Talk:Esopus Creek

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Esopus Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090505003933/http://www.timesunion.com:80/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=794567&category=REGION to http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=794567&category=REGION

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be able to later today start helping out. 420Traveler (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Esopus 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://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

New lead image?
During the GA nomination and review, I went and took additional pictures of the creek. One of them was the same view, the picture I took over a decade ago, that we currently use as the lead image. 1 I took that same view again this past summer. I don't think it's as interesting now due to the changes Irene forced on the channel.

So, I think it's time we reconsider what we use as the lead image. I admit it will probably be one from the upper creek; those look inherently more photogenic (Or by "the upper creek", I should clarify that I mean the portion of the stream where it's rockier and shallower, including not just the upper stream but, per the article, down to just above the Marbletown town park). That's the Esopus people fish in and kayak and tube on; that's the one with the more severe flooding issues. In other words, it's the one the article discusses at greater length.

I am also ruling out any images of the small upper Esopus, above the Birch Creek confluence; the stream's not wide enough there to be representative of the whole stream, as picturesque as it may otherwise be.

I have several candidates in mind (all, granted, my own work):

I have to admit I like the last one the more I think about it. It breaks my personal rule that all views of rivers should be upstream, but rules were made to be broken. I mean, you look at this image and you want to be part of the scene somehow. You want to join those anglers. You'd be OK drinking water from this stream down in the city. And I love Mt. Tremper in the background ... nowhere near high enough to be a required peak for the 3500 Club, but you'd never guess that from this image.

Anybody else have anything to say (It doesn't have to be one of the ones up there)? Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on your choice Daniel. That picture shows everything that the stream is about. Shows the nature as well as the recreational value.420Traveler (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also like the last one. It covers just about everything in the article: the natural appearance, fishing, woodlands, and the mountains.  It's just about perfect for the lead image Hog Farm Bacon 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, we have consensus IMO. Will make the change. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)