Talk:Lake Creek, Oregon

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Name of Community

This editor is asking wikipedians to give me the benefit of the doubt on the city name. I have emailed the GNIS and I am waiting for a response. If the result shows that I am still in error, then I will take responsibility for correcting the page names and redirects. Zab 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks for making a redirect. I'll check my sources this evening and add what I can from Oregon Geographic Names. This has to be the best-illustrated small-town-in-Oregon stub ever! TTYL, Katr67 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save yourself the trouble. OR-GIS lists it with one word, "Lakecreek" (Ref). Zab 05:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant I would add historic content from the OGN book--the OGN place name database uses info gleaned from USGS. Every official source I've seen lists it as "Lakecreek". Katr67 06:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... the USGS is the reigning authority on names then, right? Zab 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I usually go with USGS says; [1] I think that's the general consensus around here, though sometimes I wonder, like with Lake Creek and some of the airport stuff. (There's a discussion about that on my talk page somewhere). Unfortunately since Lake Creek isn't incorporated, we can't say the two-word spelling is "official", but I'm inclined to go with local usage in this case. On the other hand, I'm sure you noticed there are far too many streams named Lake Creek in this state, [2] so at least the one word spelling is distinctive. I think the best way to think about it is if a random person wanted to find out about the place, for what would s/he search? If s/he's passing through the place, probably two words, if looking at a map, probably one, since all the maps seem to have it as one word. As long as there's a redirect from one to the other, I don't care which way it ends up. Katr67 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- The Lake Creek Historical Society took an interest in this name change campaign and are going to publish a story in the local community newsletter (The Lake Creek Letter). I've also been told that the county commissioner I chose to get involved with is the type of guy who will sit down and have lunch with anybody who has something to say, so I feel a bit more fortified. Nothing new on GNIS yet. Zab 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE -- The USGS sent me a letter informing me that my proposal was accepted, and the official name of the populated place will be corrected to the two-word form. The new entry can be seen at this link: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:1144788 Zab 00:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Territory: Page-Only Citations

There is no copy of the Lake Creek Letter online that I could find anywhere. In this case, only the local historical societies have the records. I have an address to where they would be happy to mail out copies of these past issues, but what's the appropriate step in this situation? Zab 03:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the best thing is to have them send you a copy, and give it a full citation in the article. There's no need for there to be a link in the citation, but it should have the title, author, publication date, name of publication. Great work, Zab -- Katr pointed this out to me. I'm impressed! -Pete (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Creek, Oregon. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070416135002/http://www.oregon.com/covered_bridges/bridges/lost.cfm to http://www.oregon.com/covered_bridges/bridges/lost.cfm

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]