| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ravenna Creek article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merge suggestion edit
The Ravenna Neighborhood articles Neighborhoods of Ravenna Creek subsection seems more appropriate to this article than to the one that it is currently in. Anyone have a strong opinion on the matter or want to perform this task?
—Asatruer 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
An important consideration that should be made clear in both articles is that the living creek exists only because enough people in the neighborhoods cared enough to do the organizing, build the stewardship, and do the work of restoration, all now twenty years on for Ravenna, and much remains incomplete. The City has subsequently come along, at least partially.
For that reason, the # Neighborhoods of Ravenna Creek section is appropriate in the article for each of the listed neighborhoods, with a {{See also|Ravenna Creek}}.
The fundamental problem with excising daylighted urban creeks from their neighborhoods is that doing so is quite misleading. Such daylighted streams very much do not exist in living form independent of the stewardship of their neighborhoods.
Carefully considered organization would be required. However, once done, the pattern could be applied in general to articles about neighborhoods and daylighted urban streams. --GoDot 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)