Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm currently running Colorado River for Today's featured article. Anyone recall when the last river-related article was featured? Comments are welcome. Shannon 13:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Willamette River, in which you had a hand, ran on September 1, 2013. There might have been others since then. Finetooth (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the most recent one I remember. I checked the TFAs for the last 4 months and didn't see any river articles... then again I might have missed one... Shannon 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The project participants list appears to contain a significant number of inactive project members, and lacks means to conveniently identify active participants' areas of interest and recent contributions. I have appended a hidden draft alternative listing for discussion. As examples, I have tentatively added potential areas of interest where user pages provided information; but I would encourage individual users to replace my guesses with better focused statements before publication if this format is considered suitable. I request feedback concerning use of the alternative format. Thewellman (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Neatly done, looks like an improvement to me - and will help find others with similar interests...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I happened to find a few things linked through the main BC Names/GeoBC page last night, where sizes of water basins, lengths of streams, elevation data for lakes and streams, flow rates etc can all be found/cited; I haven't explored these fully, just dropping the links for others to have as a resource when working on lake/river articles:

• Freshwater Atlas main page
• Using the Freshwater Atlas (FWA) Data
• Accessing Freshwater Atlas (FWA) Data
• Geospatial Reference - useful for more than hydrography
• Parcel Fabric & Registry Services this contains links to the Online Cadastre I used to cite Land Districts of British Columbia and materials linked through here will provide shape files for those charting rivers, municipal, IR and park boundaries and more.
• National Hydro Network. This is for Canada as a whole.Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Skookum1, for the helpful list. Finetooth (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of what's above is already part of Geomatics BC, which you will also find linked somewhere on what used to be called the Ministry of Forests Library, now the J.T. Fyles Natural Resources Library. There will be more rivers material within various ministry resources linked here; of what's available to the public, that is.Skookum1 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A recent edit (not sure what) broke the coords in the geobox formatting on Colorado River... I'm still not good with HTML so can someone help me? Shannon 00:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm stumped, but I wonder if this edit to Geobox on Oct. 24th could have inadvertently broken something? It's in proximity to some coordinates-handling stuff. Apologies if that's a false lead...
  talk
  ) 00:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the problem by reverting the last edit, the one that linked William Culp Darrah. I don't know how the linking could be related to the geobox formatting. I see no logical connection. However, the geobox mess occurred during the linking edit. Finetooth (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the only diff I could associate with the format weirdness was the one with the wikilink, that's why I was perplexed. I might as well try linking it again, to see what happens. Show preview isn't displaying it, I can only hope the problem is gone permanently... Shannon 03:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to create an article on Spring Branch, a tributary of

• The article seems a bit short on establishing notability. I usually look through local history to see if I can find any historical significance to the watercourse, through local geology references to see why it flows where it does, and through USEPA documentation to see if the watercourse is used a water supply, has any unique aquatic ecosystems, or has any significant environmental impairment. Thewellman (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @
  tributaries unless you think this
  is any good.

• The additional information is valuable, but doesn't seem to add much to notability. Cold water fisheries are fairly common unless they are regionally rare or unique. Unimpaired watercourses may be regionally notable. I look for comparisons like "largest tributary", "only undammed tributary", "least impaired tributary", "sole water supply", or "unique regional habitat" to establish notability in the lead section. If none of those are immediately obvious, a redirect and merger is certainly appropriate; and the merged material could later be used to expand the redirect into a separate article if new information from additional sources establishes notability. Thewellman (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed a big push (on the part of just one editor, I think, at least presently) to fill out/organize a bunch of "Tributaries of..." categories in the U.S., in a way that seems kind of problematic to me. The result has been that categories named "Tributaries of the BBB River" are being treated as though they're named "Rivers in the BBB River watershed" (or "Rivers in the BBB River drainage basin"), and the rivers categorized accordingly, including what I would call "indirect tributaries." So Category:Tributaries of the Mississippi River includes tributaries of the St. Croix River, tributaries of the Iowa River, tributaries of tributaries of those rivers, etc.

For me, when I read that River A is a "tributary of River D," I just naturally assume it to mean that River A flows directly into River D — not that the phrase actually means River A is a tributary of River B, which is a tributary of River C, which is a tributary of River D. I wonder if anybody else finds this latter application of these categories problematic and/or unclear for readers? Thanks--

My understanding of "tributary" is exactly like yours, Malepheasant. A basic geology book in my personal library defines tributary as a "small stream flowing into a large stream, adding water to the large stream". An even smaller stream flowing into the small stream would be a tributary of the small stream but not a tributary of the large stream. Finetooth (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• For the longest of times, WP has had both direct and indirect tributaries in tributary categories--none of which I see specifies 'direct tributaries only'. These is because all the requisite tributary categories for each river have not been created and many will never be created as there are two few articles to justify such categories for the many smaller rivers. That does not change the physical fact that rivers have both direct and indirect tributaries. This is shown also in WP lists, where both direct and indirect tributaries of river x are included, not just the direct ones. The purpose of categories is to help provide reader navigation to articles and having both direct and indirect do so. Of course, a further level of categorization could be added: "Direct tributaries of xx river" and "Indirect tributaries of xx river" if that is needed for clarity--but no one has done so for any river that I know of. Hmains (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Another way to go is "Hydrography of the Fraser River basin", for example, with maybe subcats for rivers and lakes and whatever else. NB in some cases the main river changes name when two major tribs meet e.g. the Taku River, and each trib is similar, the name changes at the confluence where they "begin". I think there's a sort-of-basin cat for the Columbia River, but there we do have an article Columbia Basin also.Skookum1 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I favor basin categories over tributary categories despite well-meaning, but inappropriately broad historical use of the tributary categorization scheme. Hydrography categorization by basin should avoid ambiguity about appropriate inclusion of variously named still-water features such as the
      Saint Lawrence River basin hydrography; although I would favor subcategorization by basin rather than naming convention. (subcategories Hydrography of the Lake Superior basin and Hydrography of the Saguenay River basin in preference to subcategories Rivers of the Saint Lawrence River basin and Lakes of the Saint Lawrence River basin) Coordination with WikiProject Lakes
      is important.

The issue of unnecessary subcategories for insignificantly small basins (or x-order tributaries) is independent of which term is selected, and might be addressed by specifying a minimum surface area and/or flow. Thewellman (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

German Wikipedia has a structured way of handling this. The primary river has a category called "Foo basin". All rivers within its catchment are then grouped by

Strahler stream order using the format [[Category:Foo basin|2Little Foo]] in the article category. An example category is at de:Kategorie:Flusssystem Humber where, in addition to the streams grouped by number, other waterbodies are grouped by letter e.g. lakes are "S" (for "See"). If the category becomes too large, then all the tributaries get their own basin category with this structure. This makes it very clear where the streams and lakes etc fit into the hydrography. I think they can even automate the categories from the infobox. And they have a ready-made structure we can just copy. I have translated and trialled an English version here: Category:Selke basin --Bermicourt (talk

) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever else is done, such categories should never named with the word 'hydrology' in them. Hydrology is for science category trees where the science word hydrology would be known and understood. It is not for geography category trees where the normal reader would never have heard of hydrology but would hopefully know tributary, a common word. On the matter of 'basin'. What has been used in the English WP and especially US articles is tributary, not basin, for unknown reasons, though both could presumably exist for a river (why?). Someone would have come up with really good reasons to use basin instead of tributaries this late date, with the mass changes that would entail. As far ordering the subcategories (tributaries) by their hydrology (location on the river), this would break the normal WP category ordering of alphabetical and would again be problematic for the ordinary reader. The tributary list articles are where such location ordering is provided, not subcategories. In other words, don't make things already more complicated for the ordinary readers (and editors) than they already are. WP is not a place for just specialists and experts. Hmains (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that "basin" is more often referred to as "watershed" in American English but that has a different meaning in British English. Rmhermen (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • In Canada and the US, "basin" can also be a landform that has little to do with the watershed concept, e.g. the Fraser Basin is a landform within the Nechako Plateau which is a lower-level set of terrain flanking the Fraser and its tributaries. focussed on the Nechako-Fraser confuence at the city of Prince George; in the same way "Fraser Valley" is not used for the whole valley/basin of that river, but only for the region flanking its last 80 miles or so before the sea. "Columbia Basin" similarly has a geographic meaning that's somewhat different from the hydrographic sense of that phrase.Skookum1 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
      • 1st - I hope the the difference between Hydrography and Hydrology is understood.

2nd - Whatever term is used, subcategories would still be ordered or listed alphabetically. The choice involves the subcategorization scheme. In the case of the Mississippi River, for example, the Ohio and Missouri Rivers might be subcategories of the Mississippi River, while the Tennessee and Wabash Rivers might be subcategories of the Ohio River, and the White and Tippecanoe Rivers might be subcategories of the Wabash River. This subcategorization by water body listed as the discharge point would be similar to biological categorization of species as a subcategory of genus, genus as a subcategory of family, and family as a subcategory of order. Thewellman (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia has a robust infrastructure for handling the renaming of categories, so I don't think the 'mass changes' would be problematic if a new naming system were settled upon, and I think it's good to discuss the matter here before trying to come up with a renaming proposal.

I don't think 'hydrography' is such a terribly difficult or obscure term that it couldn't be used, particularly when linked from the category description. And I think that the really good reason for considering a change to the name is that the current naming scheme doesn't align well with general usage of the term 'tributary,' and even has potential for being (unintentionally!) misleading to readers unfamiliar with a particular river: To have the Straight River in the category Category:Tributaries of the Mississippi River is to construct an implied statement that "the Straight River is a tributary of the Mississippi River," which clashes a bit with the first sentence of the article: "The Straight River is a tributary of the Fish Hook River..." A category that contains all the same articles but has a different name could solve this problem.

The U.S./British/Canadian differences in 'watershed'/'basin' usage might be solved by using 'drainage basin,' which conveniently is the name of the article about the topic.

I think the German non-alphabetic presentation is a separate issue from the names of the categories (and I suspect there would be strong pushback if there were an effort to implement it on English Wikipedia.) --

talk

) 13:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no difference in UK/US usage of "basin" in the sense of "river basin", so adding "drainage" is superfluous (it's "watershed" that's used differently). The difference between a "Tributaries of Foo" category and a "Foo basin" category is that the latter can include all waterbodies e.g. lakes, ponds, canals, bogs and marshes, reservoirs and so on, as well as rivers. But there needn't be a preference; both are useful. Bermicourt (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 offered a few examples of such differences above.--

talk

) 22:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

here's quite a few more.Skookum1 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"no difference between the UK/US usage" is patently wrong, and gee, doncha know that not all of the anglosphere is UK/US English??? And re US usage, search GNIS for "basin" and you'll get over 2000..... few which would match your claim.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was about to start a topic on this until I stumbled across this discussion... seems like you got it mostly sorted out. I personally find it much easier to stick with the direct tributaries definition. For example Category:Tributaries of the Colorado River is a mess, with tributaries of the Green and San Juan rivers (large rivers which deserve – and have – their own subcategories) duplicated under the larger umbrella category. Granted, this particular category largely predates the tributaries categorization spree we had a while ago, but it stands as a good example of what not to do.

There should really be an overhaul of the whole thing, and while I do understand that many smaller streams would not deserve a category of their own, it really should be the way to go, so as to reduce confusion. Perhaps the rule should be that if the river/stream has at least 2 direct tributaries with their own articles, a category should be created. As the system currently stands one cannot tell whether the

Green River or the Colorado River. Shannon

14:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A potential disadvantage of limiting tributary subcategories to those with two articles may arise where rivers above and below natural lakes have different names, in contrast to dams where the previous naming generally prevails both upstream and downstream of the reservoir. A subcategorization guideline requiring multiple articles might be discontinuous for natural drainages passing sequentially through a number of lakes arranged similarly to the Great Lakes. A smaller example is the flow through

Chute River, Brandy Pond, Songo River, Sebago Lake, and Presumpscot River. Thewellman (talk

) 17:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case I wonder if it would be appropriate to treat the lake itself as a tributary; as a means of categorization it makes sense, e.g. Long Lake would be categorized as a tributary of the Chute River, which would then be classed as a tributary of Brandy Pond, and so on. I can see this setup becoming far too complex so I get what you mean. In that case, for small rivers/creeks, the category would be titled as "Tributaries in the Chute River basin" instead of "Tributaries of the Chute River", the former having the added clarification that it includes both direct and indirect tributaries. On a related note this could be used to create umbrella categories for much larger river systems, e.g. "Tributaries in the Columbia Basin", which would accomplish what User:Hmains also brought up in the 2nd comment. Shannon 07:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This dual category approach would get my support, if the word basin is still a problem, could I suggest "Tributaries in the Foo

River system" as an alternative...Jokulhlaup (talk

) 17:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, basin is only problematic if it doesn't have drainage or river as a qualifier, since there are geologic basins as well. As far as I'm concerned any of Foo Drainage Basin, Foo River Basin, or Foo River System would all do just fine. Kmusser (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The dual approach looks logical and efficient to me too. Foo River System might be most clear to readers unfamiliar with the concept of "drainage basin". In cases where the river changes names from Boo to Moo to Foo, the lowermost main stem (the Foo) would be the name of the system, yes? Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, though I'd make exceptions if another name is significantly more well known, for example I'd use Ganges for the Ganges, even though the lowermost main stem would actually be Padma.Kmusser (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't support "river system" or "river basin" as they don't seem to be the usual geographical terms according to my sources. Neither appear in Whittow's Dictionary of Physical Geography, for instance, whereas "basin" and "drainage basin" do. I'd suggest either of the latter, leaving it open to editors to prefer drainage basin where there is a likilihood of confusion. Also I wonder if the plethora of terms is partly due to regional differences, in which case Wikipedia recognises that we can have regional preferences. For example, do UK editors prefer "catchment area" and do US/Canadian colleagues prefer "watershed", for example? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Choosing between drainage basin and watershed I'd go with drainage basin. Watershed is more common in the U.S., but drainage basin is used commonly as well and I don't think would cause confusion. I do think you'd need to use drainage basin vs basin to distinguish against other types of basins (and that's not a US/UK thing, UK has other types of basins too, e.g. London Basin). Kmusser (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Another point against "river basin" that I just noticed - e.g. Powder River Basin. Geologists, why do you do this? Kmusser (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I favor drainage basin or watershed over river basin or river system because the river prefix might be perceived as limiting categorical integration of lake (and sea, bay, or ocean) watersheds. Thewellman (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't been very active with rivers lately, but my first choice would be for drainage basin. Second choice is watershed. Third choice is river system (I think it can be explained somewhere that such river system categories include any types hydrological features). I don't think river basin works well, due to ambiguity with features such as Powder River Basin. older ≠ wiser 21:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think we need to always prefer "drainage basin" over "basin" for 2 reasons. First, a topographical basin would be capitalised e.g. "Foo Basin"; second, any confusion is probably minimal in reality, as there are nowhere near as many topographical basins as river basins and topographical basins (e.g. London Basin, Poole Basin, Dresden Basin, Chicago Basin etc) are unlikely to be confused with river basins anyway - they're well known and/or named after towns. So let's consider both as acceptable and let editors use commonsense to decide if adding "drainage" to "basin" is needed in a particular case to avoid confusion. Bermicourt (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there are advantages to consistency. And certainly including "drainage" eliminates most ambiguity and avoids any need for case-by-case discussions. older ≠ wiser 22:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC) PS, and for what it's worth, with the exception of London Basin, I think the other "topographical" basins you mention can quite easily confused with drainage basins. The articles even describe them as watersheds. older ≠ wiser 22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

uh, not quite....in the case of Columbia Basin the lede paragraphs point out that "In common usage, the term often refers to a smaller area, generally the portion of the drainage basin that lies within eastern Washington. Usage of the term "Columbia Basin" in British Columbia generally refers only to the immediate basins of the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers and excludes that of the Okanagan, Kettle and Similkameen Rivers." The Mackenzie drainage basin, like the Columbia and certain others, is so large and with different names along its main course, and large sub-watersheds each distinct from the rest (e.g. the Omineca and Finlay), that "Mackenzie basin" is too unwieldy (and hm may also refer to an oil and gas basin - another main use of "basin" - so some tiering, as in how mountain ranges are category-tiered as they must be for navigability and also re their actual formal toponymic structure...... and of the search from BC Names in the one link, many of those are alpine basins, i.e. upper bowls of the terrain, and others are marine features of the port/harbour variety. Somewhere on Talk:Columbia River may be a discussion about the use of Category:Columbia River re the river's whole watershed/basin being included (as to why there is no Category:Columbia Basin.Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we're both positing different points of view which is fine, we're entitled to. But Wikipedia policy is to base naming on the sources. Taking the world's longest rivers and some longest regional rivers as examples the statistics from Google books are:

Nile Basin: 79,700; Nile Drainage Basin 910. Factor of 88 to 1

Amazon Basin: 265,000; Amazon Drainage Basin 4,700. Factor of 56 to 1

Yangtze Basin: 12,100; Yangtze Drainage Basin 420. Factor of 29 to 1

Mississippi Basin: 98,000; Mississippi Drainage Basin 34,400. Factor of 3 to 1

Murray-Darling Basin: 42,500; Murray-Darling Drainage Basin 272. Factor of 156 to 1.

Mackenzie Basin: 29,600; Mackenzie Drainage Basin 1,430. Factor of 21 to 1.

The most common name in every case, by a massive majority in most cases, is "Foo Basin" not "Foo Drainage Basin". The exception is US rivers (I have checked others and the results are similar) where there is about a 3 to 1 ratio. This suggests that the use of "drainage basin" is mainly US-centric (even the Canadian river has a 21 to 1 ratio), but even for US rivers, "Foo Basin" is still much more common. Bermicourt (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Myself, I think "Drainage" by itself has problems and definitely "Drainage Basin" is very clunky; and "basin" is the more common term. One rider, as per above, sometimes as with Columbia Basin, it refers to only part of a river's watershed (did you search for "FOO watershed btw?), and in some cases like Fraser Basin it's about something else entirely.... so lower-case 'b' may be the way to go, to differentiate fro formally-named capital-B Basins.Skookum1 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps clunky is an inevitable consequence of avoiding FOO-centric? Thewellman (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round. "Drainage basin" is more US-centric (albeit still a minority usage) whereas "basin" seems to be used worldwide. So we can avoid "clunky" and avoid being "Foo-centric". I didn't research "Foo watershed" because as discussed above, it's used in very different ways in different parts of the world. However, to be true to the sources, you're right, we should also look at that. I will when I get time this coming week if that helps...

"Seems to be worldwide" if you're meaning "in wikipedia" could well be because of the imposition of British English on non-anglophone-country titles and categories, no? Even in anglophone countries/titles/categories British English has been imposed as "global standard", as was done with Category:Power stations in Canada. If you're meaning in googlefinds, then where the cites are from is going to make a difference in the same context(s)....in most usages "FOO valley" is the regular usage, when there are not multiple names for the same river.Skookum1 (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No I mean worldwide on the Internet using Google Books. And AFAIK we don't "impose" regional English on Wikipedia; in fact, where there is common usage across the world with the exception of a region we should prefer the common use. Unless an article is specific to a region; so it's perfectly fine to talk about railroads in the US and railways in India; that's local usage. "Foo valley" is fine; but a river valley is not quite the same as a river basin. Bermicourt (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just updated Germansen River and the other day Williams Creek (British Columbia) with reported gold earnings from their heyday and am wondering about a subcat for such notable gold-mining creeks/rivers. "Auriferous streams" seems too general and to most readers obscure though precise, Category:Gold placer-mining streams in British Columbia is what I'm thinking; there will be dozens of such articles once I'm done; "rivers" not used because many are creeks. For most of them detailed mining records are available so plugging at adding that content. Some were also silver and platinum placers so maybe "Placer mining streams in FOO" or something of the kind (the Tulameen River was the only platinum placer one; it was considered junk metal but was found when the gold was found, and in larger quantities; nobody's ever found, or admitted to have found, the cache of coffee cans filled with platinum nuggets that had been considered worthless when they were given to one of the local Chinese miners who had been collecting them, and is said to have buried them. Silver placer is a lot rarer, though was found here and there.Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for such a cat, or corrections of the one above (e.g. that hyphen) are welcome before I start creating it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in the proposal to pull these three articles together, the discussion is at Talk:River#Merge_here_Stream_and_Watercourse...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been a recent rash of undiscussed moves of rivers, especiallly those in Spain that used to be at Río X, to X River, and then to X (river). See for example the history of Palmones (river). It would be hard to argue that these are best known in English sources as just the name X, since no English sources are cited and they're not well known, and in many cases where they do appear they include River or Río in the text. Can we get some clarification of the naming guidelines, perhaps moving more toward more recognizable titles without parenthetic disambiguators? See about 80 recent moves by User:Hmains. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree we shouldn't be mass-moving without an analysis of the sources. A quick survey shows that "Rio Foo", "River Foo" and "Foo River" are all used in English sources, but "Foo" on its own less so. As "Rio" is reasonably recognisable in English and seems to form an integral part of the Spanish name, I'm inclined to prefer that for now. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since redirects serve the purpose of making the article accessible to users preferring other naming conventions, I favor leaving articles under whichever name was chosen by the individual compiling the greater portion of article content, under the assumption that editor has based the naming decision on comprehensive evaluation of source material. Defaultsort on the name without river/rio prefix or suffix may be appropriate.Thewellman (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes as a general principle we shouldn't move things without good reason; but the original article creators are sometimes clueless about WP policy and guidelines, so let's don't presume they got it right. Many of these articles have no sources at all, which argues against the idea that the creator studied sources. In any case, these have all been moved, most twice or more, and we could use clarification of the naming guidelines before moving them again. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that these moves have been done to revert previous moves that have been carried out over a long period of time, which didn't follow

User_talk:DagosNavy#Rivers_renamed...Jokulhlaup (talk

) 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• P.S. I was doing my renaming (reverts) as the result of a request for help by
  Rivers of Spain and making all the rivers to be named 'xxx River'. With all the changes this uncontrolled user made, I could not always get back to the original names of just 'xxx' and ended up just going back to the last name of 'xxx (river)'. Unless required for disambiguation, I don't think 'xxx (river)' should be the name, but I didn't know how to get the names back to the original names. It should be the case that the naming rules are decided upon first, but this does not seem to have been done in WP. Looking at rivers of various countries, it seems that there are different (undocumented) rules for various countries and no universal rule. Hmains (talk
  ) 06:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NCRIVER is the convention which does allow for some different regional variations e.g. most rivers in the US are "Foo River" whereas most rivers in the UK are "River Foo". In Europe we went for "Foo" and only "Foo (river)" or "Foo (parent)" if dab was needed. --Bermicourt (talk

) 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good, but why do I find so many river articles in Category:Rivers of Portugal to be named 'Foo River'? Same with rivers of various Eastern European countries. Is no one paying attention to this? Hmains (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Having done a survey of European rivers, most of them are just named "Foo" e.g.

Ruwer (river), Saar (river). About 2/3 of the countries follow this. The only clear exceptions are Portugal, countries of the former Soviet Union and one or two other eastern European countries where almost every river is named "Foo River" - not sure why. In addition, some eastern European and Scandinavian countries use "Foo" as the norm and "Foo River" as a dab, which is clearly wrong. My recommendation is that for countries where "Foo" is the norm, we move "Foo River" to "Foo" if possible and "Foo" (river)" if dab is needed. --Bermicourt (talk

) 19:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I ran into the same problem when compiling the lists of rivers in South American countries. I generally went with Foo River because that's what most of the existing articles used, but I suspect using Rio Foo would have been better since in Spanish the Rio does seem to be part of the name. Most of those rivers didn't have any English sources, so applying the common English name test is difficult. Kmusser (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree Rio Foo is often preferable to Foo River, Foo (river) or Foo. In many articles changing Rio to River would create confusion and should be avoided. e.g. Rio Grande, Río de la Plata and Rio Negro (Amazon).-- Kayoty (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a difference, though, between the famous rivers elsewhere in the world that you mention, which are well known by those names, and the naming of generally unheard-of rivers in Spain. That said, since "Rio" is reasonably well known in English as a Spanish river name, I could support a naming convention that uses the native name in this case i.e. "Rio Foo" or just "Foo" but not the generally UK or US regionally specific "River Foo" or "Foo River". "Foo" is a good convention for rivers outside English speaking regions because it works with all sorts of variations - e.g. "Foo river", "river Foo" or just "the Foo" - within the text. Bermicourt (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

May I please ask you to mass-move rivers only country by country, and only after you have found English sources about their preferable naming in English. I am not at all convinces that

Ludza River should be named Ludza (river). I see I am not the only one who has doubts. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk

) 19:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We'll leave Russia for now, but several European countries are just using "Foo River" as a disambiguator which is clearly wrong. And other countries have used "Foo River" for all their river articles, but judging by the quality of the English in the text I suspect the editor's familiarity with the language is not that strong. Most rivers in Europe are commonly called "the Foo", although all other variations may be seen as well. I'm simply tidying up a mess. I don't think it helps that the convention uses a lot of US rivers, so the lay editor might think the US naming system applies worldwide. Maybe we need to adjust the convention to make it clearer. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be great to see sources for that, and specifically for Latvia. (Note that the

Kukhva River also have their mouths in Russia, which is the only reason I have them on my watchlist).--Ymblanter (talk

) 20:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I was tidying up Latvian rivers and hadn't spotted the Russian connexion. Nevertheless, I did a quick survey on a major Russian river and most English sources call it the "Yenisei" not

Yenisei River. This is pretty standard English usage, which is why on Wikipedia most European rivers follow it. But don't worry, I'm not planning to get consciously involved in Russian river articles - there are too many of them! :) --Bermicourt (talk

) 20:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Extremely annoying that every article I click on is a useless stub with no information actually about the river. We seem to have articles on every obscure stream and nothing of any substance. I google them too and usually find no mention of them in sources. Sorry Afil, I strongly supporting merging as many as possible to the larger parent rivers and leave as a list of tributaries until something can at least be said about them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Heck, you're right, and there are thousands of them! They seem to be based on Romanian Wiki which also has a myriad river stubs. They also don't follow the normal European convention of "Foo" but all add "River" as if that's part of the proper name. German Wikipedia has around 90 Romanian rivers and they're generally of start class. That seems more reasonable IMHO. Happy to translate those over time if they're longer than the English Wiki version... :) --Bermicourt (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost 9000 articles, I'd guess at lest 8900 are empty and have been that way since 2007 at least. I appreciate that Afil is trying to address systematic bias but it would be different if there was plenty of sources for each one to expand them. I've google a few and can find no mention in google books, most appear to be tiny streams. For editors looking for information about major Romanian rivers it's very annoying. I'm all for having articles on rivers but unless they can be expanded there's no point in their existence and should be redirected to more notable river articles which do actually have mention in proper sources and the lists delinked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a look back when these were first created and found the size/density of rivers that were getting articles was comparable to what we have for the United States, and while many of them are small, we have featured articles of similarly sized U.S. streams - so I don't have a problem with them existing. The problem is that most of them lack any sources in English so they're going to be difficult to expand, maybe better to have lists rather than individual articles? They could also be better organized, perhaps into hierarchical lists like many of our other lists of rivers (and I do note

List of longest rivers of Romania exists to help find the major ones). Kmusser (talk

) 15:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

They're also automatically using "Foo River" which is contrary to our usual European river convention and hardly justified if there are next to no English sources for them. But I don't fancy changing 8,000 names! --Bermicourt (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at [email protected].

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Weariness (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can not guarantee the confidentiality, you should not run the study.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that is a standard disclaimer on academic research. Email is not secure and should never be treated as such. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reached out to the researcher and her collaborator. If they respond positively, I'll work with them to get a study description posted on m:Research:Index before they continue with the study. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor EpochFail: Sorry about the misstep. The research page exists at meta:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects; what steps should I take to ensure it's properly listed on the index? I'll hold off until we can get everything sorted out. Md gilbert (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Md gilbert, I recommend that you wait a couple of days for people to comment on the study (if they have comments) before proceeding. Once the discussion has died down (or not started), I'd strongly recommend linking to the study description on meta in any subsequent recruitment messages.

Ymblanter, CombatWombat42, bobrayner, Blackmane -- would you folks mind taking a look at the study (meta:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects) and leaving a comment if you have any concerns? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

EpochFail, sounds good, I'll hold off until I hear more (or nothing, as the case may be). Md gilbert (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no concerns; go ahead, do something positive. bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ;) Md gilbert (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Jill Lepore of The New Yorker has written a most interesting article, published this month as "The Cobweb", here about the Internet Archive and its history. Many of you already know about the Wayback Machine and how you personally can prevent link rot in your favorite articles. For those who might not already know, just go to this page, enter the URL of the page you want to save, and click Save Page. That's all there is to it. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I intend to nominate

Looks like its on the way to

« Ryūkotsusei »

16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the {{cite map}} template ongoing at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite map. It is likely that the discussion will result in formatting changes (including some improvements and additional flexibility) to the template, which is used in about 18,000 articles. Your feedback, as frequent users of this template, will be welcome and needed if these changes are to be implemented with the least amount of negative side effects.

Please link to this discussion from Talk pages of other projects that use {{cite map}} frequently. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why have so many X River articles have been created/moved to X (river) when

Please see naming in Spain seven topics above this one...Jokulhlaup (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally if "River" is not part of the proper name of the river in question, the "X River" format would be misnomer, calling thus for parenthetic disambiguation. But only in those cases. It would be wrong to move Colorado River to "Colorado (river)".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Precipitationshed § Request for comment

Request for comment on whether or not this is a neologism or misspelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Precipitationshed ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 12:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a neologism, a very clumsy construction used by a few authors to avoid the word "water" in "watershed". Kind of nonsensical, because although "precipitiation" consists of e.g. snow as well as rain; ultimately the snow melts and it is water that flows either side of a watershed (as drainage divide) or into a watershed (as a catchment area). --Bermicourt (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a bad band name. There are some cited sources that use it, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason not to merge that into Watershed and just note the alternate, klugey term in that article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Moving comment to article talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Having finished working my way through the group of stub class articles with an unknown importance, I am now confident that all of the articles that are not stubs, or are not low class have been reclassified. Originally the group had 4000 articles, but this has been reduced to 3,215 3200, all of them now being stub/low for the Rivers project.

Rather than changing the templates manually (which would be a tedious job) I would like to get these stubs marked up with a Rivers importance of Low via a bot request. As the bot runners will ask if the involved project has given approval for such changes, I thought I would see if there is any support or otherwise for getting this done.

The changes would remove the last major chunk of unassessed articles from the main table of WP: River articles by quality and importance...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The presumably small number of inappropriate rankings which might result from this action can be changed manually as deemed necessary. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for the support, but due to some hard graft by DThomsen8 using AWB, that group is now empty, although it may not show correctly until tomorrow...Jokulhlaup (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone help? The River Tone article is currently on GA review at Talk:River Tone/GA1. Although many of the reviewers comments have been dealt with, I have been unable to find any reliable sources with information about the hydrology/water chemistry of the river, which the reviewer sees as essential. Can anyone help?— Rod ^talk 16:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Some suggestions were made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Hydrology.2Fwater_chemistry_on_the_River_Tone...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Category talk:Rivers of Spain, on which is the best solution:

• either listing all the rivers of a country in the category "Rivers of [Country]," as for example in France and Portugal,
• or including them only in sub-categories and listing the rivers in list pages, as for example in the United Kingdom, the USA, Ireland and Germany.

Please comment there if you have any views...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would value additional perspectives in this discussion on appropriate material for inclusion within subject article. Thewellman (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The article claims to be a "fictitious" tributary, without mentioning who made it up. Should it be nominated for deletion? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I support deletion unless the author (or other editors) can establish notability. Thewellman (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• The word "fictitious" was added last year by an anon editor whose intention was to assert that the river doesn't exist. "Rafallo" doesn't appear in the
  talk
  ) 14:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Romanian text just says it's a tributary of the Jiu. I've removed the word "fictitious" which is unsubstantiated, but unless there is evidence of this, and dozens of other, Romanian rivers, they should be deleted. Bermicourt (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you can mention wikidata in your project page? Wikidata Link: [1]

Openstreetmap has a river project, too. [2] The OSM data is used to display the rivers in the maps (WIWOSM):

--Werner2101 (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 24#Streams --TimK MSI (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I close a lot of

I can't find a structured list of Amazon tributaries via Google, whether comprehensive or only major, by bank or even order of confluence. Does anyone have a source? Thanks, Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in the following mass renaming nomination...Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Your input here is appreciated. Rehman 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggest two changes to our recommended structure:

• 1. The four suggested sections 6.3 Course, 6.4 Source, 6.5 Watershed and 6.6 River modifications seem too granular, especially when many river or stream pages are only one or two paragraphs long in their entirety. Suggest combining these four sections into a single 6.3 "Watershed and Course", perhaps with the above four suggested as sub-sections rather than full sections.
• 2. 6.7 Natural history is a field of scientific study of organisms, not inanimate objects like rivers. Would recommend this section be called Habitat or Habitat and Conservation, as habitat is the ecosystem an organism lives in and is a part of. Conservation could be a separate section to share the efforts at stream or river conservation, but again I think combining into a single section called "Habitat and Conservation" would group this information in one place where interested parties can find it easily.

Curious to hear what others think, I've created perhaps 100-200 stream pages.Schmiebel (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone check the

There is no hard and fast rule, but I'd say it's start class and I've added an image to reinforce that.

BTW I've also moved it to

WP:COMMONNAME the correct disambiguation would be "(river)". Even the text just refers to it as "the Atrek". I notice that a lot of other rivers of Iran are named "Foo River" and wonder if the same applies there. --Bermicourt (talk

) 11:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely start class. Concerning whether is should be Foo or Foo River, there were discussions here, the conclusion was it is area sensitive. For Russia, which is my primary area of interest, there was no consensus, and since all articles are named Foo River, they should not be moved. No idea about Iran, but I would say if more than 50% are Foo River it would be reasonable to move others to the same format; otherwise, move Foo River to Foo.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I would have marked this article as a Stub class, as it has less than 250 words of content, as per

this

. This was the standard I’ve used to assess many WP:Rivers articles.

The image used seemed to be familiar, it is in fact the one used in our template banner of the River Erme. Clearly the uploaded has been a bit economical with the truth.

I also noticed that the thread was started because a new river Stub template had been added to the article. I find it odd that the project wasn’t invited to comment on this...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

German Wikipedia uses a nice system categorizing rivers according to their confluences, and User:Bermicourt has been introducing this system here in English Wikipedia. For instance, there is a Category:Weser drainage basin, which has a subcategory Category:Fulda drainage basin, which has a subcategory Category:Eder basin. The Schwalm, a direct tributary of the Eder, would be categorized as [[Category:Eder basin|1Schwalm]]. The Efze, a tributary of the Schwalm, would be categorized as [[Category:Eder basin|2Efze]]. More examples are given in the documentation {{Category doc drainage basin}}.

My questions are:

• do you agree that this is a useful system?
• do we call them "basins" or "drainage basins" (see also this move discussion)?
• any suggestions for improvement?

A related topic: we have been adding the discharge route of rivers to the {{Infobox river}}, in the "progression" field. To take the Efze again, its infobox shows "Schwalm→ Eder→ Fulda→ Weser→ North Sea". I have made templates to do that in a structured way, see Category:Weser basin succession templates. The templates starting with "R" call the corresponding template starting with "P" (which feeds the progression to the infobox), but also categorize the river into the correct drainage basin category. Do you think this is useful? Markussep ^Talk 09:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

yes, I think categorization definitely makes sense. Basins are probably easier than drainage basins (after all, Weser's only basin is drainage basin), but I am open about this.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Markussep. Having used the system for a while, it is logical and works well.

@ Ymblanter. I agree; we only need "basin" in this context. As you say there is only one "Weser basin" so no need to disambiguate it. And it's also the format that the sources overwhelmingly use. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion involving potential overlap with lake categories. How would this category structure interface in basins like the

This category structure is based on the well-recognised stream order system, which must have been worked out for North America. German Wiki has already done this. Check out de:Kategorie:Flusssystem Mississippi River or de:Kategorie:Flusssystem Nelson River.

Taking your example, if a lake is on the River Foo then it is part of that river's drainage basin. If the river changes its name, that's fine, the different articles are all grouped together at the 'top' of the category structure. If the river has distributaries or old branches e.g. ox-bows, they are all listed under the number 0 (as if they were a zero-order tributary). See Category:Rhine basin

There is no intention to replace lake categories. They can be maintained alongside e.g. as a sub-category of their parent basin category.

That said, maybe we just focus on rolling this out for Europe and let others experiment and work out if it's useful for other continents? Bermicourt (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thewellman If river A is the outflow of lake B, which is fed by rivers C, D and E, that makes rivers C, D and E tributaries of river A. In the case of the Saint Lawrence River, German Wikipedia has de:Kategorie:Flusssystem Niagara River (an inflow of Lake Ontario) as a first level subcategory of de:Kategorie:Flusssystem Sankt-Lorenz-Strom (the outflow of Lake Ontario). An example in English Wikipedia: the river Argen flows into Lake Constance, which is drained (and fed) by the Rhine. So Category:Argen basin is a subcategory of Category:Rhine basin. Does that answer your question? Markussep ^Talk 09:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that lakes (including their associated features named ponds, bays, or straits) are to be considered a slow-flowing portion of the river which drains them? In other words, all rivers flowing into

Saint Lawrence River; all rivers flowing into Lake Erie, including the Detroit River, would be second level subcategories of the Saint Lawrence; all rivers flowing into Lake St. Clair, including the St. Clair River, would be third level subcategories of the Saint Lawrence; all rivers flowing into Lakes Huron and Michigan, including the Saint Marys River, would be fourth level subcategories of the Saint Lawrence; and all rivers flowing into Lake Superior would be fifth level subcategories of the Saint Lawrence? Thewellman (talk

) 17:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Basically we include any water feature within a river's drainage basin (=catchment area outside the US) because they ultimately drain into that river. That includes: lakes, reservoirs, canals, rivers and streams, wetlands (bogs, swamps) and glaciers. Rivers and streams are grouped by stream order (1, 2, 3, etc) and the rest have index letters e.g. C for canals, so they are grouped together in the category. You can see this at Category:Bode basin.

I'm no expert on the Great Lakes, but I think you've got it. Since the Saint Lawrence River is the primary outflow of Lake Ontario, all rivers that flow directly into the lake are 1st order tributaries of the Saint Lawrence. These rivers would just be listed in say Category:Saint Lawrence River basin unless they merited their own basin category, e.g. Category:Niagara River basin in which case that would become a sub-category. Within that would be e.g. Lake Erie, all the inflows to which are first-order tribs of the Niagara and thus second-order tribs of the Saint Lawrence as you say. To keep it manageable, river articles are normally only displayed within one basin category. Hope that helps. Bermicourt (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Tributaries

Hold on! Drainage basin categories are certainly useful, but is that a reason for removing Tributaries of x River categories? The result is categories that are too large to be useful. At the very least it needs further discussion rather than just emptying those categories without a CfD, as was done with Category:Tributaries of the River Thames. And it makes no sense to do that for one continent and not another.--Mhockey (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Like tributary categories, drainage basin categories list all the tributaries, but in a much more structured way - by stream order. In addition, they show all the other features that drain into the main river, such as lakes and reservoirs, canals, bogs and springs. Most are quite small, but they should never be too large to be useful because they can always be subdivided into smaller catchments. This has been discussed before and there hasn't been any objection to date. Do go and take a look at e.g. Category:Weser drainage basin for how a large river basin is organised. I'm not against tributary categories - but when we started developing basin categories, they just seemed to become redundant. Bermicourt (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The basin/catchment categories are certainly of use in showing how river basins fit together, but they don’t replace a Tributaries of Foo cats, because they don’t include a tributary directly if it is in a sub-cat as well. In the example of the Category:Weser drainage basin the Aller doesn’t appear in "Pages in category "Weser drainage basin"" because its tucked away in the Category:Aller drainage basin subcat instead, making it hard to get a straight listing from the basin cat. I think that the subcat tributaries should be included in the basin cat to make it useful for the English wiki. In addition Tributaries of Foo, should also be allowed within the basin cat, as currently per Category:Tributaries of the River Thames within Category:Thames drainage basin...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's true and it helps to keep the basin categories at a manageable size - something Mhockey would want to see and I support that. I've just created some sub-cats in Category:Thames drainage basin which has reduced it considerably in size already. One question though: by "tributaries" are we just talking about first-order streams or all streams within the catchment area? The tributary cats I've come across seem to include most first-order tributaries, but only randomly include others. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about the size issue, all in, the Thames basin only reaches 158 pages, and the Rhine basin produces 1500 results (on PetScan), so they are not overwhelming in size. In terms of tributaries I usually think of first-order streams (direct tributaries) only, but opinions vary, hence the previous discussion mentioned earlier...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Once categories get too large, they lose usefulness as a navigational aid, and should be considered for

