Talk:Tuolumne River

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Headwaters

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On their website, the Tuolumne River Trust[1]] states a higher elevation for the river's headwaters than that which is now cited. Anyone care to explain the discrepancy? Ombudsman 11:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It depends on the definition of headwaters. The peaks of the mountains around the headwaters are at 13,000'. If the definition of headwater is the highest location that a drop of rain could fall and flow into the river, then those are the headwaters. However, the more commonly accepted definition is the highest flowing water of a river. This is shown on the USGS topo map as being a little above 11000' (I referenced the location on the topo map).

I think that the TRT is just making the river sound more impressive. But, between 11000' and 13000', those peaks are just big talus rubble piles --- the water just seeps down between the rocks. Those really aren't headwaters.

--hike395 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

WHERE THE MAP???

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is there not a map showing this river's route?

For every natural feature of size, there should be a map showing it's location, distribution, route, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.244.12 (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is "Baroque richness of form"?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the "Course" section of this article, the following sentence describes the walls of the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne, "The walls, not as steep and bare as those of Yosemite Valley, are sculpted in an almost Baroque richness of form."

This is a good article, but I'm confused by the phrase, "Baroque richness of form." Perhaps that phrase leaves a few other readers confused about what the writer is trying to convey about these canyon walls.

There is a hyperlink from the word Baroque to the article of the same name. The opening sentence of the Baroque article says, "...Baroque (was) a... style that used exaggerated motion and clear, easily interpreted detail to produce drama, tension, exuberance, and grandeur...". That is helpful. One can imagine dramatic canyon walls that exhibit the geological motion by which they were created. Is that an accurate interpretation of the intended meaning? Does that interpretation describe those walls?

Further in the Baroque article, in the section "Modern usage", it says, in "modern usage, the term "Baroque" may still be used, usually pejoratively, describing works of art, craft, or design that are thought to have excessive ornamentation or complexity of line..." So is that the walls of the canyon have excessive complexity?

Unfortunately, I've not experienced, nor seen the walls of the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne. Perhaps someone can provide a clearer description of them.

Also, the article on the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne uses this same description, so it may be possible to improve two articles at once.

OnTheGas (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in Tuolumne River

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tuolumne River's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "watershed":

From San Joaquin River: "Historic Conditions in the San Joaquin River Watershed". Millerton Area Watershed Coalition. Sierra Foothill Conservancy. 2006-02-15. Retrieved 2011-03-18.
From Middle Fork Feather River: George, Holly; et al. (March 2007). "Upper Feather River Watershed (UFRW) Irrigation DIscharge Management Program" (PDF). State Water Resources Control Board. University of California Davis. Retrieved 2010-09-16.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tuolumne River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic