it they noted that many people in Kentucky have Scottish / Scotch-Irish roots and found the name "Cumberland" offensive. I can see why they would, if it referred to Augustus, but what if it referred to Cumberland County? It made me wonder whether Cumberland County was a source region for people who eventually became "Scotch-Irish" and ended up in places like Kentucky. ... on Indians and intermarriage, I agree that there is much mythology and far too many people claim such things as having a "Cherokee princess" ancestor, for example (the most devoted genealogist of my own very-extended family has used the "princess" term, bleah). But I think the intermarriages between traders of South Carolina, circa 1680-1730 or so, while perhaps relatively few in actual numbers, did have a notable effect on the southeastern tribes during the 1700s and early 1800s. The majority of southeastern Indians may have remained relatively unmixed, but in many cases it was mixed blood Indians who became leaders and had a significant effect on tribal culture and history. Examples of the kind of people I'm thinking about include the Creek leaders Alexander McGillivray, William Weatherford, William McIntosh], and Peter McQueen (McQueen, a half-Scottish Creek Indian who supposedly played the bagpipes during battles). Important Cherokee leaders with Scottish blood include James Vann, John Ross, and others I can't find good pages on offhand. By the late 1700s the ruling Cherokee elite was mainly of mixed blood -- Scottish in particular. These people definitely had a major effect of the direction the Cherokee Nation took before removal. This isn't to say that most Cherokees were not mixed-blood, or that the Cherokees were united in agreement with the direction the elite leaders were taking them. Still, I' skeptical that the Cherokee could have held onto their lands in the east for as long as they did had they had not leaders like these -- people the United States had trouble dismissing as savages and who were able to "fight" the US with lawyers instead of muskets. The Scottish-Cherokee Mohawk chief I mentioned before was John Norton. His journal is an interesting read (online at this long url. Example bit of text: "I came to the house of Tekighwelliska (Mr. McDonald) who entertained me with the hospitality of an ancient Caledonian or a modern Cherokee." ... Anyway, just making the case for the importance of mixed blood, esp Scottish, among the southeastern Indians, and that Scottish traders did intermarry and live among southeastern Indians in those early colonial times (1680-1740ish). American history texts too often begin around 1750, ignoring this earlier period. The Carolina traders like Woodward were backcountry pioneers a good century before Daniel Boone and the like, but how many Americans have heard of Woodward? ... Still I agree with you on the overdone claims of Indian ancestry among Americans today. You have a family story of Cherokee ancestors that didn't hold up? Me too. :) Or rather, the claim seems impossible to prove, although the existing evidence I find fairly compelling. The problem is that the connection would have predated the Cherokee rolls, so no proof there, and the ancestors involved were illiterate pioneering types who left very few documentary traces -- looking into these people got me backed up all the way to Bacon's Rebellion, where the line first appears in America (in a request for leniency for one of the rebel leaders). ... But anyway, David Hackett Fischer of Albion's Seed? Yes. I haven't read it, but I've read about it enough to get the basic idea. My sense is that he tends to oversimplify things to fit his model, but I ought to read it someday and see for myself. The two books from which I've learned a great deal about early South Carolina, the Indian traders, Scottish involvement, etc, are A Colonial Complex by Oatis, and The Indian Slave Trade, by Gallay. Actually I have a list of books on my main page, User:Pfly. I put them there so I can easily copy and paste for references. The list is a little random and not all great books, but mostly good. ... Anyway, another long ramble, nice chatting. Pfly (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I really want to thank you for discussing these details with me.

The Tudors revived Britannia. The first heir was named Arthur to make this clear. Vortigern was the ultimate traitor, like his follower Oliver Cromwell who was also of the same ancient British descent. Vortigern invited the Saxons to fight the Picts and under Cromwell the same thing happened, with his "mercenary guests" taking over the country to depose the Stuarts.

As to Cumberland; locals followed local dignitaries/magnates/lords/nobles such as the Duke of Cumberland. The further north, a more feudalistic outlook and (militia) practice was ingrained in the populace. Compare the sides in the Wars of the Roses, both (Lancaster and York) in the North of England and employing local lords like the Nevilles of Westmoreland, Percys of Northumberland, Cliffords of Cumberland, Stanleys of Man and also the Tudors of Richmond.

