Talk:Three Sisters (Oregon)

message: I don't think I did the move request right, but there it is. I don't see these three sisters in Oregon as being more notable than the other mountain ranges or other meanings of the word so I suggest the first page be disambig. Mithridates 01:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Pollinator 02:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree --- Google test: 196K results for "Three Sisters" Oregon, 1.78M for "Three Sisters". Doesn't dominate. -- hike395 04:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorting out the move now (I came to this page looking for a Chekhov play!). The Singing Badger 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Please note that there has been a proposal to make the default for "Three Sisters" the Chekhov play rather than the disambiguation page. Please refer here to express your view. Somno (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming disambiguation page

message: First: I tried to improve the appearance of the article. To fix the line spacing, between the three elevations, prominences and coordinates, I ran everything together on one line for each field. Look at the prior version to see the problem this fixed.
Second: I used PeakBagger as the source for elevation and prominence data for all three mountains. The prior version used NGS as the source for the elevation of the South Sister. The elevation on the NGS datasheet uses NAVD 88 while Peakbagger and the on current topo maps uses NGVD 29. I think its better to use the same datum for all three. –droll [chat] 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on my edit  

message: what do you think of making this section a sub-section under Geography and geology? This would create a very long beginning section, but currently all of the last section's content falls under those categories. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but I've always preferred keeping potential hazards at the end of volcano articles, since it's the most contemporarily relevant information. ceranthor 01:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Jsayre64, see below. —hike395 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history and potential hazards 

message: Hi, . Geography is off my beaten track, but the article which is looking good from a layman's point of view. Just some minor comments from me, mostly technical.
* Maybe wiki-link Oregon? It is not a very well-known US state like California, Nevada etc.
* The final paragraph has three consecutive sentences with two clauses. This is nothing concerning but it looks sort of repetitive to me.
* Images need WP:ALT.
**Working on this. Thanks for the reminder.
* North Sister, also known as "Faith," - I think comma after quotation mark. It might be a MoS thing but as it currently is, it seems the comma is part of Faith's title.
* Middle Sister also known as "Hope,", South Sister, also known as "Charity," - same as above.
* The smallest and least studied of the trio, it is the youngest of the three, having been primarily built by eruptions between 25,000 and 18,000 years ago,[36] though its most recent lava flows date to 14,000 years ago, making them slightly older than South Sister's. Too long; needs to be split.
* Despite its relatively young age, besides its peak South Sister has undergone significant erosion due to Pleistocene and Holocene glaciation This needs some rearranging. Despite ... besides.
**Changed to "Despite its relatively young age, every part of South Sister other than its peak has undergone significant erosion due to Pleistocene and Holocene glaciation."
I have read till Climbing and recreation section. FrB.TG (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All addressed I think except the alt text, which I'm going to work on shortly. ceranthor 20:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - alt text has been added, though I'm happy to take suggestions for making it better. ceranthor 21:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Will do - have to add a little more content I think, but hopefully it'll be there soon! ceranthor 16:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the review! I've started an FAC. ceranthor 23:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Hazards is covered in the article's very last section. I agree that subsections might help in geology/geography. I can work on the other suggestions tomorrow when I wake up. ceranthor 04:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for pointing out the last section. I was expecting all of the information about geology to be contained within the Geography and Geology section. If other readers are like myself, I would suggest splitting Geology out of Geography, and combining with hazards (perhaps as a subsection of Geology?). The USGS hazards map could be appropriate in the hazards subsection. —hike395 (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Later: Cropped the tall USGS Cascades volcanoes image to just Oregon, available on Commons here. We can replace the local topo map with this one, if editors agree. One natural place for this map is in the infobox. What do others think? —hike395 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be fine to just add this image to the geography and geology section. I'm open to the idea of moving the hazards section. ceranthor 15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Any other changes we should implement? ceranthor 23:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's looking excellent. I've found an image of Teardrop Pool here that I wanted to upload to Commons and add to the South Sister section, but the OAuth tool seems broken for me. I'll try a manual upload. —hike395 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the rearranging of sections that has been done. I noticed the format now mirrors the Featured Article Trout Creek Mountains (geography, geology, ecology, then human uses/recreation). Jsayre64 (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's the standard over at WP:WikiProject Mountains. I found a picture of Carver Lake (one of the moraine-dammed lakes), I can add it to the Geography section. —hike395 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! Thanks for all your additions over the past couple days. Your combined input has been invaluable, and I'm thrilled with the article's current status. ceranthor 00:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going through the geology more carefully now: there's some contradictory information (like the introductory section saying North Sister is younger than 170,000 years but the North Sister section saying it's as old as 311,000 years). I'm digging up the sources, so may do a bit of geology polish. I'm not a real geologist -- if you want a real geologist, I would suggest pinging . —hike395 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fiddled a bit - more time later (maybe). Vsmith (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I just expanded the ecology section. According to the USGS ecoregion maps, the area around the Three Sisters lie in 4 different ecoregions (depending on elevation and location). I took some material from Cascades (ecoregion) and Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills (ecoregion), condensed it, and built a short new ecology section around that. (Found an interesting thesis about the ecology of the area, also --- we could further expand this section with information from that thesis). The new material was partially taken from PD USGS sources.
The feature article criteria don't address PD material --- I believe it should be OK. If other editors think it's unaesthetic, we can either back out the edits or attempt to rewrite. It may be difficult to rewrite enough to remove the PD tag, because the material includes lists of species. —hike395 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much free time today, but perhaps tonight I'll try to get around to copyediting it a bit. I'd rather not incorporate direct text from another source if that's okay. And it's not a ton of material, so it shouldn't be too big a deal to paraphrase in our own words. ceranthor 20:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just got a chance to look over it - it looks good. I asked with Brian at the FAC to see if that's acceptable or not, since I don't actually know. ceranthor 23:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecology section 

message: See here and here. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some material to this section. What do you think? ceranthor 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like how it looks now. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some possible sources for fire info 

message: I thought the level of cooperation on getting this to FA was especially impressive. Kudos to Ceranthor and all the other editors who pitched in. Finetooth (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A special thanks to you, FrB.TG, Cas Liber, Ceoil, Wehwalt, and of course Jsayre and Hike395 for your thorough prose/comprehensiveness suggestions, and to Brian and Nikkimaria for their image and source reviews. I too was thoroughly impressed and incredibly grateful for all the help you provided! ceranthor 17:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And Vsmith, who knows a lot more about geology than I. Finetooth (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Congrats! It was an excellent read. I’m glad I could help in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Great work, all! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Join the choir, love collaboration and the result! Proud to have a little DYK on this feast day, talking (in a 1653 song) about the offer of spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Many hands