User talk:Pfly/Archive 4

Felice/Felice Adventure etc
Just was tidying on List of historical ships in British Columbia re teh Iphigenia and Felice re the Nootka Crisis and noticed Felice Adventure, Felice Aventurero etc......is this a duplicate entry? Got started at reading The Dixon-Meares Controversy on Frederic William Howay after linking all his works on that biopage, which needs some work yet.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably--registered under a foreign flag (Portugal?) in order to evade the East India Company. I'll look it up in a bit after the fireworks and such are over around here. ...oop yep, Pethick writes, "The Felice Adventurer (or Feliz Aventureira, or Feliz Aventurero) is a ship about which we know little..." I'd assume any name spelled close to it from that time is the same ship. ...back to the local street fireworks! Pfly (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Howay says straight out that it was Portuguese-registered; I'd taken out the "probably Portuguese" re the Fenis and St. Joseph for the same reason, though didn't elaborate in teh "comments" about the reason for the flag of convenience; the Fenis and St. Joseph entry had said "an early use of a flag of convenience" but i took that out as flags of convenience were known even in Greek and Roman times...Skookum1 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Queen Charlotte's bell....
Hi; thought maybe you might have some thoughts/ sources on this.Skookum1 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GNIS discussion
Thank you for making it clear. I can tell you that the editor who has created scores of articles related primarily or only to finding them in the GNIS data base is not interested. So any attempts to change any of his articles will not succeed. But that does not change the fact that many are not notable and a considerable number never really existed beyond being a couple buildings as may exist in a large ranch or cluster of related buildings. Of course, there will be no way to undue those articles because there is no other citation to be found for a place that never was. Thanks again for digging into this question. Norcalal (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to the Dinsmore/Dinsmores articles.
I just posted the following on the Dinsmore page: What is interesting about all this discussion is this: The settlement of Dinsmore (in the singular form) is alive and well. I have been in the old hotel and the store there is a busy place. Surely it was a stage stop and notability is not a question. Following Pfly's mention above of Durham's Place Names of the California North Coast, p 88, and California's Geographic Names, I looked at the text and can share that these names often come from a designation on a survey map related to who (usually which family) likely owned the section of land. I am not at liberty to research this further at this point, but all the above information is helpful in sorting through the GNIS article proliferation. "Dinsmores" likely needs to be deleted. How shall that process/discussion formally commence? Norcalal (talk). 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to my own schedule and time issues (and finally, I think, beyond the ANI drama related to a likely kindred place editor in Monterrey), I have time to return to this GNIS issue. I would like to ask you for some assistance if you have some time. You see in the Dinsmores/Dinsmore articles that one refers to the other as the same. This issue is also crossed up. How do I endeavor to move toward deletion of Dinsmores? Again, there is no location at that altitude in Humboldt. The Dinsmore family assures me. (yes, I know its original research). Thanks for your insight, time, and any further assistance you can provide. Norcalal (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and thorough work in the Dinsmores article. You model good Wiki stewardship and provided me with reference to consult in other similar articles. Norcalal (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Columbia River
Hi Pfly. I just wanted to make sure you knew that Pete nominated Columbia River a couple of days ago at FAC. We're deep into fixes. Pete's been doing the hard work on content questions, and I've been chasing dust mice. If you have time to take a look, you might be able to help with something that pops up (or already has) in the process. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Just got home from days of camping. Will take a look later... Pfly (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Weird/Wierd
Thanks for catching that! Shannon talk   contribs   sign!  :) 01:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Baker River (Washington)
Remember when you expanded the Baker River article a long time ago? I'd like to know how you got all the names of the tributaries (especially those above Sulphide Creek); if you have a link to a topo map or map that would be great, as I'd like to figure out which is the large left-bank headstream closely south of the river. (Take a look at the map on the article, it should be marked.) Shannon talk   contribs   sign!  :) 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Klaxons
Columbia River does not yet have its star because the bot is still sleeping, but the article has been promoted to FA. See log diff for confirmation. Wow! Yow! Yippee! Finetooth (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and confetti! Pfly (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My warmest congratulations too! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Humboldt County, California: Unincorporated places
Thank you for your efforts and tremendous energy for the process you engaged to undo a mess. I waited for a bit to see if there would be a backlash, but it seems as though all is calm. Good work! Norcalal 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Snake River
Hi Pfly. I noticed recently that Columbia River became a FA. It would be nice if the Snake River article could also be lifted to GA or FA, as it is the most important tributary. I have some things prepared at sandbox 2, it would be appreciated if you could help decide which sections and references could be placed on the Snake River article. Thanks, Shannon talk   contribs   sign!  :) 02:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Humboldt County, California - Calville, California, Fruitland, California
Hello there. I was wondering if you had looked at these when you were "fixing" the Humboldt templet/article "thing?" I can tell you that my family owns land near where Calville should be and that place is long gone if it ever existed. Fruitland very likely was wiped off the face of the earth in the 55 or 64 floods, if not before....

Anyway, I was thinking these are ghost towns, since we aren't allowed to call them anything else. Thanks! Norcalal 07:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you in any case. It amazes me that you knocked out over 90% of the problematic "localities" just by the careful process you used. Norcalal 08:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Treaties with rivers
Thanks for the note. Yes, when I saw Katr67's note, I posted a note on her talk page agreeing with her. I just assumed that she'd made a typo of omission, but her explanation about the bureaucratic language (govspeak) made perfect sense and was backed up by lots of support. Finetooth (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Time avail to make a map?
I just made Pearse Canal and gussied up Pearse Island, Wales Island (British Columbia), Tongass Passage, Portland Canal; other articles may need adjustment; I'm wondering if you have time to do a local-area map as this was a key area during the Alaska boundary dispute; it could only be focussed on this small area or could include the rest of the Portland Canal-Observatory Inlet-Misty Fjords are so it could be used to illustrate various articles; it's important as a boundary-dispute map; similarly a detailed map of the A-B Line and an article for same is needed, even though it shows on Dixon Entrance's map.....what got me going here was the person who'd written Wales Island's article said it was "in" the Dixon Entrance, which isn't right at all....GNIS wasn't working when I tried to visit it a while ago, so the article has only BCGNIS cites.Skookum1 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What also got me going was the creation of Category:Borders of British Columbia and a long-dash namechange of Category:Canada-United States border (which now needs copy-paste to use grrrr), as Pearse Canal belonged in the category....Skookum1 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do. Time may or may not be available. When I made the maps for Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance, etc, I learned a bit about the border issues, the A-B Line, etc, and came away feeling like it was a fairly complicated topic. If I recall, the US position is that the border follows some kind of mid-channel line, but maps and definitions of it seemed hard to come by--at least in short, easy-to-understand forms. At the time I had toyed with the idea of making a page on the A-B Line, but was not up to the task. But yes, time permitting I will try to put together some kind of map focused on that area. Pfly (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You make the map, I'll do the article...I know it's thorny/tricky stuff....I backed away from revisions to the Alaska boundary dispute article but it needs major overhaul/expansion, partly to do with all the Russo-British finagling and the later wangling over the meaning of "Portland Channel". The A-B Line itself is pretty simply to draw - Cape Muzon to Cape whatever...I'm constantly galled by "bad geography", as in placing Wales Island "in" hte Dixon Entrance, likewise formerly Princess Royal Island someone had placed as being "in" Hecate Strait, despite other channels and islands in between.......Skookum1 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And note the map I'm requesting is only meant to address border issues; however once we start showing Anyox, Alice Arm, Premier as well as Stewart, Hyder etc, it behooves us to also include Tsimshian, Tlingit, Nisga'a and Testsaut placenames/settlements; probably best that's left for a different map though....i.e. one based around an aboriginal-history/geography theme.....cannery-town sites on Wales and Pearse Islands aren't all articled either, but were related to the boundary dispute (see Fort Tongass).Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Wales Island (British Columbia), "GNIS wasn't working when I tried to visit it a while ago, so the article has only BCGNIS cites."--being in Canada, it isn't in GNIS anyway. I have a decent start on a map. Making a general one first. My basemap isn't the highest resolution so is missing minor features, but should suffice. Working on finding "official" definitions of the various waterbodies, if any exist. So far key defining points seem to include: Ramdsen Point, Nass Point, Tree Point, Blaine Point, Bartlett Point, Island Point, Wales Point, and maybe a few others. So, Observatory Inlet is defined by a line between Ramsden Pt and Nass Pt; Portland Canal by Ramsden Pt and Tree Pt (I think); and these define the northern limit of Portland Inlet. Pearse Canal defined by Blaine Point and Tree Point on the east and, on the west, Bartlett Point and some apparently unnamed point between Male Point and Point Phipp. These last also mark the north end of Tongass Passage. The southern end of Tongass Passage is trickier--Island Point seems key, but its not clear what the other point would be. Maybe its not well defined. Then there's the question of where Portland Inlet connects to Dixon Entrance. My best guess so far is a line between Wales Point and Finlayson Island. Anyway, BCGNIS was down last night but is up now, apparently with some new features. Like, I searched on Kincolith, a town shown on a map I have, and it told me "This is NOT an Official Name. Lookup the Official Name", with "Office Name" being a link to Gingolx, and that page had photos and audio. Huh! Pfly (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all as a result of the Nisga'a Treaty, i.e. the new entries; the new features are not to do with the treaty but certainly a result of priority orientation of resources towards it; they don't have much money so it's amaszing to see anything at all. About Wales Island/GNIS I guess I thought it might be in there (it's not) because some other BC-side places are in it, a legacy of the boundary dispute; see the GNIS for Mount Pereleshin ` &BCGNIS Mount Pereleshin maybe is an article....nope not yet,will get to it soonSkookum1 (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PS re Portland Channel, which shouldn't redirect to Portland Canal as it currently does (unless I fixed that? noted it anyway on its talkpage...), please read the Alexander Begg cites on Alaska boundary dispute - there's a map on Talk:Alaska boundary dispute that's a variant of the one currently on the main page, but I hadn't moved it because I hadn't yet written a passage on the BC position (there were three non-US positions, London's, Ottawa's and Victoria's, with Victoria's the "hardest line" in negotiatory terms but ignored for reasons of grand diplomacy and utter tomfoolery on the part of Whitehall (where the Foreign Office in London is); I've been meaning to add a section on "areas of conflict" as there were physical hostilties between miners and (allegedly) authorities in the Atlin District, harrassment of British miners/travellers in the Panhandle despite rights of passage guaranteed by treaty with the Russians (the Americans inherited certain treaty obligations, though not the lease....) - in fact that's part of the story of Fort Tongass, whose first order of business was stopping steamers bound for the Stikine (the Stikine Rush was still underway, though petering out, in 1867...then Henry McDame found the Cassiar strike, but by then terms still hadn't been worked out and British vessels and travellers did get some hassle, but some kind of arrangement was reached and most traffic eventually did not have to pass US customs if not making landfall (that changed during hte Klondike rush, when the US imposed a US-to-US-port policy, can't remember what it's called); BC also wanted the Yukon Ports; on a Porcupine River, somewhere - either the one off the STikine, in the dispute "ten leagues" zone where Perelshin got to the edge of (but no