User talk:Gjs238

Names of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania Creek Pages

Hi, thanks for your work on the streams in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. I have some questions though - I agree we should be consistent with stream naming policy, but I am not able to find such a policy. Could you please direct me to the right place?

Also, it seems as if the general policy is "Stream Name (Geographic Descriptor)" where the Geographic Descriptor is typically a state name. This is presumably why you changed Lycoming Creek, Pennsylvania to Lycoming Creek (Pennsylvania).

I checked on www.topozone.com, and there is only one "Lycoming Creek" in the whole United States (at least on USGS topographic maps). There is also only one Larrys Creek, only one White Deer Hole Creek, and only one Loyalsock Creek, so it seems to me the names for these pages should just be their names (no (Pennsylvania)), i.e. make the name just "Larrys Creek" (so Larrys Creek, Pennsylvania needs to be moved either way). I intend to make articles on the ones that are now just redlinks.

The reason I think we can have names without a geographic descriptor is that Muncy Creek has no geographic descriptor and you did not add "(Pennsylvania)" to it. I checked and there are two other Muncy Creeks (in Nevada and Kentucky). Both are so small on the maps that I doubt anyone would ever do an article on them (and if they did, the current article could always be moved to "Muncy Creek (Pennsylvania)".

Finally, there is Pine Creek. You suggest "Pine Creek (West Branch Susquehanna River Tributary)" instead of "Pine Creek (Pennsylvania)" (my corrected redlink name). While this is accurate, it is very awkward and not where I think most people would look for Pine Creek. I checked on topozone.com and there are 18 Pine Creeks in PA, but all of the others are much smaller and seem unlikely to reach article status (although they may be mentioned in other articles as tributaries). When I Googled "Pine Creek, Pennsylvania", the first several pages (all I checked) were all about the major creek with its mouth in Lycoming County (or the two townships named Pine Creek). Here is my suggestion for the article name: "Pine Creek (Pennsylvania)". This seems to fit the rule and it is the major Pine Creek in Pennsylvania. What do you think? Ruhrfisch 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I checked the Columbia Gazetteer of North America and it only lists two creeks named "Pine Creek", the one in PA [1] and one in TX, that is only about half as long. It is the longest Pine Creek in North America, so I think "Pine Creek (Pennsylvania)" works. Ruhrfisch 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's great to see someone else working on these stream entries. I did a lot of work on the NJ list and have been putting off the PA list for a bit.

- I'm not aware of a written policy.

- The norm at this time is that a geographic descriptor following a comma indicates a town, city, etc, while a geographic descriptor in brackets indicates a stream.

- The geographic descriptor is only necessary when there are other streams of the same name listed in Wikipedia.

- List of Pennsylvania rivers lists three Pine Creeks, hence the various geographic descriptors. There is a Pine Creek disambiguation page to help folks find what they are looking for. Gjs238 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the "main" Pine Creek page should be Pine Creek (Pennsylvania) Gjs238 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification and for starting the Pine Creek (Pennsylvania) article and the disambiguation page for Pine Creek. I started the articles for Loyalsock Creek and White Deer Hole Creek tonight. I had looked at the list of PA rivers some time ago but did not know about the articles for the other Pine Creeks (except the Australian one) - thanks. Just a question - why don't you move your old talk to archive pages instead of "deleting" it? Ruhrfisch 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Me again - thanks for adding the list of PA rivers to Loyalsock Creek and White Deer Hole Creek. I made a goofy error - the main tributary of the Loyalsock is Little Loyalsock Creek (not Little Lycoming Creek), so I switched it back (and delinked it). My goal is to eventually get the articles to where Larrys Creek nearly is (it needs pictures). I want to get a uniform style for the six articles on Lycoming County creeks following that model (three already mentioned plus Pine Creek (Pennsylvania), Lycoming Creek and Muncy Creek). For creeks that have major tributaries (listed as watersheds in their own right on the Chesapeake Bay page I link to), I was going to do just one page (see Muncy Creek and Little Muncy Creek for an example - it needs work, but is getting there) and just do a redirect and link to the major creek article for the minor tributaries (Little Muncy Creek is linked this way on the List of PA rivers already). Eventually I would like to do the whole West Branch Susquehanna River system this way and way in the future the whole Susquehanna system. Kind of like the Potomac system articles all are now. Ruhrfisch 16:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I just moved Lycoming Creek (Pennsylvania) to Lycoming Creek, there is only one Lycoming Creek listed in Wikipedia. Sorry for the back & forth. Gjs238 14:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No problemo. Changing subjects, I think I misunderstand disambiguation pages - there is also a "Muncy Creek Township, Pennsylvania" article about the Lycoming County township, so I had a link to Muncy (disambiguation) on each page with Muncy in the name (Muncy, PA; Muncy Twp, Muncy Creek Twp, and Muncy Creek itself). What should we do if someone types in "Muncy Creek" and just gets the creek article and not the Township? Ruhrfisch 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Your understanding is just fine, I returned the Muncy disambiguation to the Muncy Creek page. An alternative would be to rename the stream page 'Muncy Creek (Pennsylvania) and make 'Muncy Creek' a disambiguation page pointing to both the stream and township pages. Thanks for pointing out my error. Gjs238 15:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks - I changed the order so the indented Little Muncy Creek was under Muncy Creek (instead of under Muncy Creek Township), then put the PA Muncy names together and then the PA Muncy Creek names together. I had also thought on the Muncy Creek article there could just be a "See also Muncy Creek Township, Pennsylvania" and on the Muncy Creek Township article there could be a "See also Muncy Creek (stream)" or something similar instead of a disambiguation article link. Ruhrfisch 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I had put things in alphabetical order, either way works. Little Muncy Creek should have been indented under Muncy Creek, not the Township, that was a typo. As for the disambiguation, yes, it would be fine to have a more specific disambiguation just for the two Muncy Creek pages. Either way works, it's just a matter of what 'seems' best. Gjs238 18:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, thanks - I defer to whatever you think best on the diambiguation page for Muncy and Muncy Creek. Ruhrfisch 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Larrys Creek

Would you mind looking over Larrys Creek? I think it is pretty much done and would appreciate some feedback on it. My idea is to eventually get all seven Lycoming County, Pennsylvania major streams to this level of article, so this is kind of the model. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 13:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Beaver River disambiguation page

Thank you for alerting me to the dab guidelines and the Manual of Style recommendations regarding wiki links in dab pages in your edit summary of Beaver River, where you reverted my wikifications of place names there. I read the guidelines and the Manual of Style, including the end note suggesting breaking the rules if need be, and went back to the article and removed the rest of wikifications left in place (other than the targeted Beaver rivers in various places, of course). Best Wishes, -- Mareklug ^talk 08:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers

A great page I recently stumbled upon - relevant to much of the discussion here. Gjs238 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Native American

As far as I know, the Native American language spoken in the Delaware watershed (and hence, the source of native names) was almost invariably the Lenape language. You might want to refer to that, as a more specific term, in your stream articles. Choess 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed your changes to my stubs in that direction. My references use the term "Indian" - I felt using the term "Native American" more appropriate. If I find reference to a specific Native American language I will use it, however, I prefer not to refer to a specific language on the basis of assumption. If you are certain a specific Native American language is appropriate in a given article, then please continue making changes. Gjs238 12:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Bear (disambiguation)

I apologize by getting in your way about the article but all I wanted to do was to change the description of Bear, Delaware, which was incorrect. cheers. --Moreau36 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. No problem at all - by no means are you in the way! Changes look good!  :-) Gjs238 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Abbot or Abbots Creek

Where should we put the creek in Cumberland County, NJ, now at Abbots Creek? Topo maps say "Abbot," which is presumably the current name; maps from mapmaker.rutgers.edu show 1872 "Abbot's", 1913 "Abbot", 1936 and 1954 "Abbotts". Choess

My reference, Garden State Canoeing by Edward Gertler, uses the name Abbots Creek. But I have no problem going with what is on the (USGS?) map. We can have alternate name redirect pages. Gjs238 06:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Paulins Kill

Please do take a look at the begins of a major edit I've done at Paulins Kill on 24 August 2006. I have noticed you have contributed to the article, that is why I'm letting you know...and would love to have your opinion. There is more that I will be adding to the article in terms of content and photographs in the next few hours/days (in case you see it in the middle of some work). Please feel free to drop me a line as to any suggestions or comments or questions, etc. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work! Gjs238 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the Paulins Kill article up for Peer Review (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Paulins_Kill with the hope of passing this step and next nominating the article as a Featured article. When the time comes, I'll let you know...but in the meantime, if you'd like to comment on any improvements/suggestions, feel free to join the Peer Review conversation at the above link. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Larrys Creek

Hi, you've done some edits on Larrys Creek and we worked on creek names in PA (see above). Larrys Creek is now a Featured Article candidate, so I would appreciate any feedback you want to leave here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Larrys Creek. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks again for your contributions - Larrys Creek made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Delaware River tributaries

Didn't realize you had removed Rivers of New Jersey. I sat there thinking I had added it, and had a moment of deja vu or whatever it is. Anyways, thanks for adding a few more to the category. Perhaps this week I'll finish the Paulins Kill article —ExplorerCDT 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Valley Creek

Besides the Schuylkill tributary, a quick google search reveals Valley Creeks in at least TX, AL, CA, and MN. In fact the one in PA didn't show up on the first page, setting the stage for a losing notability dispute sometime in the future. Topozone lists 3 Valley Creeks in TX. Better to set up a dab page at Valley Creek today.

If you're going to going to insist on leaving it as just Valley Creek in List of Pennsylvania rivers, then at least go fix the other references to Valley Creek (Schuylkill River). --J Clear 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a future Valley Creek page would be best served by making it a disambig page, although not a (disambig) page. Thanks for putting the time into researching and commenting. Gjs238 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

USS Monongahela

I'm reverting your edits to USS Monongahela. This is not a disambig page and therefore not subject to the disambig MOS. It is a Ship Index page, as clearly noted at the bottom of the page. If you'd like to suggest a Ship Index MOS, then please do so. Otherwise, you may wish to review the discussion that led to the Ship Index category at MOS Talk. Thanks. Jinian 18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I didn't find the notation on the bottom of the page so clear, so questioned the matter at the place that seemed most appropriate: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Disambiguating United States Navy ships. It seems the matter was not at all clear to others as well. Regardless, it seems this particular matter has been resolved. Thanks again. Gjs238 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Moose Lake

Thanks for cleaning up the redundant category issue for Big Moose Lake -- it caused me to review the Manual of Style for Categories and I learned something.

Jim Dunning 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:-) Gjs238 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pelham Islands categories

The Pelham Islands page now appears in two categories, Category:Long Island Sound and Category:Islands of New York City, which is a parent of the former category. Unless I misunderstand, the parent category should be removed. Gjs238 07:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on category cleanup, and I see the many articles coming through on my watchlist from your efforts. I do it on my own as I'm editing articles, but I don't envy your task. I don't see a parent cat relationship, and if it does exist it's a mistake. Category:Long Island Sound and Category:Islands of New York City overlap, but there are many non-overlaps, e.g., Ellis Island, which is in New York Harbor, nor Long Island Sound. If you do see the relationship, let me know, because it needs to be corrected. Alansohn 07:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

The relationship looks like this:

-Category:Islands of New York City

-Category:Long Island

Category:Long Island Sound

Gjs238 07:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've fixed it by fixing the Cat Long Island. Gjs238 07:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Now looks like this:

-Category:Islands of New York City

-Category:Long Island

Category:Long Island Sound

Gjs238 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cities in New Jersey

The Category:Cities in New Jersey has been removed from several articles, including Newark, New Jersey. We need to have the city category, and I can't see where a parent category relationship is established. Any thoughts before I revert? Alansohn 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The category cities in nj has 8 subcategories. Articles in one or more of the subcats should not be in the parent cat. The article newark, nj is in the subcat newark, nj - so it doesn't belong in the cat new jersey as well. In other words, new jersey is the parent cat, newark, nj is the subcat. Gjs238 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Bank, New Jersey

You removed the Borough category from Red Bank because the Red Bank category is a child of both Boroughs in New Jersey and Monmouth County, New Jersey. From that standpoint, what you did makes sense. It makes perfect sense that Red Bank is in Monmouth County, so the fact that the Red Bank cat includes Monmouth County as a cat, means that all locations in the Red Bank cat are in Monmouth County. Fine. The problem is that while Red Bank is a borough, all of the places in the Red Bank cat are NOT boroughs. I removed the Borough cat from the Red Bank cat and put it in the Red Bank article. This probably explains the same problem occurring in other municipalities, as for Newark above; The borough/city/town/township/village categories DO NOT belong anywhere other than on the article for the municipality. Alansohn 01:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting a message from you  :-) I saw your solution and think it works well. Thanks  :-) Gjs238 02:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

