Talk:Bull Run Watershed

message: I removed the word "treat", since in fact Portland does disinfect (but they do not filter) 
Professor water 16:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled section

message: It's great to see this article expanded. I haven't checked, and I'm not saying that it is, but be sure that the new content is not a copyright violation--that is, it isn't copied and pasted from the source. Copied and pasted content is subject to deletion at any time. Katr67 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article has problems with prose, wiki formatting, and other general stuff. I'm trying to clear this up. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Shannon1. I began to fix the copyvios, but a lot more needs to be done. Thanks for the help. Finetooth (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly all of this article that I've worked on so far had been copied verbatim from the cited sources, mostly Water Bureau documents. I'm slowly working my way through the sections and subsections, re-writing each as a paraphrase of one or more documents, and adding complete citations. I have not yet worked on the parts sourced to the Casey book, but I've located (on-line) a used copy of that book at Powell's, and it's being held for me at the Hawthorne branch. I'll pick that up later this week and see what it has to say. My general plan is to work my way through the entire article before deciding how to summarize it for inclusion in the Bull Run River article. In the process, I'm learning a whole lot about Bull Run that I was unaware of. Finetooth (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I see that we have folks interested in helping "wikify" the article. I started to do this and there is some work to go. Unfortunately I had to revert the most recent efforts, which replaced the overlinking that I had recently fixed. Generally, we only link to each wikipedia article once, the first time it's mentioned, unless the links are separated by a lot of text. In this case I chose to only link to Portland Water Bureau once. It's possible it may be necessary to link to it again, but let's leave just one link for now until the article is finished. When wikilinking, be sure to "test" the link to see if it goes to the article you want it to. (I fixed some redlinks that might now link to the incorrect article--these will need cleanup.) And though there's not necessarily anything wrong with redirects, it's usually a good idea to link directly to the target article. If you put brackets around something and it stays a redlink, it's also a good idea to try to do a search to see if there is an article that would make it a bluelink. It helps to use show preview to see what the links will look like and what they link to before you hit "save". Let me know if you need help. It's always good to work with your fellow editors. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|wikify}} 

message: I don't understand why this content is split from Bull Run River (Oregon). It clearly belongs on that poor neglected article. I strongly suggest merging. Shannon1talk contribs 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Per the link in the merge template, we're discussing this on the other article's talk page. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm bit confused at the characterization of the river article as "neglected". Maybe you could explain at Talk:Bull Run River (Oregon)#Merge Proposal. Katr67 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bull Run River article is shorter at the moment but sourced and not copied directly from sources. The watershed article, alas, is only partly sourced, and the last paragraph of the "Geology and geography" section has been copied verbatim from the Portland Water Bureau page here. Noticing this one example of copying makes me think there might be more, but it's a big job to re-research everything to see what extent that might be true. Rather than merging, I'd like to see the watershed article brought into compliance with WP:V, the Manual of Style, and WP:COPYVIO while the river article expands slowly and separately following the encyclopedia's guidelines. I added some material about whitewater sports to the river article this morning, and I'll try to help with the watershed article as well, as time allows. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By "neglected" I mean that the article seems to have received a lot less attention than this and because as you can see from many other larger river articles (Columbia River for instance) much of the sort of information on this article belongs on the river article, in sections such as watershed, geology, and history. Shannontalk SIGN! 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were several good points made about this on Talk:Bull Run River (Oregon). Thanks for upholding Columbia River as an example -- Finetooth and I have done a great deal of work on that one :) I think this case is very different for a number of reasons...but for the sake of keeping everyone in the conversation, let's continue it over there. -Pete (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge