# Talk:New Albion

The proper usage of the apostrophe with Drake and the official naming geography at Point Reyes is this: Drakes Bay, Drakes Estero, Drake's Cove.  The Heizer and Sugden quotes are reflected as the authors used them, namely with the apostrophe.  The book in the article's Further reading  section also reflects the original possessive usage.  While I am confident of the correct names, I am less certain why.  I believe that Drakes Estero and Drakes Bay are names prescribed by the American governmental authorities. Drake's Cove has not been so influenced.Hu Nhu (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

In Michael Turner's book, In Drake's Wake Volume 2 The World Voyage (2006)--which is cited in the article--Raymond Aker writes in an appendix on page 289 about the naming of Drakes Bay.  Drakes Bay was long written with the apostrophe: Drake's Bay. This was stopped in 1929 with a survey by the U.S. National Geodetic Surveyand Drakes Bay became the common form.  The place where Drake careened Golden Hind, was first published in 1956 by the Drake Navigators Guild.  In all the reading I've done about New Albion, I see there is not always agreement among contemporary authors and organizations--this makes sense due to easy confusion about the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Nhu (talk • contribs) 03:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Add to the list Drake's Beach, the readily-accessible beach and parking lot just west of the Drake landing site.  It uses the apostrophe.MikeVdP (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hu Nhu (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello editors.  After reading through the various articles addressing article Talk pages, I am considering archiving much of this page.  I am considering archiving the first 50 entries.  I have never done such an edit, and would like any comments regarding the matter. Hu Nhu (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Even with no responses after nine days, I believe I will wait to see how the article is received should the DYK nomination be successful. That exposure may engender some Talk page activity, and I believe it is prudent to review archiving at that point.Hu Nhu (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully what I did is to your satisfaction ...Talk:New Albion/Archive 1.--Moxy 🍁 05:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Moxy.  I appreciate your kindness and assistance.Hu Nhu (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the comma, one added as a good faith edit.  Please note that when the dependent clause is last in the sentence, it is not connected with a comma to the independent clause.  This punctuation convention is not covered in WP:Style.  It may be seen [HERE].Hu Nhu (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your good faith, kind attention to the article @Mndata2:.  I reverted one of your edits regarding the emdash. According to wp:emdash, this is the style:
"Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes)
Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas); or singly (perhaps instead of a colon). They may also indicate an abrupt stop or interruption, in reporting quoted speech. In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article:"
Consistency in this article is unspaced.  Please know I really appreciate your work on what are very small details that are actually quite important.  most kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The edits made on 19 October 2020 were, in many ways entirely adequate and some were clearly improvements.  Three in particular were not, so I edited them.  One was a simple typographical error. The others were matters of substance.  I am currently far from my source material and unable to access them.  However, on these particular edits, I am mostly confident that the way they were originally written is the way which reflects the manner of how the source material (which is cited) reads.  So the reversions.
This is a WP:GA and we need to be very careful with it.  It is in that spirit that I edit and explain. Most kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I also addressed the editing matter regarding the era of British naval dominance to reflect reference used in the article.  If there is another reliable source that indicates that British naval dominance lasted until after WWII, then let's include it and add a referenced edit.Hu Nhu (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Further, later, edits were necessary. In the lead, further national expansion projects was changed to further colonial projects.  This change was inaccurate: since no colony was established at New Albion, additional colonies could not result.  Colonial projects certainly did result; however, they were a subset of national expansion.  The Elizabeth Island and New Albion claims were national expansion, but not colonies.  Please see the later information in the article.  It states from a reliable source that Drake did not establish a colony at New Albion. So, the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Nhu (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The sources do not say that the territory was never claimed so the edit was reverted to previous version.  The source does say national expansion when referring to further projects by Gilbert and Raleigh--so the restoration to the previous version there. The sea to sea entitlement did not apply to all of North America--this could be misunderstood by the edit which states North America, so the restoration to the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Nhu (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the edits of shard or sherd, please note that the word shard is used throughout the article. The November 14 edit by Firejuggler86 addressed only one use of the word by changing shard to sherd. Shard is used several times in the article, and changing only one word is not acceptable. The editing summary notes that sherd is used by archaeologists; this is often true.  This is not however a hard and fast rule, and when bringing the article to WP:GA status, I had to decide which style to use.  Two reasons presented themselves for the use of shard:  1) the image of the interpretive display at the museum uses shards, 2) the cited LA Times article used shards.  I believe consistency is important, more so than sherd, especially as shard is not incorrect--thus the revision.  Perhaps a footnote about the use of sherd or shard may be helpful.  I'd like to seek a Rfc or advice from a WP:EX before making further edits to the article regarding the matter.  Most kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hu Nhu My print Webster's College Dictionary, @1991, states Shard as the primary spelling, Sherd as secondary. I think sherd is the UK spelling. However, WP gives precedence to the original: US vs UK spelling as first used. I support shard, in this article, especially given the sources used. Not sure if it is worth your valuable time, to seek a RFC. I would go with Shard, which is supported by precedence. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Tribe of Tiger.  After the one edit which challenged the spelling, made in a type of edit I think of as drive-by--where an editor who is not invested in the article makes an unhelpful change and moves on--the matter seems to have resolved simply by leaving it alone.  From time to time, I think maybe I'll attempt a FA status, but hesitate due to the amount of work and the uncertainty of the integrity of the article being compromised by other editors.  If I was to attempt such a designation, I believe the matter would come up there, but until that possible time, I will leave it as shard. I appreciate that you took the time to find a reference.  Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Hu Nhu Another note from my giant dictionary. I am more accustomed to the combination word, potsherd.
"potsherd: a broken pottery fragment, esp. one of archaeological value. [1275-1325: ME, =pot POT + sherd SHARD]".
Except for a possible spacing error, I have typed the exact definition. I strongly suspect that this might be a source of the drive-by edit.  You might like to read MOS:ENGVAR. On the other hand, I note at the top of this talkpage, a note saying that this article is written in British English. Did the recent GA review disagree with your spelling? If you have done such an amount of work here, perhaps you are now the primary editor, and can chose shard vs sherd, if that is, indeed, a AE vs BA issue.
I am no expert on GA/FA, but I cannot see this as an issue. This is most certainly Not a deal-breaker, in terms of a review!  So, my intelligent and worthy friend, shard away! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Tribe of Tiger! Thanks very much for the further information.  The GA reviewer had no comment on the matter, and as I have since learned, the GA reviewer is a very detailed reviewer with much attention to detail--which is something I really appreciate.  I exchanged messages with a member of the archaeology project, and he favored sherds; however, I have left it as is. The word sherd is a technical term, and shard also is appropriate on a Wikipedia policy of one level lower, a policy to make technical matters easier to comprehend for the typical reader.  Additionally, the matter seems to have settled: shard away it is. Again, I appreciate your kind attention, and even more so, your kind words.Hu Nhu (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hu Nhu I am very pleased that this situation is working for you. After further consideration, I wonder if the shard/sherd has more to do with the pronunciation of the word in AE vs BE, and the spelling has followed along. I suspect that any archaeologist would recognize the term, despite the spelling. (The items were found in a US-English area.) Frankly, the spelling of one word doesn't alter the meaning.  I am so glad that you have a good reviewer...and I do sincerely wish you the best! Thanks for the comment/reply.
