Talk:Bull Run Watershed

Untitled section

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

Recent changes

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)

The entire article has problems with prose, wiki formatting, and other general stuff. I'm trying to clear this up. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

{{wikify}}

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)

Merge

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. Shannon1^{talk contribs} 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Shannon^{talk SIGN!} 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Proposed name change

I think the claims in this article are now well-sourced. In the process of tracking down sources, I've found new material (about the Columbia South Shore Well Field, for example) that I'd like to add. It seems to me that the Bull Run Watershed article is mainly about the Portland drinking-water supply system rather than the watershed per se. In part, I've come around to agreeing with Shannon that the two articles, Bull Run River (Oregon) and this one are a bit illogical as written. I've cloned some of the climate, geology, and flora and fauna material from this article and copied it to the river article, but I'd like to propose re-naming this article and continuing to emphasize the water-supply system here and the more general watershed material there and to make both as comprehensive as possible without a great deal of duplication. Does this idea make sense? Would "Portland, Oregon, water supply system" be a good title for this page? Is that too verbose? How about "Portland, Oregon, water supply"? Anybody got a better suggestion? Finetooth (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When I encounter Bull Run Watershed, I think of the non-accessible acres of steep hillside and trees above the lakes. A reference to Portland water supply I consider a general reference to the entire system of wells, Bull Run, miles of feeder pipe, distribution pipe, pumps, gauges, valves, plus many large storage reservoirs. Most of that isn't notable—or particularly interesting.

I noticed the addition of duplicate text in the river and watershed and intend to look to see how that works in context. Certainly you've dug deep into this than anyone else here, so I'm inclined to find a way to work your insight into a reasonable naming for the articles. —EncMstr (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me until just now to look for parallel articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm finding a few: London water supply infrastructure, New York City water supply system, Boston Water and Sewer Commission, San Francisco Water Department and Melbourne Water. Finetooth (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What about merging the content to Portland Water Bureau? Katr67 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Looking closely at the existing Portland Water Bureau article, I see almost nothing in it except Randy Leonard's name that doesn't appear in the "Bull Run Watershed" article. How would it be if (1) I replaced the content of the existing Portland Water Bureau article (which is essentially unsourced as well as duplicative) with the existing content of "Bull Run Watershed" plus a mention of Randy Leonard as head guy in 2009? Then (2) someone who knows how and has the authority, possibly EncMstr, might remove "Bull Run Watershed" from the encyclopedia. I would further propose (3) that I carefully delete from the revised Portland Water Bureau article the material about climate and geology that seem to me to be more at home in the Bull Run River (Oregon) article? We would then have two articles instead of three, one devoted to the river and its watershed and one devoted to the water bureau and its history, pipes, tanks, wells, reservoirs, taps, and bubblers. (I added a brief summary of infrastructure to the river article this morning with a "main" link to the watershed page. If these other changes seem OK, I would just flip the link to the revised water bureau article. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Any objection to a redirect from the watershed to the water bureau—instead of deleting the article? —EncMstr (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No objection. I didn't think of that because I've never created a redirect page. Finetooth (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You've never...? The mind reels. :) Katr67 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blush. Finetooth (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. It wasn't (gasp) too difficult. On the other hand, I'll need to write a good lede for both remaining articles and add more info to both. Finetooth (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)