Talk:Bloody Run (Poquessing Creek)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philadelphia Portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Philadelphia County?

The term "Philadelphia County" is rarely used, since the city and county are geographically the same and there is no separate county government. So the "County" here is also redundant. I suggest moving this to simply "Bloody Run (Phiadelphia, Pennsylvania)".--BillFlis 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether the term is 'rarely used' or not is really not the issue here. The fact remains that the river is geographically located in the Pennsylvania county named Philadelphia. Since the county exists, it should be used, as it is still used by the Commonwealth as well as in the Wikipedia article Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Just because the county is coterminous with the city and, quoting directly from that article,

"the county no longer has a government structure by law, in both the Unconsolidated Pennsylvania Statutes and The Philadelphia Code and Charter, the County of Philadelphia is still an entity within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is thus subject to the provisions and laws of the Commonwealth concerning counties"

and does not make it 'redundant' to use it in this article. It is required to differentiate between the many creeks so named within the same state and it is accurate.--Calogero C. Villareale 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that "County" here is incorrect, merely that it is redundant, hence unnecessary. The article on the county exists mainly for historical reasons, since the city and county were not coterminous before 1854. But if you want to keep it, you might want to edit all the links to Bloody Run (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and Bloody Run (Pennsylvania) to point directly here.--BillFlis 06:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read my post you'll see I didn't say "County" here was correct, I said it was "accurate", however, posting a reply that reiterates your original post is "redundant" and "hence unnecessary". I don't believe the article on the county "exists mainly for historical reasons". I believe the article, like any Wikipedia article, was created for informational reasons. What I want is some convincing evidence that will make me believe the use of "County" in this or any Wikipedia article is inaccurate. Since "the County of Philadelphia is still an entity within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" I don't believe that will happen. And since there are no double redirects, I think the links to Bloody Run (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and Bloody Run (Pennsylvania) and their respective redirects are just fine the way they are...--Calogero C. Villareale 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What I read from your first reply is that you claim that "rarely used" is not the issue; that is debatable. Also, whether "incorrect" is or is not the same as "inaccurate" is also debatable. So my follow-up post, which was intended to clarify my position, is not "redundant", only argumentative. If we can't argue (of course, civilly and rationally), then why do we have Discussion pages? Just because something exists doesn't mean it should or must be used. Suppose you have a screwdriver in your left hand and a wrench in your right--should you use them, just because they exist? I think not--it depends on the job at hand. Of course, there are some occasions when you would use both, or only one or the other, or, in some other cases (such as in opening a bottle or lighting a cigar), neither.--BillFlis 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well debate if you will, but usage alone does not determine what should or should not be in an article. Accuracy, however, does. Your follow-up post did not clarify anything and did not provide any new argument, it just repeated your opinion of redundancy, therefore it is redundant and unnecessary. I welcome any factual argument but have only seen opinion so far. As far as Wikipedia articles are concerned, they were created and exist for a reason. Especially in this case, the reason I quoted from this article is because of the factual and accurate information contained within it, therefore "County" should be used because the majority of the constituents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania choose to use "County" as the proper designation to an administrative division of the state. When the Commonwealth decides to do away with the designation of "County", then I will agree to removing it from this article. Of course, we will have to decide what to do about the many Towns and Rivers, etc. that have the same name within the borders of the Commonwealth in order to differentiate between their locations. Maybe we can start using the Geographic Coordinate System instead. In any event, some system needs to be used and I haven't seen any argument listed in this discussion page yet that would convince me to change from using "County".--Calogero C. Villareale 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if anyone had any more information on this topic, for example what battle caused the blood to run into it, where it is located, or when it was named. If not, does anyone know where I can find it?--User: Joseph M. Geoghan 02:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)