Talk:Bear Creek (Oregon)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by BD2412 in topic Possible merge
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Possible merge edit
This page would probably do better as a section in List of rivers of Oregon than the list page it is now. Either way, the significance of having 86 "Bear Creeks" in a state is more notable I think than just the Rogue River tributary alone. Zab (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it should be a disambiguation page. Katr67 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Believe it or not I almost saved this article the first time with the disambig and wikiproject disambig templates. I agree with you, and the big reason I didn't save them is because the WikiProject Disambiguation people are ruthless with MOS, meaning we will lose the reference and lead paragraph the moment they take notice (rightfully so). That info is the only leg of notability the article has to stand on, and with only one Bear Creek the page wouldn't qualify as a disambiguation page anymore. Of course, I know this is all stacking cards because there is a good chance nobody will even notice those details beyond the interesting tidbit and its easy to make another Bear Creek article, but now I can't help feeling a little premature in changing the redirect. Zab (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I hear ya. All we need to do is find the next-most important Bear Creek in Oregon and write a stub article on it. We could also ask EncMstr to whip up a table with all the Bear Creeks in it (and perhaps rename it, clunkily, to List of creeks named Bear in Oregon, or something. People grumble about those too, but they don't get deleted. Katr67 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Believe it or not I almost saved this article the first time with the disambig and wikiproject disambig templates. I agree with you, and the big reason I didn't save them is because the WikiProject Disambiguation people are ruthless with MOS, meaning we will lose the reference and lead paragraph the moment they take notice (rightfully so). That info is the only leg of notability the article has to stand on, and with only one Bear Creek the page wouldn't qualify as a disambiguation page anymore. Of course, I know this is all stacking cards because there is a good chance nobody will even notice those details beyond the interesting tidbit and its easy to make another Bear Creek article, but now I can't help feeling a little premature in changing the redirect. Zab (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)