diffusion. I would say a category of 158 articles (and a mix of articles on rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs) is too large to be useful as a navigational aid.--Mhockey (talk

) 19:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty relaxed about keeping tributaries categories if that's the consensus here. They can sit as a sub-cat of the basin category as in Category:Severn drainage basin. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Keeping the Tributaries of Foo categories within the basin cats seems to be in agreement here...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorting in drainage basin categories

Sorting articles by geographic location seems to me to be a problem. The location is not usually obvious from the article title, so the rationale for the sort order of a particular article is not obvious to the user - without reading the article, which really misses the point of the categorisation. It is not sanctioned by

It is certainly useful to know the sequence of tributaries of a river, but that is what lists should do, not categories.--Mhockey (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem. Rivers in basin categories are sorted a) by stream order and b) alphabetically, not by geographic location. Of course they also sort reservoirs, canals, lakes etc. Meanwhile tributary categories are only for rivers and are only sorted alphabetically.

What is a problem is that many smaller UK rivers as well as most other water features haven't been put into any river, valley, tributary or basin category at all, the lists have quite a number of incorrect links and infobox tables have no progression data or are missing completely. It'd be great if we could collaborate to tidy that lot up. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Stream order" is what I mean by geographic location. The result is a category sorted in apparently random order - unless you know the location of each river.

I'm sure there is plenty of tidying up to do, but tidying up in a manner contrary to WP consensus creates more problems, which will have to be cleaned up.--Mhockey (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I've raised those issues here, not that they're particularly contentious. As far as tributary categories are concerned, are you not content with them being included in the basin categories? It seems a pragmatic solution that should satisfy everyone. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious about making tributary categories subcategories of drainage basin categories. What is contentious is the sort order within drainage basin categories. Any sort order which is not apparent from an article title is a problem. The sort order put forward in {{Category doc drainage basin}} is a significant departure from

WP:SORTKEY. It is not apparent from article titles. It can only be implemented with a detailed knowledge of the hydrography of each drainage basin. It may have a logic to it, but it is way too complicated, is likely to be ignored or wrongly implemented by many editors, and is likely to end up a mess. Please hold off implementing until it gains consensus - and I suggest that the best forum for reaching consensus for such a novel sort order is Wikipedia_Talk:Categorization.--Mhockey (talk

) 19:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There isn't anything in

WP:SORTKEY that precludes what editors are doing here. It simply lists a set of "considerations" which includes the use of numbers. Sortkey is purpose-designed for organising categories and that's what we're doing here both for clarity and based on a universal river classification system. German Wikipedia has used it for years and so have we in some regions and it hasn't caused confusion or created a mess, on the contrary it is often far better organised than other areas as I've discovered. Take out the sorting and it will be very confusing mixing lakes, canals, bogs and rivers alphabetically. So if we take this to a category forum we may find that if we make the basin categories look too much like tributary categories, the latter could be seen as duplication and get axed. We seem to have consensus at the moment for keeping the tributary categories; why don't we give those interested in developing basin categories the same respect and we'll all be happy. ☺ Bermicourt (talk

) 20:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SORTKEY certainly has guidelines for sorting using numbers as sort keys: "Entries containing numbers sometimes need special sort keys". But that is not what you are doing. The entries you are sorting do not contain numbers. You have not explained how your system can be used as a navigational aid - which is a main purpose of categories. If you were indexing rivers and lakes for a book, you would sort them alphabetically, not by stream order.

Let's see what others think at Wikipedia_Talk:Categorization.--Mhockey (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(Coming here from Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Sorting within river basin categories) This looks like a mess. Categories are conventionally sorted alphabetically; not necessarily by first word, but by some recognised system (see for example Category:Anglican cathedrals in England and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in England & Wales which are sorted by the city in which the cathedral stands). I know of no categories that attempt to sort their members by geographical position, and for somebody unfamiliar with the area, trying to locate an entry on the cat page will be difficult. The proposal may be suitable for a list page (particularly if it's a list in table form, sortable by varios columns), but not a category. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Any category sort system such as proposed here would be impossible to maintain and thus be a mess. A very few editors would set it up and very few other editors would: 1) understand it and follow it; 2) want to be bothered with such complexity. User:Redrose64 is completely correct. Hmains (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is just not true. German Wikipedia has successfully maintained this system for years, and so have we, for European rivers. These basin categories are the best attempt so far to bring order to a situation where most rivers and other waterbodies aren't categorised hydrologically at all. Every basin category has an idiot's guide to the system and it takes seconds to find a river, because they're in about 2-3 alphabetically sorted groups. And as for any editorial difficulties - I'd never come across stream order before and it took me no time at all to understand it. I'm sure the guys at this project can easily manage it. German Wikipedia has even automated the categorisation based on the infobox. The basin categories have only brought greater structure and clarity to date, not "mess", and for those who can't cope with the structure, they can continue to use tributaries of Foo River, lakes on Foo River, canals linked to Foo River, sources of Foo River, etc. It's not either/or but both/and. Then everyone is then catered for. