Talk:Mill Creek (Philadelphia)

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photo[edit]

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)[reply]

Redundant categories[edit]

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)[reply]

The entire discussion can be viewed at User talk:Gjs238#Redundant categories Gjs238 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - ??? 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Interesting story added to the article, and now moved to Talk[edit]

"My name is Joseph DiJohn and I owned a Victorian twin at 1019 S, 46th Street, Philadelphia Pa. I resided at the house from 1983 to 2007. And I fell witness to Mill Creek at it's highest forces. With any considerable rain fall I would hear the rushing force of Mill Creek as my cellar would fill with her fresh clean water sometimes up to 8 inches. Along with the sound of her force I could smell the water before it actually appeared. There was a bricked up stack that was in the middle of the cellar floor where most of the creeks water entered. The water was crystal clear. The person who gave the creek the access stack was right on the money. By giving the force a entrance it prevented the creek for washing out the soil which could have undermined the foundation stones in which the house was built on. As quickly as the water came up was just as quickly it disappeared then the rain ended. For 24 years I was a part of our raw natural beauty of Philadelphia. That old 7 bedroom Victorian home stood strong in harmony and mingling with mother nature proved to be many of my favorite memories . In closing I am witness to the force of the creek. Not just to testify on its existence but to express the pleasure I experienced finding out we coincided for 24 great years. Sincerely Joseph DiJohn." PRRfan (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]