Talk:Pitt Lake's lost gold mine

Re-Write

This article could use a little bit of attention. My title to this section is simply an eye-catching title so people will read this. This page does not need to be re-written but it does need work. Some of it sounds like a story book. Sentences like "Did Hugh Murray need additional evidence?", "Had he ever doubted the existence of Jackson’s gold?", "Were Jackson, and Shotwell before him, perhaps fabrications of imagination?" are not proper Wikipedia etiquette. If someone can do a little dirty work here go ahead otherwise I'll get to it in a while. AndrewEnns (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did give the article some TLC and updated it with new information not available before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Braches (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has numerous inline citations, so I removed the inline citations tag. If anyone considers a need for additional citations for specific statements, please place tags within the text, as appropriate. As for the notability tag, if someone still considers that approppriate, please state why here on the talk page. AndrewEnns, have you been able to polish the wording enough to delete the quality and wikify tags? Thanks. Plazak (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't originally place the tags, but I cleaned them up using the "multiple issues" template. Right now, I would say the article is still not completely Wikified. And the citations are not full citations (is there a template for that?). Writers names are missing, and page numbers would be nice for the old newspapers, if known. If any sources are available online, they should be linked, preferably using the Cite web or related templates. I believe that the original taggers suspected some sort of hoax or spam due to all the references being to archives on the article creator's website. However, I personally have no issue with correctly linking to copies of any sources which were published before 1923. The main objection to user-hosted copies of articles is that they violate copyright, but sources published before 1923 are in the public domain. There is no reason not to link them. Yworo (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the need to link each reference to the pdf file with the corresponding transcript on the <slumach.ca> Web site. The site mentioned as an External Link contains all referenced texts and I placed a note there to clarify that. With one or two exceptions (not directly linked and access for subscribers only) the original sources of the references are not on the Web. Microfilm and some cutting collections were the sources of the around 150 transcripts of articles available on the <slumach.ca>. Since page numbers were missing on most cuttings they were not included in any of the transcripts. The newspaper articles are mostly without an author’s name but I'll add the authors’ names as well as the titles/subtitles of the articles. If, after doing that the article is still not completely Wikified,” please help me by specifically showing where the “Slumach” and the “Pitt Lake’s Lost Gold Mine” articles lack in meeting Wikimedia standards. I'd really like to see those tags removed.Fred Braches (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A few years ago Vancouver island was completely helicopter mineral mapped by the government, has this been done in the Pitt area and if so, are there maps available we can link to this article? I would think if they mapped the area, this specific spot would have been mapped as well and the mystery is over. I will look for any modern mineral maps of the area, and I encourage anyone else interested to do so as well in hopes of finding any maps that may assist this article. 2001:569:BC37:1E00:3C27:AF61:B983:DED1 (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Are there any remaining doubts about the notability of the subject. For my own part, I think that it is notable as a classic "lost mine" legend, with multiple published sources. The legend has apparently even attracted comment from the Geological Survey of Canada (citation #24). Any comments? Plazak (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. I'll remove the issue, though I can't speak for the editor who placed it, who may express a different opinion (or not). Yworo (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting the removal and doing the removal of the "notability" issue. Since I did the same for the Slumach article, may I asked you to also remove the "notability from that article. It is sufficiently clear now that this is not something I just invented.Fred Braches (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)