Talk:Mohawk River

New York (state): Capital District High‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Capital District (assessed as High-importance).

Rivers Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

River and valley

There is also a Mohawk Valley article. Seems that this one should concentrate on the river alone. How should they be linked? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islands in the Mohawk

I've been considering doing articles for most of the major islands in the Mohawk and the Hudson Rivers. Also for islands that no longer exist (I've already done Castle Island, Schodack Island State Park covers that island, and Green Island already has an article for the village/town which used to be an island prior to I-787 construction). There are no articles about Peebles, Van Schaick, Simmons, Lower Patroon (though there is information about it on the article on Patroon Island Bridge and a great map showing where the island was). I'm thinking there are enough islands of importance to make articles about that we could even set up an "islands of the hudson and its tributaries" category (with a shorter snappier name of course), anyone willing to help? Camelbinky (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flooding

Does anyone have any good sources about the floodings in Fonda, Fultonville, and other villages a few years back? bahamut0013^words _deeds 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding and Discharge

There is something wrong with the various flow figures given. If the peak daily flow is 18,000 cu ft (510 m3) there is no way the annual flow could even be close to 183,000,000,000 cubic feet (5.2 km3). I suspect that the "daily flow" figures are actually "daily flow rates" and should be in units of cubic feet (or cubic metres) per second (cu ft/s or m3/s) 216.58.31.141 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mohawk River

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 Mohawk 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 "NHD":

From Delaware River: U.S. Geological Survey. National Hydrography Dataset high-resolution flowline data. The National Map, accessed April 1, 2011
From Susquehanna River: U.S. Geological Survey. National Hydrography Dataset high-resolution flowline data. The National Map, accessed August 8, 2011

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 ⚡ 21:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohawk 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050318175619/http://www.bartleby.com/69/54/M08854.html to http://www.bartleby.com/69/54/M08854.html

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) 21:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]