Talk:Sutter's Fort

This article is mostly complete and without major issues, but may require some further work to reach good article standards. IAW with the quality scale, it is rated B, Low for several wikiprojects; B, Mid for CAWP. --Morenooso (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

While New Helvetia covers the history of Sutter's Fort, both articles quite short. It would be an improvement to have the information of both articles hosted merely on one. Fort Langley National Historic Site and Fort Ross, California offer great examples of historical stations on the Pacific Coast that comprehensively explain the past and present. While New Helvetia was the name used by Sutter, most mentions of it I've seen tend to refer to the post as Sutter's Fort. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment This article is larger than 7k and the New Helvetia article is larger than 11k. This article appears to be specific to the building, whereas the New Helvetia appears to be about the land grant as a whole; while connected it can be argued that they are different but related subjects.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

Here's the two that caught my eye before I even scrolled down:
The painting, which is called "contemporaneous," shows the fort pretty much on the river; maybe 100' off the shore. It's actually a mile away from the rvr, as Sutter was warned by local Indians of flooding that reached that far. (He actually wanted to build it on what's now Old Sac's Railroad Museum, but the flooding dangers forced him to move inshore.)
"The fort is restored to it's original condition." That's not even close to right; half of what was the fort is now under a hospital, the current "restored" fort is about 1/3 the original. (Perhaps ironically, the paining is also turned 90 degrees; the rvr passed the relative short wall, but because of the limits of the reconstruction it "would" now pass the long walls.)
I know none of you have ever been there (and most of you couldn't find it on a map if it were circled with big arrows, probably couldn't even find Sac itself without the circles and arrow), but at least don't tell a story that is utterly fantasy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.81.51 (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sutter's Fort. 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/20110707072333/http://www.linecamp.com/museums/americanwest/western_names/sutter_john/sutter_john.html to http://www.linecamp.com/museums/americanwest/western_names/sutter_john/sutter_john.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) 20:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

For a non-local it is not given that the fort is the core of Sacraamento city centre? Woulden't it be noted at the beginning? and a map reference would be fine too?

--Zzalpha (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC) [reply ]