Now, if you want a bit of fun...A lovely author, Anne McCaffrey, wrote a long series of "young adult" science fiction /fantasy novels regarding futuristic people from Earth, who settled on a planet, PERN and had to bioengineer tiny flying "dragons" into enormous creatures, to help the colonists survive. The " dragons" laid huge eggs...so a one of the oaths &/or "cuss words" on the planet, 2000 years later, was "Shards!". A tiny tidbit, for your pleasure! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Tribe of Tiger  I remember one of my daughters reading Dragon Riders of Pern--very fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Nhu (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Localised legacy section from the article partially because it has taken on aspects of WP:Trivia.  For further information about this decision, please look HEREHu Nhu (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Minor point, but ASIN is definitely discouraged at FAC. I would replace those ASINs with OCLC for consistency, because OCLC is more universal as an identifier, and to avoid the impression of promoting one particular bookselling company. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much buidhe!  I was able to take care of two ASIN and one book which had no ASIN nor ISBN.  Most excellent.  I welcome any other information, no matter how minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Nhu (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@ the ip address editor from Oregon who edited the opening paragraphs:
Please know that I changed your edits according to wp:weasal and wp:accused.  I see that you have no other contributions, so you may not be aware of these policies.  They are in the manual of style where you can peruse them. 
Also know that there is a perfectly suitable article, Fringe theories on the location of New Albion in which numerous alternative locations may be written about.  The page is in need of improvements and you might consider editing there if you are interested in the various Oregon landing site ideas of Drake's landing.  Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed the phrase most likely in the lead and included it in the section Official Recognition when it addresses the National Historic Landmark--and I cited the source for the phrase.  After looking for further California Historical Landmark information, I found that the California Office of Historic Preservation has no such qualifier when defining the site and was able to add the information with citations.  Additionally, neither the Coast Miwok Tribal Council of Marin nor the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria have the qualifier in their sources. So, I believe it is appropriate in the body with the National Historic Landmark to state most likely while leaving it out of the lead. The California Historical Landmark, Coast Miwok Tribal Council of Marin, and Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria are sources with the most recent information.  Kind regards to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've used the source, https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=114250, regarding this article.  I would like opinions regarding it as reliable.  It is an unconventional source.  Reading through the WP:RS material, I do believe it qualifies.  But, I am am uncertain. I appreciate thoughts from editors.  Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There is an edit of Oct. 2024:  Removed unnecessary fragment on "armchair historians" and inappropriate slandering on Jules Verne and Samuel Johnson. Confusion is better accounted on limited records available (even falsified) and speculations required to assert the main site. Seamanship experience and navigational knowledge is insufficient when proper records are lacking.
This is hardly slander.  Davidson was the foremost expert in sailing the Pacific Coast.  His observations certainly add to the history of all the places think Drake might have landed.  For example, Verne was publishing a popular by-mail series.  Clearly, he was using assistant researchers and writers.  They certainly appear as "armchair historians" who didn't get out to the coast, do some sailing and really do their research.
Nope, it wasn't a case of "limited records," but limited research.
I'd suggest restoring the interesting entry.MikeVdP (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

What if I wrote that Davidson was an "armchair sailor" with no idea whatsoever of the sailing skills (and state) of Drake's circumnavigation crew, the state of the ship (sails&hull), 16th century navigation instruments and the distance that they could possibly have travelled in the northern Pacific? The foremost expert may have been humbler on what we actually know about the expedition whereabouts than what has been postured. The language of "armchair historians" in a serious Wikipedia article is unheard of and most unnecessary. Perhaps reserved to "armchair Wikipedians"? ;-) LeCanardQuoi (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
LeCanardQuoi and MikeVdP:  A response to your question LeCanardQuoi:  Should you write such a statement about Davidson, it would likely be reverted as wp:de or followed with notations such as these:  .  The edit you suggest would be erroneous unless satisfactorily cited, citations which are missing in your proposal.  Compliments to you LeCanardQuoi for seeking thoughts before implementing the edit.
Additionally, should you find acceptable sources, that does not automatically trigger the deletion of Oko's statement--it would possibly be further information to add to the article. Both Davidson and Oko are wp:rs. If you or anyone else has a wp:rs supporting Davidson's alleged incompetence or ignorance, it might be considered; however, you'd also need to consider impeaching Oko since his comment implicitly endorses Davidson. Considering these men's maritime background and publications, such a blanket dismissal seems most difficult.  Moreover, this is an article about New Albion, and not particularly about the abundance of fringe theories.  Explanations about the background and motivations behind the surplus ideas would be suitable in the article about those  suggested, alternative locations.  Kind regards to all. Hu Nhu (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the October 22 edit by LeCanardQuoi.  The material this editor removed was properly cited using a wp:rs and, it was neither slander nor wp:lbl as stated in the edit summary.  Moreover, the prose I restored was reviewed during the wp:ga process.  In the edit summary, the reverted editor offered personal opinions; additionally, should that editor find wp:rs reflecting that opinion, it should be properly included in the article without disturbing the Oko 1964 cited information. Should the editor in question like to seek a WP:3O, I fully support such. Hu Nhu (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Using the "armchair historian" label is highly derogatory even if "properly cited". The article review has somehow missed. Such a label is hardly ever used in Wikipedia articles duly reviewed. Using such a label in the first place was just as opinionated as flagging the article serious shortcoming. Verne was certainly known as a fiction writer , and most successful at it. And not a historian by any mean. Suggesting that the confusion on the Drake northern Pacific coast expedition whereabouts was caused by "armchair historians" simply undermine the article and attempts to revise it. If you clearly do not wish to improve article, keep rejecting honest revision effort intended to improve article. Proven contributors to Wikipedia such as myself have better things to do elsewhere. I strongly suggest you reconsider the rejection and simply undo it. Looking at the article history and talk pages, the Drake Pacific coast expedition narrative has gone stale as exemplified by the article revisions in the last many years. I understand that many others have attempted revising the Drake related articles and their efforts have been similarly undermined. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello MonsieurPoint.  You've an interesting edit, one with salient information without a citation--thus I tagged the paragraph as such.  Do you know the source, and are you able to properly cite this?  If so, please do.  I will look through my books for a citation and add it if I can find the information--information which, to my knowledge is accurate.  There is also a possible Sea History article I seem to recall which may address this that I will try to locate.  This is a wp:ga and I dearly want to protect that status.  It was a lengthy and rigorous process to achieve this rating, and further edits should be carefully considered and executed.  Most kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/43093/did-britain-look-into-taking-california
I based on this investigation by other Internet users. MonsieurPoint (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello MonsieurPoint.  I deeply appreciate your prompt reply.  I do not believe that the source you accessed passes as a wp:rs; nonetheless, let's leave the material while we search for wp:rs material to support the information.  If I can find it within a few days--or you are able to--then let's retain your edit.  If not, let's revert it with the notion of continuing to look for salient information and restoring it.  How does that sound to you?
Thank you for your wp:gf.  Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal. I don't have too many ideas for secondary sources. It's just a hunch after seeing maps from the late 18th / early 19th century where several English cartographers (not all) seem to want to replace the term Upper California with New Albion, whereas the term Upper California was already widely accepted at the time, and the region was no longer terra incognita. You can see this on the map I posted in the article, but also on other maps at the links below:
https://www.historicpictoric.com/cdn/shop/products/563064_1wmark.jpg?v=1683155915
https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/map-17901799-north-america
https://www.geographicus.com/P/AntiqueMap/northamerica-wilkinson-1792
https://nwcartographic.com/cdn/shop/products/11744a_2750x.jpg?v=1611945331
I don't see how this can be anything other than an expression of English colonial desires. MonsieurPoint (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Well done on the recent edits.  The sources you use look solid. Thanks for helping the article continue to grow well.  Kind regards. Hu Nhu (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

A series of early 2025 edits have added content, but not value.  Anonymous MonsieurPoint edits can be removed by reverting to 30 October 2024.  This should clean up this article to its prior "good article" condition.MikeVdP (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed an edit on May 17 that used sources that did not contain the assertions of the text.  While the assertions of the text may be accurate, a source that states them must be used.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)