With the Indian mythologization, isolated examples of a few frontiersmen is no way to label an entire people or group, but the Presbyterian Scots consciously modelled themselves after the rowdy Indians (fierce like their own Border ancestors), to adapt their way of life and survive on their own, apart from English (e.g. Anglican/Episcopalian) influence (this is per David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed). Just so you know, N. Ireland is formally attached to N. England with regards to the heraldic tradition (Norroy and Ulster King of Arms). Ireland was a possession of England since the 1100s, so a few Scots expelled from the Borders just don't amount to much in comparison. Thus, the term "Scotch-Irish" is actually an inflation of importance ahout the Scots' involvement in Ireland. Attempts to make it a Gaelic relationship have failed and the only time since after the Romans pulled out, did the Scots and Irish have any sort of relationship apart from English circumstance, when Edward Bruce invaded the English Lordship of Ireland and defeated the English there to have himself crowned king. You see, much of what is told us in public education or the media, is extremely skewed. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to write a long response, but this week I have less time. The connection of history to toponymy was particularly interesting. I've always been curious about how places came to be named the way they are (and the larger patterns). Have you read the book Names on the Land by George R. Stewart? It is a bit old now (orig. 1945, revised and added to in 1958 and 1967), but I know of no other book on the history of placenaming in America. There are books that give terse info on placename meanings, but usually for smaller areas (a state or city), but Stewart's book covers the whole of America (though just the US, so nothing on Nova Scotia). Better yet, his focus is on the history of placenaming. So the book isn't just a dictionary-like list of places with the meaning of their names, but rather a detailed look at how and why places were named over time. Since you mentioned the north-south differences of toponymy you might like this book, if you haven't already read it. In addition to the larger placenames (Carolina, Virignia, New England, etc) there are of course smaller placenames (rivers, cities, counties, etc). At first I thought your idea about the south tending toward monarchy-type names and the north toward Old World "ethnic" names (New England, Nova Scotia) or at least non-monarchy-type names (Philadelphia vs. Charleston, say) -- at first I thought this might not hold for "smaller" placenames. But when I thought about it a little... it looked more likely. Anyway I have to go, but that book, Names on the Land, has whole chapters on how patterns of placenaming styles arose in early colonial times. Sometimes by law (early Virginia apparently required -burgh for towns, although over time many lost the final -h), sometimes through popular tradition. He compares the differences between north and south in something like the way you did. I have to run, but wanted to quickly post this bit. Pfly (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Got a little more time.. I skimmed that Names on the Land book, thinking of not only the larger placenames like Carolina and New England, but smaller ones like towns and counties. You wrote something about how the pattern could have happened "halfway by accident". That's a good way to put it and makes sense to me. The big names like Carolina were mostly put on the map quite early, while towns and counties were named by the actual people who settled them. There does seem to have been a difference in placenaming style between the northern and southern English colonies, basically in the form you described, I think.

In New England there was a very deliberate policy of naming towns after towns in England, usually related to the specific New England settlers. The Massachusetts General Court had placenaming authority from 1630 to about 1700, and provided names for new towns (and counties), changed some, forbid others. Their standard was to name towns after towns in England and not for people. The practice spread throughout New England, into New York and New Jersey, and was officially adopted in Pennsylvania. Obvious examples include Ipswitch, Plymouth, Cambridge (why not Oxford, Stewart asks in the book, then points out that Cambridge was more Puritan than Oxford), Lancaster, Exeter, Dorchester, the MA counties of Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, etc, Hartford in CT, Portsmouth in NH, etc etc. William Penn deliberately named counties and countyseats for English counties and their seats, in a general paralleling of geography (eg, he renamed one of the southern "lower counties" (now in Delaware) "Sussex" and changed its town's name from "Deal" (orig. "Whorekill") to "Lewes"). Until the American Revolution every county created in Pennsylvania (except Philadelphia County) was named for an English one, often with the matching town name (eg, Berks County and its town of Reading). As Stewart puts it, "The English town names of the North told at most that the settlers came from some certain part of England". Of course the connection doesn't always hold, especially over time, as with Germans in Pennsylvania towns like Lancaster.

In the South there was no placenaming authority equivalent to the Massachusetts General Court, so the patterns are looser. The Virginia House of Burgesses had some authority -- changing Kiccowtan to Elizabeth City in 1619, for example. Also settlement tended to be spread out, not in towns like New England. So it is the county names that matter the most for this comparison. There was a strong pattern of naming counties and the few towns of note after "some governor, proprietor, or royal personage" in the South, from Maryland to Carolina at least. Examples of Virginia counties named for the extended royal family during the 1600s and early 1700s -- Brunswick, Hanover, Lunenburg, King George, Caroline, Frederick, Prince William, Cumberland, Amelia, Louisa, Orange, Augusta, Prince Edward, Charlotte, Mecklenburg, ...on and on. Virginia's towns were similar -- Henrico (orig Henricopolis), Fredericksburg, and Williamsburg (named in 1699, apparently the first English town named -burg in America, apparently in honor of the new king being German). Similar patterns exist in the Carolinas. The style was carried west, but lost a lot of its strength after the Revolution. Still, Louisville, KY, is a curious example of a variation on the idea -- named just after the Revolution when Americans still loved the French for their help during the war. The -ville was added for its Frenchness, like -burg had been for Williamsburg.

Finally, a bit of regional toponymy not related to the north-town south-person pattern. I made some maps a while ago trying to illustrate some of these patterns. The town vs person pattern would be hard to map, but it was relatively easy to show regional toponymy patterns in America for natural features (using the GNIS database and GIS). I put some on my website if you'd like to take a look. The most dramatic one is brook vs creek, 1. Lake vs pond is somewhat similar, 2. Brook and pond are much more common in New England than elsewhere. I made one for -ville vs -burg(h), 3, but there's less of a pattern there. A few others I find curious include hollow vs gulch, 4, which shows a strong Appalachian-Ozark preference for hollow, as does, oddly, Utah. Another on mountain pass names, 5, again with a curious Appalachian pattern. Finally, one showing placenames of any kind with the word Cumberland, Alleghany, and Custer in them, 6. Why those names? I just thought they might have a regionalized pattern. They sort of do. Anyway there are more, the filenames starting with "gnis" listed here. Thought you might enjoy these. Gotta run again! Pfly (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty interested in pre-Stuart, pre-Bourbon, pre-Habsburg colonial ventures. The toponymy of those times can be seen on obsolete maps, but the writing and details are much too small to even read!  I like your water toponymy images, but you must realize that they are interchangeable for me, being both Johnny Reb and Billy Yank, in addition to my primary recent UK and other French colonial origins.  However, the type of Yank I would be, is Copperhead/Doughface.  I'm pro-Confederate in most senses of the term and wish the Knights of the Golden Circle had been successful.  I live in ex-Confederate territory, out west.  Yes, I know that just because you're southern, doesn't mean you have to be pro-south.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm not southern. I've some long-ago ancestry from the south, but by the early 1800s they had all migrated to the Ozarks area, then California during the Great Depression. My father could be said to have southern, specifically Ozark qualities, but he grew up in California. My mother's side is totally Swede-Finn of recent immigration. I was born in California but grew up in Buffalo, NY. I like to say that my "homeland" is America and not any specific region, but I'm definitely more of a Northern than a Southern. I've taken some trips through parts of the South and it often felt like I didn't fit in, or stood out somehow, or just felt a mild culture shock. In contrast I feel much more at home in Canada, even if I'll never understand Canadian politics. But in any case, I'm not pro-south or anti-south, or pro-/anti- any place. Or maybe I am pro-all places. An optimist I guess. Pfly (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

George_Washington_Memorial_Bridge
I added the link that (I think) you were trying to. When you get a chance, check and see if that's how you wanted the link to work. Let me know on my Talk. Thanks, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. For the future: Navigate to the article you want (the Truss article) then *click in the Table of Contents* on the desired sub-section (Warren truss). Without doing anything else, copy everything in the address bar after the wiki/, then paste that into your link. Add the pipe | and your description, and it's done. Warren truss . Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)