Talk:Cape Nome Mining District Discovery Sites

Not adequately covered?

@Doncram: you think that this stub is an improvement over redirecting to Nome Gold Rush? (Referencing your edit history comment: "restore article, whose topic is not adequately covered in Nome Gold Rush article".) Kindly inform what is in this stub that is not in that article; I'm stumped. (Or were you planning an imminent expansion?) Magic♪piano 22:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, planning expansion. A bot removed the "Under construction" tag, but I have not forgotten this, it is included in Category:NRHP in progress which I am actively working on.

I did add considerably by sorting out references. Looking at the sources, don't you agree that some detailed coverage of the actual sites is warranted? --doncram 22:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Based on the extant descriptions of the Swedes' claim locations (the only thing really missing from the main article), I see about one to one-and-a-half paragraphs of content to add to the main article, which would adequately cover the subject (description of location plus mining history). This could easily be added to that article, eliminating a need to have separate articles, each of which needlessly replicate historical context. This is why I originally redirected this article to that on the gold rush. Feel free to prove me wrong by writing a high-quality start-level article here. Magic♪piano 00:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

For this case of 3 NRHP sites and an NHL district of 4 sites, where there is a pretty good article existing at Nome Gold Rush, it makes sense for this article to exist and to focus on the specific locations, leaving general context to the NGR article. It is of interest I think to develop about the specific locations from available on-line sources, and for the article's existence and status to call for more development of specifics, e.g. about coordinates of the specific places, in way that would not be achieved within the NGR article. I have added a bit towards coverage of the specific four places, and I will plan to expand more. I'd be very happy if you would choose to contribute also.

I will AGF about your tone in challenge to develop the article to "Start" quality, as it is fine to encourage another editor to do more if meant in a friendly way. But quality rating is like a third rail that I don't want to touch. What is "Start" or not has been controversial in WP:NRHP and you and I cannot define what it means in discussion here, and I do not want to engage in any promises or even assert a goal in those terms. --doncram 05:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The point behind the challenge was that replacing a redirect to a start-level article with a poor-quality stub is not a step in the right direction. If you really weren't going to improve the stub, it would have been more appropriate to restore the redirect, at least until you actually were prepared to do the improvement. (FWIW, my personal definition of start for NRHP articles is that they should have about 1500 prose bytes (using this script), adequately introduce the subject and its history, and give the reason for its listing. This article at present is marginal on the latter element, because it fails to mention that the Swedes' claims are what kicked the gold rush off, the reason for their significance.) Magic♪piano 20:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

sources

I mentioned having "sorted out" sources. I had in fact rounded up NRHP documents for the 3 separate sites which had not been in the Nome Gold Rush article, but I had not figured out what difference there may be, if any, between NHL vs. NRHP versions of "Cape Nome Mining District Discovery Sites" documents. I'm not sure if the two URLs for the text go to the same scanned document, and likewise for the photos, within:

References

In fact the PDF files are different, and the 2nd set, with NRHP in their URLs is superior, as these read properly in Chrome browser. There is a general issue with many NPS PDF documents not conforming to PDF standards. The first set with NHLS in the URL are okay when viewed in MicroSoft Edge browser but garbled when viewed in Chrome (the entire text document, and typed stuff in the photos document, including at the bottom of the 5th photo, is garbled). So i'll go with the latter set.

The pages covered are the same. Unfortunately the author and the date of preparation is not included. --doncram 21:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Exact locations

Linking to exact location coordinates would obviously be good. No coordinates in NRIS though. Google maps show Snake River, perhaps not labelled, but it is the river arriving at Nome, between it and the airport, and Snake River Road runs up it. Its tributary Glacier Creek is labelled, but not the Glacier Creek usually/often-dry tributary Snow Creek.

• However it has location for "Snow Gulch" at 64.597490°N 165.406670°W / 64.597490; -165.406670 (Snow Gulch), which I am inclined to accept as the Snow Creek Placer Claim location. --doncram 03:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Anvil Creek is also labelled. Including where Glacier Creek Rd crosses it, at 64.578870°N 165.395111°W / 64.578870; -165.395111 (Anvil Creek at Glacier Creek Rd.). Some named places along it include "Gordon Gulch" and "Quartz Gulch" and more, but I see no indication of the discovery site. --doncram 03:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• No hits on "Erik Lindblom" site.

• Coordinates for the portion of Nome Beach that is NRHP-listed should be identifiable from a map that is included in one of the documents. --doncram 03:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, providing geocoords would be highly inappropriate. The NRHP listing expresses these sites as "Address Restricted", meaning that the precise locations of these sites is intentionately not disclosed. This is often done where the risk of preventing vandalism, antiquities theft, or maintaining the ambient baseline conditions pending further needed historic research is a priority. Fortguy (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Upon further examination, the listing says "Address unknown" meaning there is no such restriction. Never mind. Fortguy (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There are 12 photos in the 78000535 photos pdf which would provide enough clarity for a person on the spot to identify the locations exactly I think. It seems possible, though not a sure thing, that Google satellite view, in conjunction with the photos, might allow us to identify the exact places.

For example, page 11 in the photos is a 1967 photo of an Alaska Highways marker (a wooden sign hung between posts set into 55 gallon oil drums) which might be visible in satellite view. The sign is on a road and says it is 1 to 2 miles from the Discovery site. --doncram 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)