farther, much the same way as Campbell turned back at Telegraph Creek once told he would encounter "Russian Indians"), or up near Skagway on what's no Porcupine Creek there, between British and American miners; I think at Sheep Camp too. All in the backpages of history but interesting stuff and pretty heady at the time I imagine; anyway while the variant map on the talkpage does show the "Bagot-Canning Line" as a I call it, the one up Clarence Strait]] to the environs of what had been Fort Stikine and the Stikine River, i.e. the HBC lease; but the American counterclaim, farther north, also included even Whitehorse but definitely Carcross, Bennett etc; the main focus of hte map I'm thinking of would be around Wales and Pearse Islands - t here's something like that in Derek Hayes' Atlas which I think you have - but off to the left you'd see the Bagot-Canning line; the main area of Empire-to-US negotiations had dismissed that possibility early on; getting Wales and Pearse Islands was seen as trivial relative to what had been given up farther north; the "Edinburgh line", the strange on which just west from Stewart-Hyder, was from a Scottish newspaper editor's attempt to interpret the meaning of the 56-30 line mentioned in the Bagot documents (which were all terms of agreement, by some title, reached during the long process of working out the treaties of 1824/25.....anyway Kincolith as you'll find by doing a radius search around it has all kinds of other native placenames now, many of them converted from their bastardizations in the names of Indian Reserves (though you get a better idea of how to pronounce them from the old IR names if you ask me...); I think it's New Aiyansh that was Greenville, but that was heavy industrial country for quite a while, I think there was a smelter at Kincolith but certainly nearby at Alice Arm and Anyox; lots of Granby Mining and Smelting placenames/history in there; now remote and empty, the towns and smelters abandoned, the Nisga'a Treaty a big deal, with parts of it about toponymy/nomenclature; look through BCGNIS in that area - and when you do the radius search, try expanding the latlongs you'll see in the URLs to widen its radius/box....later off to the gym, hope you liked some of the tunes; occurred to me that the way my mini-amp sounds when I've got heavy sustain on gets me doing things that don't recorded because through the phones it just doesn't sound the same, i.e. that you might like, more spacey/ambient even when rhythmed often.....don't know how to record it, we'll see....oen further thought for reasons alluded to local maps of Telegraph Creek to Wrangell and of Skagway/Haines to Carcross/Haines Jctn...not asking, as it goes on - Greater Hazelton, the Peace Block, a local on Lillooet, anotehr on the Lower Fraser Canyon...there's not enough mapmakers for all the maps I coudl see being useful; look at hte bottom of WPTALK:Maps about some new free map resources, if you haven't seen it 'bye....Skookum1 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read, or skimmed, that Begg source today, and yea, I understand the difference between Portland Canal and Channel. I read it looking for something about the 42nd parallel and the Nootka Conventions--it looked like you were citing Begg on that over at 42nd parallel north. Didn't see anything about that, but lots about Portland Channel etc etc etc. I hadn't thought to check the Hayes atlas. Will do so. I've been scouring BCGNIS via radius searches and finding various bits and pieces of info. Some stuff in GNIS too. The waterbodies are also described and defined to some degree in official ship navigation books online at Google Books etc. Anyway, I will start with a general area map showing Portland Inlet/Canal, Pearse, Tongass, south just to show Prince Rupert. This map could be used for various waterbodies and islands in the area. For a more zoomed-in map focused on the Pearse/Wales/Tongass area in particular I will probably need a higher-resolution basemap source. And yes, so many maps needed, so little time. Perhaps I can find and use a satellite image. Also, I'm sorry for not writing about music--I keep meaning to. You record via your mini-amp's headphone output? Is there no "line out" or equivalent? Pfly (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, thought the 42nd Parallel was in Begg.....maybe it's in Scholefield/Howay, I'll look through that later when I get a chance.....there's also a separate Russo-Spanish treaty about the 42nd parallel, it's mentioned in Pethick's Nootka Conventions/Crisis book I think; did you look at the new map-materials resources at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps? I just finished making List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia border and now I'm wondering why the numbers jump 16, 18, 43 etc...maybe there were other designated peaks during treaty surveys that wound up not being used by the boundary; the specifics of the treaty must get interesting, as there are numerous "turns" in the border that must just be stated coordintes, as there are no peaks/markers at those locations....Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I've never been able to find anything specific to the 42nd parallel pre-dating Adams-Onis. I've looked at the Spanish-Russian treaties/agreements, at least the ones I could find. I thought they agreed to something around the 54th parallel, part of why the Oregon Country was ultimately left claimed by only Britain and the US. I'll look for more concrete info in my, um, er, free time... hmmm, right. Pfly (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[undent]You might be right about Spain-Russia re the 54th.....but there were reasons why Fort Ross was unwelcome on Spanish/Mexican soil, I'd thought because of a rider re the 42nd...likewise the HBC's activities south of that line....as for the Nootka Conventions, I'd thought it was in the text of the Nootka Conventions somewhere, i.e. it wasn't just Nootka Sound that was opened up to other powers, it was anywhere north of a certain line, which I'd thought was specified as the 42nd parallel; I don't have Pethick anymore but I think you do; the tdxt of the conventions may be online somewhere, I'll see if I can find them....Skookum1 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Nootka Conventions applied for all of the Americas, and really the entire world in a way (phrases include "fisheries in the Pacific Ocean or in the South Seas", "coasts of South America and the islands adjacent", etc. The dispute over the Falkland Islands, between Britain and Spain, later Argentina, stems from different interpretations of the Nootka Conventions. Info about that at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (subsection "The Nootka Sound Conventions"), and also here and there and also over yonder. Quote from the globalsecurity.org link: Britain and Spain sign the Nootka Sound Convention, in which Britain disavows any colonial ambitions in South America "and the islands adjacent." It's that "and islands adjacent" phrase that the Falklands dispute centers on. Are they adjacent or not? Pfly (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, I have one of Pethick's books, but not the one about the Nootka Conventions--more about the various ships that called at Nootka around that time, rather than the crisis and its resolution, The Nootka Connection. Pfly (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS, the text of the conventions are online--and I put them on WikiSource a while back, so just follow the WikiSource links at the bottom of Nootka Convention. The main one is the first one, the other two are about the events at Nootka Sound itself--return of ships, payments for loses, abandonment of site, etc. Pfly (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

southern limit of strait of georgia FYI
kinda figured it would be in gnis - .Skookum1 (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was part of how I made those maps of Boundary Pass, Haro, and Rosario Straits... what brings it up now? Pfly (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * curiosity because of the Salish Sea thing, partly, and also curiosity as to where it ended vis a vis Bellingham Bay etc...there's this gross assumption stateside, on the one hand, that the San Juans et al. are in Puget Sound, and BC-side that the Strait of Georgia includes places like Saltspring and Sidney Islands; the formal definition at least belongs in the Strait of Georgia article...I'd been using gnis a lot on List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border and thought to look it up....Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Elbow
For the Alaska-BC/YT list's counterpart List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border I was tweaking the radius-find to expand the area searched, and wound up taking in a bunch of stuff west of Kinbasket Lake as the Rockies of course strike SE; so I found, by accident,, 51.78333°N, -117.68333°W. a named bend in the Columbia, thought it might warrant inclusion; north of the mouth of the Bush River (probably inundated now).Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I stumbled on that too.. I think it has something to do with Surprise Rapids, nearby, but am not quite sure. Pfly (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

John Day Dam
Hey Pfly, I saw you undid my edit on John Day Dam; Lake Umatilla is the reservoir behind McNary Dam. It couldn't be the name of two lakes, unless there is an Upper and Lower... Shannon talk   contribs   02:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the maps I have, Lake Wallula is the reservoir of McNary Dam. Pfly (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I had those confused, but on at least one other page than Snake River I did see that the resevoir of McNary Dam is Lake Umatilla. Sorry for the confusion.! (can't spell today.) Shannon talk   contribs   23:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate NW Boundaries
I think you might find this interesting.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just pls keep your eyes open for cites dealing with the Idaho/Montana northward boundaries proposed....Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Willapa people
I started this just now based on the cite you added for the Chemakum re Salish Sea; there's lots more to be added and I haven't put anything on Willapa Bay and there's no Willapa, Washington article yet it seems. I used the "people" dab because of the legal meaning of "tribe" in the US (as they were never constituted as a "federally-recognized tribe"). Not your field I know but of general Washington interest so notifying you; an article on the Chemakum people of course is also called for....Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish expeditions to Alaska article
See Talk:Spanish_expeditions_to_Alaska. Surprised not to see you in the edit history (yet).Skookum1 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This ref was on that page; it appears to have wiki-clone passages but otherwise contains information I haven't seen elsewhere, at least not put the way it is there.Skookum1 (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's just some quicksilver ISP subscriber's web page. Not a reliable source. Pfly (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rereading, I realized I've used this source on a number of pages. It would not hold up as a RS under strict scrutiny, but does seem well researched and accurate, and contained info hard to find elsewhere. So yes, I say, at least for pages that are not heading toward FA territory! (most of the ones I work on) Pfly (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
Is there a reason of why you reverted my edits to Template:ColumbiaRiverGeobox. I would appreciate an explanation. South Bay (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues of the Spanish empire
Feliz año nuevo. I have received with great satisfaction your message and I appreciate it very much. After several months of detachment, I have checked the historial of Spanish Empire in wikipedia in Spanish and the issue of the map developed between 29 November and 4 December, with arguments so picturesque that the map that I depicted has regionalist partisanships or is against the imperial history of Spain. Some days later, on 11 December 11 the same issue appears again but in the wikipedia in English: very curious. Remember that the principal reticence of including Portugal was that Portugal appears with another color respect of the more characteristic Spanish part, and since I was discussing this matter several months, I prefer not to imply or encourage a two-color map, simply for the polemic that it might be generated again, or perhaps not, if the minds have changed after several months seeing the Portuguese territories in the Spanish map of this wikipedia and also in the Portuguese one. I think that opening the melon with the colours is going to continue with the claims.

Apart from the colours, the last commentaries of mapping claims turn out to be enlightening of the second intentions, since the incorporation of claims allows to develop the fantasy, beliefs, presumptions, assumption..., for example the laws of The Indies established from the 16th century fixed as territories of the Audiencia of Manila the islands of China and the tierrafirme (continental part), this way with these these laws in the hand, it might colour as a claim the whole China or what someone thinks that it was China for the Spanish in that time, but colouring China really the map would show a real territory?, or someone would receive a true idea of the Spanish territory or a enlarged/virtual approach?. Bearing in mind that in the talk page of the Spanish wikipedia shows commentaries in September 2009 about changing that map for other one as those of EuroHistoryTeacher (Do you remember them?=WP:OR), it makes me think simply that requiring a colour for the map hides the desire to change happily the areas colored without displaying or adducing any written secondary source. When I presented the map on February 2009, I presented sources in the most polemic territories, and I expressed why I put these limits, in addition, the references about Portugal are in the talk page of Iberian Union, in March I had a discussion about Patagonia and neither then nor now I have seen any source that establish its incorporation, when I have been informed about Siena, I have found that existed sources that allowed to include it inside the map, even when I did not know exactly the issue of the missions in Georgia you clarified me that issue, the problem for some people is demanding to put a territory when I do not have found any references to place it. Besides that, I do not understand these conspiratorial theories and hurt sensibilities for not actual issues, but of the 16th century.

Respect of the navigation, in the measure that I could, I will try to clarify you that issues. Finally I hope that you have enjoyed a good entry of year. Trasamundo (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

James Colnett
Well done! -- KenWalker | Talk 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

King George's Sound Company
Did you mean "No change" instead of "No chance"? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oop, yes, thanks for catching that. Just fixed it. Pfly (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ghost towns
Hi. I noticed this discussion that you initiated some time ago, regarding whether it's appropriate for a county navbox to call something a "ghost town" when it's not really ghost town by any reasonable definition of the term. I just raised the same issue at Category talk:California county navigational boxes, prior to seeing your thread. Anyways, similar to your experience, there were no objections to my suggestion so I made the change, only to have it reverted by the same editor who reverted your edit to Template:Humboldt County, California. So, anyways, long story short, I've started a thread on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. counties. Your input would be welcome. Hopefully with some attention by a wider audience we can reach some consensus. Yilloslime T C  06:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK: Atrevida & Descubierta ?
Hello, Pfly. I've nominated two recent articles by you, Atrevida (corvette) and Descubierta, for DYK. You can see the nomination here. The DYK reviewers are concerned that the articles are near identical. If you're interested in getting your work featured on MainPage as DYKs, please respond there. (I might not be around to discuss, though.) Thank you for your attention. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UB
The name sounds familiar but I don't think we met (I did most of my actual classwork in the early 1990s). Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bodega y Quadra
I've been having connectivity issues so haven't been doing much for several days....been meaning to comment that your use of the hispanically-correct short form of Bodega for Bodega y Quadra nonetheless isn't the most common usage in English; Quadra is.....it's why Quadra St, Quadra Island but no Bodega St, Bodega Island for example.....refview the sources, be it Pethick, Menzies, Howay or Bancroft, you'll find Quadra used rather than Bodega....Skookum1 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good points. Although, "no Bodega Island"? How about Bodega Bay? It's probably the most well-known place named for the guy. When I mention the book I've been reading to friends and family (none living or familiar with BC place names) and how there are numerous places named for him, I get blank stares when mentioning Quadra Island but "Bodega Bay" is known (my family is from the San Francisco area though, so....). Anyway, I had been following the style of Tovell, the author of the bio I just finished. I thought Tovell was simply using the "Spanish-correct" form, but rereading the preface just now I see it is something else, and a bit surprising. He writes "Throughout this work, I do not refer to our subject as 'Quadra', as he is generally and incorrectly known in Canada, but as 'Bodega' or 'Bodega y Quadra', by which names he is known in the United States, Mexico, and Peru." Huh--the Quadra form is a Canadian thing? Can't quite be true, as American and British people have written "Quadra" (Vancouver, Gray, for contemporary examples). So..hmm,..interesting. I had been using the longer Bodega y Quadra to avoid any possible confusion, but recently have been just writing Bodega, like Tovell does. Perhaps I should stick to Bodega y Quadra, unless from context it is quite clear who is being referred to. It struck me as confusing to sometimes use Quadra and sometimes use Bodega for the same guy--for the pages about Vancouver Island "Quadra" might arguably be best (especially if it is a more common usage in Canada), but for pages like Bodega Bay or others in California, "Bodega" might be better understood. Hmm...all this makes me think it better to go back to the longer but clear "Bodega y Quadra". Hmmm... well, for now, breakfast. Have missed your often related editing--but I figure all Canadian, esp. BC editors, have been swept into things Olympics-related. :-) Pfly (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Descubierta y Atrevida
Hello, how are you? With all the problematics in the talk page of Spanish Empire (where I come to that I am speaking to a wall) I cannot be useful very much, but probably I can give you useful clues.

Bearing in mind that Malaspina was imprisoned between 1796-1802, and later exiled, whereas his expedition did not remain known until 1885, it is highly improbable that two new ships bore such names. After a little time from their construction, the most probable thing is that they were the same ships. On the other hand, Francisco Aldao y Aragon was alférez de navío in Descubierta and Atrevida around 1805.

Probably it is a good idea that you contact in wikipedia in Spanish with the authors of these articles to know the secondary sources that you need. The links are: Usuario:Cêsar Usuario:Quijav

I know that this is not very much, but probably it serves you for something. If you need help of translations, warn. Trasamundo (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded a flickr photo of yours to Commons
File:Mount Adams glacier PCT.jpg -- I needed to illustrate Adams Glacier. If you have anything even better, feel free to upload it! Thanks for your cc-by-sa pic. —hike395 (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

kudos on Gray
Saw your changes to the Capt Gray article, nice to see it being less of a hagiography than its creator intended....with a little digging we can probably find the name of the village on Esperanza Inlet....I've always known about the shelling of Opitsaht, for years now anyway, and have wondered about compiling a list of ALL violent conflicts from teh maritime fur trade era and after....a whole subject in its own right huh? Note Category:Conflicts in Canada and its accompanying list article....Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The book I've been reading, Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods: The Maritime Fur Trade of the Northwest Coast, 1785-1841, had a whole sub-chapter on violent incidents. That's where I found the stuff on Gray. Quite a number of incidents are described, although not in great detail. I was a little surprised to learn that Gray had several other incidents in 1792--perhaps once a captain turned to violence once it was easier to do so again; and/or word spread among the Indians--that war canoes were approaching his ship might mean he was reasonably acting in self-defense. It seems there were plenty of worse captains during the era. Even naval officer captains had their share of violence, with Quadra the notable exception. Little wonder Maquinna was so loathe to see Quadra leave. The usual newcomer-native cycle of violence sprang up fast--with one violent act causing revenge upon "innocents" of the same "tribe" (with Americans and British, or even English-speaking people being a "tribe"), sparking another round of revenge, etc. Seems that the Spanish and the land-based traders (HBC) were by far the least likely to turn to violence. For the HBC the reason is obvious--permanent posts instead of fleeting contact. For the Spanish the reason was at least partially because conflict would have undermined their attempts to establish sovereignty. ..anyway, good book for the topic--out of print (got it from the library)--should have a Marine fur trade article ready to go fairly soon. Pfly (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the info on the Esperanza Inlet attack comes from this book, A Spanish voyage to Vancouver and the north-west coast of America. Snippet view only, so all I can see from page 22 is: "--attacked an Indian settlement, killing seven men and wounding others, and robbing the rest of the otter skins which they had. They brought one wounded man for the surgeon to heal, and Macuina interceded with the commandant that care should be taken of this man and that he should proceed to chastise the aggressors. As far as could be understood the ship was the American frigate Columbia, Captain Gray, whom the--"

The info might be questionable. It looks like the book is a translation of Relación del viage hecho por las goletas Sutil y Mexicana, supposedly written by Dionisio Alcalá Galiano but, if I understand right, with rather heavy-handed editing in Spain, 1790s. The info might be wrong. Anyway, the Seattle library has it, so I'll take a look. The book I've been reading also cites Howay (ed.) Voyages of the "Columbia" to the Northwest Coast 1787-1790 and 1790-1793; Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society 1941; pp. 379, 390-1, 395, 401. I've put that on hold at the library too. I'd like to clean up the Gray page a little anyway, but one thing at a time. Pfly (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Juan de Fuca
I made a tweak to that article's lede, as the comma-phrase made it sound like it was Philip II who was the one exploring the Strait of Anian LOL.....I came on this page tonight following a link from .... hm, well, from somewhere, as I noted the phrasing "by the Spanish king Philip II". From what I remember, the "lore" of explorers as taught to me young and since is that de Fuca was sailing under the Portuguese flag, not the Spanish; Philip was king of both, and more, of course. But this is why there are rumblings in some documents/histories that Portugal had an unexercised claim on the region alongside those of Russia, Spain, Britain, France (because of La Perouse) and that late interloper the US (even Austria, because of Barkley's flag of convenience, was another bit-player; even the "joint occupation" of 1818-1846 please note did not exclude claims by other powers, it only meant that neither the US nor Britain would press exclusivity for their own rights...). Did the later Spanish claims take heart from Juan de Fuca's voyage, or was he passed over (because of his Portuguese associations)? So other than suggesting that "Spanish king" be somehow substituted with something ("King of Portugal, Spain, Naples and Sicily and Duke of wherever") or, and I'm not sure it's applicable though it was to his father, Holy Roman Emperor as a blanket term, or in some other way the lede is fixed so it's not an exclusively Spanish context....Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't recall seeing anything about the Spanish putting much important on de Fuca. They didn't even name the strait--that was Barkley. I think the mythical report of Admiral Fonte was considered more important, but useless without confirmation, iirc. Pfly (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This was the passage in French Wikipedia, in the Colombie-Britannique article, that touched me off to look at the de Fuca article:
 * ''À noter cependant, qu'il est possible que Francis Drake, le navigateur anglais, et Juan de Fuca, un pilote grec au service de l'Espagne aient exploré la région dès le XVIe siècle.
 * au service de l'Espagne is what bothered me; like I said, most histories of BC, particularly those published earlier on, ascribe this voyage as Portuguese, though maybe that's historical politics to downplay Spanish rights in the region's history; I doubt it though; Howay may even say that, even Bancroft, I'll look into it. "In the service of Philip II, King of Portugal, Spain and Naples" is more accurate for the English article...I note the expedition left from Aca(pulco) (I've lived there; locals just call it "Aca") and that he was sent by the Viceroy of New Spain, but under imperial government (then unified) "New Spain" like "New Granada" was as much a Portuguese possession as a Spanish one; better to say "dynastic possession" or "Borbon possession", in fact.....I think we should dig around about this, maybe Hayes says something about Juan de Fuca that could clarify this....the French article needs work, I've done what I can with my shoddy French (which I read better than write).  Time for bed....Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I thought Juan de Fuca was one of the Manila Galleon sailors/captains, which would be New Spain and, unless I'm mistaken, Spanish not Portuguese. The Spanish Empire talk page has a long (very very long, now mostly archived) debate over just what the unified Spain-Portugal era meant in practical terms--largely about whether the map of the Spanish Empire should include the Portuguese Empire, and if so, how if ought to be shown. The current map (which is one of the best "empire" maps on WP I think), shows the "Territories of the Portuguese empire during the Iberian Union (1581–1640)". From there I got the sense that although the empires were merged in a personal sense they remained separately administrated. There's info over at Iberian Union too. In any case, from reading and participating in the Spanish Empire talk page (and similar lengthy debates on the Spanish Wikipedia page on the empire), I suspect the idea that New Spain was "as much as Portuguese possession as a Spanish one" would be hotly argued against. But I can't pretend to be very knowledgeable on this topic--just repeating what I've heard elsewhere. I did discover that Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo was Portuguese (in the service of Spain, of course!). Anyway, gnight! Pfly (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, all I'm saying is that the prevailing image of Juan de Fuca in BC history/pedagogy that he was Portuguese-actually-Greek in the way the Cristoforo Colonia was Spanish-actually-Genoese. However that is, or whyever it is, I don't know; and I don't recall the Spanish raising the Juan de Fuca voyage in teh same way that the British later raised the Drake voyage as the foundation of their claim....I realize that New Spain was not part of the Portuguese administration under Philip II, but it does make me wonder why the "Portuguese myth" about Juan de Fuca is found north of the border (I remember it even on the wall maps of the explorers we had in elementary and high school....); what does Hayes say about it (I gave my copy of Hayes away, and wouldn't have lugged it out here to NS anyway).Skookum1 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is odd. I'll check Hayes. Pfly (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hayes simply says that Juan de Fuca "was the legendary Greek pilot of a Spanish ship", and that "there was a pilot named Juan de Fuca in New Spain between 1588 and 1594". Maybe part of why Spain didn't much cite de Fuca as establishing a claim is because the the story of Juan de Fuca was published by the Englishman Michael Lok, who claimed to have heard the tale from de Fuca. It could be that Spain never thought much of the tale in the first place. Pfly (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the Four Corners article
Pfly, Maybe you can offer some insight. I don't know if you intend to continue work on Four Corners or if you just wanted to make the change and move on. One thing that has been frustrating ever since I started working on both articles is people confuse the Four Corners (a region of the United States) with the Four Corners Monument (A roadside tourist trap that some people have developed an odd fascination with). On the talk pages of both articles, a consensus was formed (if you can call it that when only 3 people chimed in) to completely re-write the region article in a way that makes it clear: this is about the region, not the monument. However, I only started the re-write, and frankly am not sure how to write a quality article and still drive that point home. My first thought was to delete all monument photos on the region article, and replace them with regional photos. I also deleted all mentions of the monument except for one or two lines. As you can see it didn't work, the photos and text are back. If you plan to stick around, could I get your thoughts on how to do this? Could you chime in on the talk pages? If you just want to move on to the next project, I completely understand. Thanks Dave (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, hmm, yea I hadn't realized, despite the page stating "This article is about the region in the south-western United States" right at the top, heh. Reminds me of the distinction between Puget Sound and Puget Sound region, which used to be a single page. I don't know much about the Four Corners, region or monument, but will read up and see if there's anything I can do. Pfly (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. The monument article is now in pretty good shape, but the region article desperately needs some love. =-) Dave (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Russians in California - re Nootka Convention
User:Ltkizhi just left an interesting aside about the legitimacy of Fort Ross on what was ostensibly Spanish turf (or was it?)...mentioned a clause in the Nootka Convention; which I thought had stipulated the 42nd parallel but according to Ltkizhi the northward limit was 30 km (30 mi?) north of the Presidio. He also mentions various Russian ships, which like those in Russian America we don't have many articles/listings on (yet).....Skookum1 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that, but didn't have time to think about it. I know very little about Fort Ross and less about Spanish/Mexican-Russian agreements/negotiations. The bit about 30 miles must come from Article 4 of the Nootka Convention, which reads: "His Britannic Majesty engages to employ the most effective measures to prevent the navigation and fishery of his subjects in the Pacific Ocean or in the South Seas from being made a pretext for illicit trade with the Spanish settlements; and with this in view it is moreover expressly stipulated that British subjects shall not navigate nor carry on their fishery in the said seas within the distance of 10 maritime leagues from any part of the coast already occupied by Spain." (from wikisource). As far as I'm aware, the Nootka Convention was a British-Spanish treaty and shouldn't have had any power over Russia. I've got some sources on the topic, but have not gotten to reading them yet. All I've learned so far is that the Russian ships at Fort Ross used Bodega Bay as the main harbor. Quadra had discovered the place and recommended it as a place for a Spanish post, but after checking out it out a few more times it was realized that it is a rather poor harbor, so it never happened. Anyway, I wonder if the Russians defending their right to Fort Ross by citing the Nootka Convention, while Spain countered by saying it only applied to Britain and that Spanish claims to the PNW were otherwise unchanged. After all the preamble of the Nootka Convention explicitly says that its purpose was "terminating, by a speedy and valid agreement, the differences which have lately arisen between the two Crowns, [via] an amicable arrangement which, setting aside all retrospective discussions of the rights and pretensions of the two parties,[...]" Emphasis mine: reads to me like a British-Spanish thing only, and one that "sets aside" questions about rights, claims, sovereignty, etc. Anyway, I'm sure I'll learn more about it sooner or later. Pfly (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pethick, as you may remember, said that the effect of the Conventions was that any power could occupy the region, and also any power could take over Fort San Miguel should they choose including the Russians. Similarly the "Joint Occupation" of 1818-1846 did not exclude other powers, it only said that neither Britain nor the US would press their claims or claim exclusivity; to have claimed otherwise might have complciated things substantially in the diplomatic arena (especially given in 1818 the Russians still claimed areas south of 54-40).  Would haev been interesting if Rezanov had entered the Columbia in 1897 or whatever year it was he was looking for it, but chose not to enter, and the Russians had thereby been more involved in diplomatic claims as well as, potentially, settlement....Skookum1 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW List of Russian ships in California and the Pacific Northwest or List of historical Russian ships on the west coast of North America or something of the kind would be interesting to compile; "in California and" required because not all that called at Fort Ross or elsewhere down that way were in the PacNW....too limiting to confine them to List of historical ships in British Columbia, which would exclude the Oryol and the Chichagoff (re teh standoff at Fort Stikine/Redoubt San Dionisio).Skookum1 (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, and there's a number of British and American maritime fur trading ships that didn't get south of Alaska, so also don't make that list. The Sea Otters & Boston Ships book has an appendix listing all the ships that actively participated in fur trading and/or hunting along the Northwest Coast (up to Alaska--not sure if the Aleutians count for the list) between 1785 and 1841. It's a long list, and leaves out tender vessels and any ships whose primary purpose was not trading/hunting, even if they did some anyway (eg, Vancouver's ships). Pfly (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * also, there was an interesting book in the history stacks at the Bennett Library at SFU about the Russian naval/merchant marine presence off BC's Coast, i.e. in teh North Pacific, right up into Cold War times....was researching something else but have always regretted not takign it out and reading it, it looked really interesting; not sure at all of its title....if I could find out what it was you'd be able to get it on Interlibrary Loan....Skookum1 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yuquot wording
Hi; I'm not sure if this was you or bumpf from the NHSC site:
 * ''It was sighted for the first time by Captain James Cook in 1778. A Spanish naval post, Santa Cruz de Nuca, protected by the cannon of Fort San Miguel, the only Spanish settlement ever established in Canada, was maintained there between 1789 and 1795, with Nuca becoming an important focal point for English, Spanish, and American traders and explorers. Yuquot was also the scene of the Nootka Incident. The Nootka Convention was held in nearby Tahsis in 1792 to resolve the dispute between Spain and Britain over trading rights with the people of Yuquot. The talks between Captain George Vancouver and Captain Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra were facilitated by Chief Maquinna.

I changed "held in nearby Tahsis" to "signed in nearby Tahsis" (no party hats or delegates for this kind of convention...) and "Nuca becoming an important focal point" to "Nootka Sound, usually simply referred to as Nootka, becoming an important focal point". "Nootka Incident" strikes me as euhemerestic and of course links to Nootka Crisis, which maybe should be stated as such.....when they say "in Tahsis" is that right? And was it signed on land, or in either Quadra's or Vancouver's ship? I hate being a stickler for detail like this, but one error/fuzziness breeds another, especially when repeated and badly rephrased in Central CAnadian-spawned histories, which get all kinds of things in BC wrong as a result....I saw you were in the edit history, but wans't sure how much of this was yours....Skookum1 (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, I didn't notice that. The biography of Quadra I recently read describes his negotiations with Vancouver in detail, and it wasn't done in Tahsis. If I recall right, Maquinna invited them to what was probably a potlatch in Tahsis--probably held in part as a reaction to the potlatch-like reception of Vancouver by Quadra. After Vancouver arrived Quadra held a major "party" ("dinner"), and several smaller ones--and made Maquinna a key guest of honor. Shortly after that Maquinna invited Quadra and Vancouver to Tahsis. No negotiations about the Nootka Convention happened at Tahsis. In fact they didn't even negotiate face-to-face, or at least not much. The bulk of the Nootka negotiations were done by written letters, translated, considered, and replied to in more letters. Oop, gotta go! Pfly (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A parallel article with similarly botched bits is []. When you have the time.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it. One point is that the Nootka Conventions were not really "held" or "signed" or even negotiated at Nootka Sound. They were negotiationed and signed in Europe. Vancouver and Quadra went to Nootka to "carry out" the agreement. Vagueness in just how to carry it out resulted in more negotiations, and no final agreement, at least not at Nootka. Anyway, in a bit.. Pfly (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Perhaps a bit long on the Yuquot page, but it all seemed relevant. Pfly (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Better accurate than fuzzy. There's too much fuzzy in Wikipedia....Skookum1 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

John Tod (fur trader) and related articles
I just made some related ones to his; see Talk:Hudson%27s_Bay_Company, figured you might have something to add. All in prep for a Fort Kamloops article which I guess can combine Thompson's River Post/Fort Thompson and Fort Shuswap, as we did with Fort Astoria/Fort George - but we did keep separate the Spokane ones didn't we? Fort Hall combines the HBC post with the US Army one, I think; in Fort Okanagan's case there's a distinction between the HBC location and the US military one; similarly Fort Colville and Fort Colvile aren't quite the same thing....Skookum1 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thompson's River Post forwards to Kamloops for now, as I just found out; Fort Thompson goes to Fort Thompson, South Dakota.Skookum1 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied over there. Pfly (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues with History of BC article Spanish content
I removed some stuff from the article's lede (now on talkpage) but also my eyes widened at the conflation/distortion, or just plain errors, in the section on Spanish activities, see History of British Columbia.....as with the previous claim of a Spanish "golden age" in the region, this seems clearly written by someone wanting to "send up" Spanish history and downplay Cook etc. Would you mind having a look and tidying it up/fixing it? There's more history on the actual British Columbia article....or was, maybe it's been trimmed; a similar problem exists with Vancouver vs. History of Vancouver....Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yea.. too much emphasis on Quadra's 1775 voyage, at least. He saw very little of British Columbia. Aiming for Alaska from near the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where parted ways with Heceta, meant sailing way west before heading north. Other than an occassional glimpse of snowy peaks he saw little land before reaching Bucareli Bay, Alaska. Whatever intention he had of doing a better job on the return south was undermined by severe scurvy among the entire crew--including Quadra and Mourelle. So, for a page about the history of BC, this voyage should not be given such weight. Quadra had an important role in later years, of course. The dates 1513-1788, voyages included would be Drake (1513?), supposedly, Perez, (Quadra), Cook, then the first maritime fur traders. Hanna, Meares, Portlock, Dixon, Colnett, Duncan, etc, all began exploring the BC coast before or during 1788. Maybe the section dates should be altered to 1785, so the maritime fur trading fall into the next section. I dunno. Pfly (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your thorough work on the article Redoubt Lake. I had no idea that it was one of the largest meromitic lakes in North America, nor that the salmon run was ever in the low hundreds. 66.230.99.53 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)