Talk:Big Bushkill Creek

Merge

Bushkill Creek (Monroe County) and Big Bushkill Creek appear to be referring to the same stream. Also according to USGS GNIS the official name is just "Bush Kill" so that should probably be the name of the combined page (Bush Kill currently redirects to Big Bushkill Creek). Kmusser 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I concur- let's merge and rename Jmpenzone 00:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Caution - I quote from Gertler, Edward. Keystone Canoeing, Seneca Press, 2004. ISBN 0-9749692-0-6, page 93, "Do not confuse Bushkill Creek with Big Bushkill Creek..." He then continues with a description. His map on page 92 shows Bushkill Creek joining the Delaware River at Easton. His map on page 101 shows Big Bushkill Creek joining the Delaware River at Bushkill. Gjs238 01:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this merge would help in that, The Bushkill Creek he is referring to is at Bushkill Creek, while Bushkill Creek (Monroe County) is referring to Big Bushkill Creek (which USGS calls Bush Kill).Kmusser 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Any resolution on this?--evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the content, it needs an admin to move the page to Bush Kill. Kmusser 14:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted the changes. I think they are different per Gjs238. --evrik ^(talk) 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on what? The cite above is pretty clearly talking about Bushkill Creek which is indeed different, it joins the Delaware at Easton. Bush Kill, and Big Bushkill Creek, and Bushkill Creek (Monroe County) which are what I merged were all described as joining the Delaware at the town of Bushkill and both Big Bushkill Creek and Bushkill Creek are listed as alternative names for Bush Kill in GNIS. Take a look at a map (that GNIS link has a link to several), there's clearly only one stream joining the Delaware at Bushkill. Kmusser 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Well, first ... I don't like the name Bush Kill. It should probably be Bush Kill Creek. Second, this tis what cam up on my search of the GNIS:

Feature Name	ID	Class	County	Latitude & Longitude	State	Map	Ele(ft)*	Entry Date
Little Bush Kill	1179492	Stream	Pike	41.092°N 75.004°W / 41.092; -75.004	PA	Bushkill	358	02-AUG-1979
Little Bushkill Creek	1179493	Stream	Northampton	40.748°N 75.257°W / 40.748; -75.257	PA	Nazareth	331	02-AUG-1979
Middle Branch Bush Kill	1181004	Stream	Pike	41.229°N 75.105°W / 41.229; -75.105	PA	Twelvemile Pond	1240	02-AUG-1979
Bush Kill	1198145	Stream	Pike	41.093°N 74.992°W / 41.093; -74.992	PA	Flatbrookville	322	02-AUG-1979
Bush Kill	1198504	Stream	Pike	41.408°N 74.743°W / 41.408; -74.743	PA	Port Jervis North	443	02-AUG-1979
Bushkill Creek	1217341	Stream	Northampton	40.716°N 75.246°W / 40.716; -75.246	PA	Easton	249	02-AUG-1979

--evrik ^(talk) 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, do you know what you're looking at there? Each GNIS entry is a different stream. Each entry links to a page giving exact coordinates and further links to maps showing where that stream is. Currently only two of those have Wikipedia articles. The article at Bushkill Creek describes the last stream there and that one is fine. The Big Bushkill Creek and Bushkill Creek (Monroe County) articles both describe the stream named Bush Kill on the Flatbrookville map (the 4th entry). Note there is nothing in Pennsylvania named Big Bushkill Creek. And I'm sorry you don't like the name, but that's what its name is. I might not like it either but I'm not going to propose calling it Musser Creek on my whim. Now Big Bushkill Creek is listed as an alternative map, but I'd rather use the streams official name, if someone goes looking for Big Bushkill Creek on a topo map they aren't going to find it. Kmusser 03:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I still don't like the article name Bush Kill, what about Bush Kill (stream)? I could live with Big Bushkill Creek. --evrik ^(talk) 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what's wrong with Bush Kill. That is its name, why would you call it something else? We could use Big Bushkill Creek, but since that's not how it shows up on maps I think that's confusing. If that is the more common local usage we probably should use that, but then we should also have a citation for it. Bush Kill (stream) indicates you're disambiguating it from some other Bush Kill that isn't a stream which is not the case here (there is another Bush Kill, but that's also a stream so that wouldn't help). If you just don't like the word Kill - well take that up with the English language. -- Kmusser (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I'm going to redo the merge but I'll leave it at Big Bushkill Creek for now.-- Kmusser (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is fine by me. --evrik ^(talk) 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• A move would make this the only river in the long List of Pennsylvania rivers without a "Xyz River" descriptor (river, creek, brook, stream, fork, run, etc.). It's good that they're merged, but I'd suggest leaving it here as well. If you'd like to open a new move request, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requested moves anytime. Dekimasuよ! 07:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kill is a descriptor, naming something Xyz Kill Creek is sort of like Xyz Stream Stream, but ok. Kmusser (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I learned something new. Dekimasuよ! 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Kinda like Schuylkill River? --evrik ^(talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was never done, there are examples of streams called Xyz River Creek or Xyz Brook Creek as well. Just because streams with redundant descriptions exist, doesn't mean it should be the preferred method of naming. Kmusser (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a redundant description is fine if, as in the case of Schuylkill River it has become the established name of the feature. What I'm objecting to is Wikipedia adding a redundant description to the name in a case where it isn't. Kmusser (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• After some thought, I really don't care. Whover feels most strongly about it can fix it up. I only ask that they get all the redirects right and that they remove the redlinks from the table above. --evrik ^(talk) 18:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it as is for now, I'm not going to push the rename if I'm the only one supporting it. I'll see about those redlinks, most of those are too small to really deserve an article, but they could be redirected to their respective parent streams. Kmusser (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Bushkill Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http%3A%2F%2Fviewer.nationalmap.gov%2Fviewer%2F to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)