Talk:Eagle Creek (Columbia River tributary)

Recent reversion and image
Please be careful when reverting, that you do not change more than you intended. Regarding posters, most scenic places wind up being used on posters, calendars, postcards, etc. I don't see why it's worth noting that this particular creek is used on posters. -Pete 20:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, its not the best image (faded and blurry), and with such a short stub, three images is a bit of overkill, don't you think? I'm also not too fond of "see below" wording in encyclopedia articles, though I don't know if that's in the MOS. I'd like BaseballBugs to let us know why it's important to keep this image and information in the article. Katr67 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use images are supposed to be of inferior quality so as not to harm their author. Someone once put a "fact" tag on the statement that the fall was used on inspirational posters. The illustration serves as the citation. The overall point being that the waterfall is considered to be of above-average attractiveness. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right about inferior quality, that's a good point. I also think it's a good idea to somehow note that the falls is "very" scenic, I'm just not sure this way (using posters as an example) is the best way. I'm fine with leaving it there for the time being, but hopefully one of us can think of a more "encyclopedic" way to make this point? -Pete 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am an amateur photographer and am willing to share better resolution pictures of the hike. This is my first time trying to contribute to wikipedia and not sure if I should add to the existing pictures or replace some of the existing ones with new photos. Bipingm (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Eagle Creek (Columbia River tributary). (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Eagle Creek (Multnomah County, Oregon) → Eagle Creek (Hood River County, Oregon) – According to the article itself, the creek is entirely in Hood River County, not Multnomah County. Normally, I'd consider this move uncontroversial and would just do it, but I see that the present title has been unchanged for 18 years. Am I missing something? Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment. I don't know. The GNIS says location is Multnomah County near the top, but the map there seems to show most of Eagle Creek in Hood River County but the mouth in Multnomah County. Station1 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see now that this had once been in the article, but with this edit five years ago User:ST11 removed mention of that. Probably should be restored. User:Station1, do you have a sense of what you think the title should be? And User:ST11, was that just an oversight, or was there some reason you removed that? Your comment seems to say it is wrong, but it seems to match what Station1 says they see on a map. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 07:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. The mouth and about a half mile of the creek are in Multnomah County, but the rest is in Hood River County. So it would be more accurate to say that the creek is in both counties. Not sure why I removed the bit about the mouth being in Multnomah, but I'd support restoring it.
 * As to the title of the article, that's a bit more complex of an issue. There is another notable Eagle Creek near Portland that's fully in Clackamas County, so some disambiguator needs to be present. One possible model to look at is Tanner Creek. There are two notable Tanner Creeks in Multnomah County: one in Portland proper and one in the Columbia Gorge (coincidentally it's the drainage immediately west of Eagle Creek). Due to this, county-based disambiguators are impossible for those two creeks. One is currently the primary topic for "Tanner Creek" — although I'd disagree with this characterization and would support a move — while the other is at the title "Tanner Creek (Columbia River tributary)". To avoid a lengthy disambiguator of "Eagle Creek (Multnomah and Hood River Counties, Oregon)", perhaps a similar title like "Eagle Creek (Columbia River tributary)" would be appropriate? As far as I know there are no other notable Eagle Creeks that are direct tributaries of the Columbia. The other Eagle Creek could then take the title "Eagle Creek (Clackamas River tributary)". ST11 (t • c) 15:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with "Eagle Creek (Columbia River tributary)". - Jmabel &#124; Talk 20:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds ok to me too. Your original proposed title probably should be a redirect there. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)