Talk:New Albion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Drake's apostrophe 

message: Hu Nhu (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Albion DYK 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hopefully what I did is to your satisfaction ...Talk:New Albion/Archive 1.--Moxy 🍁 05:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, .  I appreciate your kindness and assistance.Hu Nhu (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Albion Talk page archive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  June 20, 2020 copyedit 

message: Thank you for your good faith, kind attention to the article .  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)
thread_title:  Emdash correction 9AUG2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit reversions made on 20 October 2020 (and following days)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Localised legacy 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks very much !  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)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: @ 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)
thread_title:  "Purported by some" edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Location 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WP:RS