Talk:Mill Creek (Schuylkill River)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Rivers (Rated start-Class) (Rated Low-importance) This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] WikiProject Philadelphia (Rated start-Class) 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. Start This article has been rated as start-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] Photo

Great photo from PWD can be found here: http://www.phillyh2o.org/creek.htm Anyone know if it is PD? --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant categories

Please stop placing the redundant category in the Mill Creek article. If you do decide to place it there again, please cite what policy you are following. I find that Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania is overpopluated and unwieldy itself. Rivers are not addressed in Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories . I also checked out WikiProject Rivers, and didn't see it addressed. Unless you can find better documentation - let it go. --evrik ^(talk) 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The entire discussion can be viewed at User talk:Gjs238#Redundant categories Gjs238 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• That was the old discussion. This is the new one. I see you still have no specific policy, just your preference.--evrik ^(talk) 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• The policy cited need not list every individual wikipedia page and category as you would seem to prefer - that would potentially create a long and cumbersome policy as well as severly limit its scope. Gjs238 21:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• So, let me get this correct, you cite a policy that may or may not apply, and you can't reference anything else. So, this is your personal preference. --evrik ^(talk) 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• The policy is sound enough to stand on its own. PA river articles were categorized this way prior to your creation of the Mill Creek page. For the short term, why don't you categorize your article as the other river pages are and not create an edit war. For the long term, the issue can be resolved on the WikiProject Rivers page and the issue, and possibly the policy, clarified. Gjs238 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as we're clear that this is your personal preferences and not rooted in any firm policy or decision by a wikiproject. --evrik ^(talk) 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I most certainly disagree with that statement. A discussion has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Hopefully neutral open-minded people without personal preferences and an axe to grind will participate and a consensus can be reached. Gjs238 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
      • How funny, now that you've acknowledged that this is solely your personal preference, you've now made a move to try and find neutral parties. That's fine with me. Would you like to opne an RfC? That would be okay with me as well. --evrik ^(talk) 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
        • ??? Time to cool down Cucumber. I've acknowledged nothing of the sort. I've been writing all along about consensus, resolution and clarification. I don't understand why you're all worked up and emotional about something that will eventually be clarified. Gjs238 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Ha ha. I am amused by your last couple of posts. First you drove an edit war without seeking consensus. Then you started trying to cite policies that don't exist. When called on that you went out and tried to build consensus for your position after the fact. Dude, the emporer has no clothes - you may not have openly admitted it, but your actions have spoken for you. --evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)