White Deer Hole Creek

If you are interested, I have an article at Wikipedia:Peer review/White Deer Hole Creek/archive1. Take care, Ruhrfisch 21:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks again for your contributions - White Deer Hole Creek made featured article! Take care, Ruhrfisch 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bald Eagle Creek (West Branch Susquehanna River)

I see you started a disambigution for Bald Eagle Creek (West Branch Susquehanna River). This seems rather complex, and I'm not sure the shorter creek needs a separate article. I had added a note about it in the body of the main article. It is in a separate watershed, but it begins in the same headlands, and runs along the same valley. Dhaluza 13:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Paulins Kill now a Featured Article

As of a few moments ago, Paulins Kill was promoted to Featured Article status. I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to and suggestions for improving the article over these past few months and that I appreciate your help in bringing this article to notice as a Featured Article. Once again, thank you, and keep up the good work. —ExplorerCDT 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramapos

I do not see much in this category or article except mountains. I realize between many mountains there is a valley, but nothing written here. Hmains 19:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Given with respect and admiration to Gjs238 for all your work on rivers and creeks, especially in Pennsylvania Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Royce Brook River

hey, I dunno why that didn't work when I tried putting the Millstone River as a category, because if just put it in the search box it shows up. Do you know why it's not working?--LtWinters 19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Have you figured how many pages would populate a category called Millstone River? If only a few pages, a new category isn't warranted, but if you've got a bunch in mind, I'll create the category. Gjs238 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by what youre saying, when you search 'millstone river' in the searchbox the millstone river I am talking about is the only river to come up.

• On the Royce Brook River page, several times you have included it in a category called Millstone River. Problem is, there is no category called Millstone River. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I took your first entry here to mean that you were trying to create a category called Millstone River, and I was questioning the necessity for the same. If you're not trying to create a new category called Millstone River, then there is no reason to continue adding the same to the Royce Brook River page. Gjs238 12:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I also made a mistake... that should be an external link I believe, not a category...--LtWinters 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Shawangunk Kill and Moodna Creek

I didn't have those in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Rivers of New York because they were already included under the tributaries categories. Is this one of those "basketball player" exceptions? Daniel Case 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with basketball, but yes, rivers have been included in parent categories. Most folks will not know what watersheds they are in, so having them in the general rivers categories assists in navigation. This should be clarified in the introduction to the categories as some other topics do. Gjs238 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Big Timber Creek

Boy, you pounced right on that. I'll be working on it pretty steadily now until it's done. If all goes well, I expect to add several other local waterways. I just stub-tagged it as a formality, not that any and all input is not appreciated. And you seem to be the area river guy. I hope you can give me a little guidance, such as what is a good existing page to model the Big Timber Creek page on? This will help me ensure that I leave nothing out that belongs in such an article. And where is a good place to look for flow rate data? I poked around the Internet enough to determine that there is no meter on it. --Milkbreath 13:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Mill Creek High School

hey, thanks for the help with the Mill Creek High School article. I plan to continue to expand it in the near future. I'm slightly less familiar with the Wikipedial standards so your help is appreciated. Also, I left in the unnotable people because I felt that they are notable enough in the context of the main article. I will continue to watch this article. Thanks, 座区 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Swamp Creek (band)

A tag has been placed on Swamp Creek (band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Sasha Callahan 06:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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. --evrik ^(talk)

• ALL of the river pages in subcats of Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania (and other states as well) are listed in the parent cat for ease of navigation, Mill Creek is no exception. The reason is that visitors to Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania would most likely not know under what watershed or subcategory to find a river. This is addressed in Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories Gjs238 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• I do see your point, put I find that Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania is overpopluated and unwieldy itself. Rivers are not addressed in what you referenced. I also checked out WikiProject Rivers, and didn't see it addressed. Unless you can find better documentation - let it go. You are now driving an edit war, and if it gets to that I'll report you for 3RR. --evrik ^(talk) 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• As I wrote above, ALL other river pages contained in subcats of the PA river cat are linked to parent categories for ease of navigation, I fail to understand why Mill Creek should be an exception. This has been the norm prior to your creation of the Mill Creek page. Please adhere to the norm prior to your arrival. Gjs238 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• I see that just a few moments ago the template catdiffuse was added to Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania. What is interesting is that contrary to what the tag says, the category has required very little maintenance. Gjs238 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of PIPC

A tag has been placed on PIPC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Papakating Creek

A tag has been placed on Papakating Creek requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tributary (ballet)

I was blithely unaware that I was "piping" and will not use the "Pipe Trick" on disambiguation pages, though I would ask leave to do so in one circumstance. There are a small number of ballets that have been made by more than one choreographer to the same title (Tributary (ballet) is NOT such a case.) It is then necessary to have a disambig. page such as Tango (ballet) that leads to:

Tango, a ballet by George Balanchine

Tango, a ballet by Peter Martins

Without "piping", this would read:

Tango (Balanchine ballet), a ballet by George Balanchine

Tango (Martins ballet), a ballet by Peter Martins

A little redundancy is not such a bad thing, but this is doubly so and is just plain ugly. One of Wikipedia's administrators (a university librarian) advised AGAINST the following;

Tango (Balanchine), a ballet by George Balanchine

Tango (Martins), a ballet by Peter Martins

Which I had previously been using; I accept unquestioningly their judgement in this matter but just can bring myself to live without "piping" in this particular situation. It is a particular problem with New York City Ballet, which since its founding by George Balanchine has had a policy of subordinating the dance to the music. To the extent that most of his ballets are simply named for the music.

P.S. I am not a Wikipediaddict, nor do I intend to become one but have a strong interest in City Ballet. And a few other dance companies here and in Northern Europe, and fairly good knowledge of same. Mostly ballet, especially neo-classical and contemporary; a little modern dance, particularly ballet influenced. I have accounts and do a little editing on Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian Wikipedia -- both bokmâl and nynorsk -- as well as English. Some years ago I edited my mentor's last book -- on Shakspeare's Troilus and Cressida. The publisher, who was British, would've crucified me if I'd let through, Tributary (ballet), a ballet by Robert La Fosse and Robert Garland. On the grounds that this should be referred to the Department of Redundancy Dept.; but if Wikipedia is stonehard against "piping" on disambig. pages, so be it.

Indeed, Tango (ballet) should read...

Tango (Balanchine ballet), a ballet by George Balanchine

Tango (Martins ballet), a ballet by Peter Martins

I just unpiped the links there IAW the disambig MOS.

Tributary (disambiguation) follows the same guidelines.

Gjs238 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cedar River (Iowa)

Hi, You had moved Cedar River (Iowa) to Cedar River (Iowa River). I have moved it back for a few reasons. First, nearly the entire length of the river is in Iowa. Only a tiny portion is in Minnesota. Second, disambiguating it as Cedar River (Iowa River) implies that it is a tributary of the Iowa River, which is it not. In general, if a single administrative division, such as state name, is not sufficient for disambiguation typical options are a) to disambiguate by the body of water of which the river is a tributary or b) by combining the names of some administrative divisions. A) would result in Cedar River (Mississippi River) while B) might be Cedar River (Minnesota-Iowa). I think method A is a more generally preferred method. older ≠ wiser 20:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article says it is a tributary of the Iowa River, which is a tributary of the Mississippi River. The river is in fact in multiple states, regardless of how much or little. Gjs238 20:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote from article: "It then flows into Mitchell County, Iowa and the endpoint is located in Louisa County, Iowa at the town of Columbus Junction, where it joins with the Iowa River which then winds its way to the Mississippi River." Gjs238 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh jeez. My apologies. I misread that. I glanced at it (a little too quickly) and only saw the phrase "then winds its way to the Mississippi River." (Iowa River) is fine as a disambiguation phrase, though I don't necessarily agree that it is necessary to change it from simply (Iowa) -- there are plenty of examples where a river is disambiguated by the state where most of its course lies. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that this is a bit anal - but this is an encyclopedia, right? Yes, there are certainly many other disambiguations out there to be clarified. Anyway, it's not like I'm asking someone else to do this. Gjs238 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of the disambiguation phrase is to disambiguate -- not necessarily to precisely describe the course of the stream. If the river is primarily associated with one place it doesn't really make much sense to force the disambiguation to conform to a different standard. older ≠ wiser 21:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation phrase should be as accurate as possible. To disambiguate a bi-state river with the name of one state is simply not as accurate. In general, I have found parent river disambiguations almost always ideal for clarifying matters like this. The parent river disambiguation is certainly not misleading, it is more concise. Gjs238 21:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(bump) Chiming in: Hi Gjs238-- I'm just offering this as something to consider, and I'm definitely not intending to be critical or adversarial. Like you, I've started a bunch of articles about rivers and streams in the U.S., and have stumbled into a lot of knotty and ridiculous challenges with regard to disambiguation, so I very much appreciate and encourage your work. I've tried and tried, but my experience has been that there isn't a top-down scheme that solves these problems, and I've ended up asking case-by-case: "What's the most direct (and elegant) way to distinguish this river from another one with the same name?" So here are some thoughts:

I don't have a strong opinion on the Cedar River name; I had considered moving it before but decided to leave it alone, but that's just me. (That said, I don't think the old title was lacking in accuracy -- Jack Wagner (politician), for example, was also a U.S. Marine, but that's not spelled out in the title of his article.) But I do agree with Bkonrad that a river in more than one jurisdiction doesn't necessarily need to be moved to the River name (mouth waterbody) format, for a few reasons I'll explain:

In looking at Naming conventions (precision), the guidelines seem a bit vague, probably by intention and for necessity. But overall I take away from it that, while precision is welcomed (and demanded) as needed, some consideration should be given to clarity, to common sense, and to readers who will be coming to an article without any prior context; the example given for the last is readers/editors who are scanning Recent changes.

As an example, Black River (Arkansas): The river begins in Missouri. My understanding is that you would prefer to have the page moved to "Black River (White River)" for that reason. But I think that this title would be a distractingly strange arrangement of words -- perhaps even comical, to some. And for that reason, I think that a common sense argument could be made against that title. And with regard to the user who is coming upon the article without other context, the new title wouldn't geographically "place" the article among commonly used terms -- there are lots of streams named White River, and I think it's reasonable to assume that most readers likely aren't familiar with the one in Arkansas; the title doesn't do a very good job of "giving the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article." The alternative -- "Black River (Missouri-Arkansas)" or something similar -- is one that I gather you've recognized as unwieldy; I can't find guidelines to back myself up, but I do think that in practice, brevity and simplicity tend to be given some consideration when titling articles. How much must we include?, and what can we leave to the text of the article? (See again Jack Wagner (politician).) Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but most of the encyclopedic content is necessarily contained within the text of an article -- where there's plenty of room to explain everything that needs to be said -- rather than in the titles of individual entries. Considering everything, I personally would conclude that Black River (Arkansas) would probably be best left where it is.

Another matter -- and I'm definitely not intending to suggest that you wouldn't have or haven't figured this out already -- is that some such moves create titling conflicts with other articles. Grand River (Missouri) and Platte River (Missouri) each begin in southern Iowa, and are tributaries of the Missouri River; if they were moved to "Grand River (Missouri River)" and "Platte River (Missouri River)," their names would be in confusion with Grand River (South Dakota) and Platte River, respectively, both of which are also tributaries of the Missouri River. And I guess I don't think it's really necessary to add (Iowa-Missouri) at the end, because I think the current titles strike a reasonable balance between brevity and accuracy. I think they function well enough to distinguish one river from the next, and all further relevant details about Iowa can be described in the text of the article.

--As an aside and as a further example, I noticed that your recent move of Little River (South Carolina) to Little River (Atlantic Ocean) -- not that it's much of an article to begin with :) -- seems problematic in both of these ways: The new title strikes me as a drastic reduction in context, because somebody who, say, came upon the article in "Recent Changes" wouldn't have any idea even what continent the river is on; and the title conflicts with that of this river in New Hampshire, which also flows into the Atlantic.--

Anyway, sorry this is so long, and thanks again for your work in trying to sort out this stuff. Best wishes -- Malepheasant 06:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Honey Creek, Wisconsin in Sauk County, Wisconsin-misspelling

Hi! When you made the changes regarding the town of Honey Creek, Wisconsin in Sauk County, Wisconsin, you misspelt Sauk County as Saulk County. That is incorrect: it is Sauk County, Wisconsin. Would you please correct the article on the town of Honey Creek in Sauk County, Wisconsin? Thank you for your kindness and patience. RFD (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads-up. Gjs238 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks-RFD (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Catskills is the region, not the park

I undid your addition of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Catskills to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Protected areas of New York and the ensuing removal of Catskill Park from the latter cat because the park is a specific, delineated protected area. "Catskills" refers to a large region, mainly convered in Catskill Mountains which includes but (in contrast to the Adirondacks) is in no way limited to the park. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Transportation in Morris County, New Jersey

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Transportation in Morris County, New Jersey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice also that you have linked approximately 20 articles to that one. Perhaps you should adjust those links to point elsewhere. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I created Category:Transportation in Morris County, New Jersey, but did not work on the article by that name, other than perhaps changing it's category to the above. Gjs238 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! For your contributions to the Three Village Central School District pages

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Placement of NJ county seat cats

I think you are misplacing the Category:County seats in New Jersey within categories for the places, as was done at Category:New Brunswick, New Jersey. The restaurant Frog and the Peach is a member of the category Category:New Brunswick, New Jersey, which makes sense, because the restaurant together with all of the items in the category are in New Brunswick. Category:New Brunswick, New Jersey belongs within Category:The Brunswicks, New Jersey, because everything in New Brunswick is within The Brunswicks. But everything in New Brunswick is not a county seat. The Category:County seats in New Jersey belongs only on the New Brunswick, New Jersey article itself and nowhere else. It certainly does not belong as a parent category in the Category:New Brunswick, New Jersey, which misleadingly groups every article connected to New Brunswick is a county seat. Alansohn (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. Camden and Paterson cats had already been made subcats of Category:County seats in New Jersey, so I (incorrectly) followed suit with the remaining county cats. All should be in order now. Gjs238 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bridges categories

OK, no problem. I wasn't aware of that and I will hew to it in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of categories

In general I am baffled by the hyperattention to categorization and recategorization, and the constant back and forth removal and addition of categories. In the case of bridges, the fact that you have failed to explain that you are adding a parent category in violation of every known policy regarding the use of categories, without providing any explanation of why the category was being added wasted my time and the time of other editors who do understand what the relevant policies are regarding use of categories. While I disagree with a group of people deciding that category rules don't apply to bridges at the state level, a simple edit summary that provided more details than your usual "+ parent cat" would have avoided a tremendous waste of time. The fact that your reverts still don't explain your policy violation only invites further confusion and further wasted time. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a message about this on your discussion page yesterday with references. Gjs238 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that you posted an explanation is great. The problem is that you still refuse to explain why you are adding the category in the first place and specifying an explanation for the policy inconsistency in the edit summary. You refused to do it when you added the category ("+ parent cat" explains nothing), and your reverts simply make it appear like you are continuing to ignore policy. If you insist on adding these categories, basic logic (if not decency) dictates a meaningful explanation of your actions be placed in the edit summary. You wasted my time and that of others by refusing to explain your actions. You know that your continued failure to explain why you have added an unnecessary category will only have other editors wasting their time removing them in the future and then more time wasted restoring these categories. Alansohn (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh sheesh, take a pill. I explained all this on your talk page which you refused to respond to and have caused all of us to waste time. As I pointed out on your talk page, I also do not agree with adding the parent categories to the bridges, and had gone about cleaning up the categories by removing parent categories, but was "corrected" by another editor who notified me of past discussion and consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bridges#Categorization. Indeed, the top of the categories in question bear the following notation: "Note: for convenience ALL bridges in New York State are included in this category. This includes all the bridges that can also be found in the subcategories." Accordingly, I undid my edits and abided by the above. If you want to challenge the consensus and remove the notations from the tops of the categories there are procedures for doing so, and I may even support your efforts. Gjs238 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Again, I am willing to put up with a practice that is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy in doubling up entries in parent categories. I will emphasize to you again that the fact that you explained to me and only me the logic behind your edits fails to address the issue of not explaining the logic behind your edits in the EDIT SUMMARY of the edits you made. The failure to explain the reason in the edit summary ("+ parent cat" simply doesn't cut it) in the first place is what led me to waste my time to undo your edits. The decision to simply undo my edits without any explanation only exacerbates the problem. The consensus on double-listing categories is not my concern, if anything this consensus would seem to make a significant majority of your earlier edits removing parent categories entirely unnecessary; it is the fact that you can persist in ignoring the failure to include meaningful explanations in your edit summary that is the issue at hand. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; the vandalism tag I posted here a moment ago was entirely in error, I think I misread something and worked too hastily. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marin Creek

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marin Creek, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marin Creek. Thank you. W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)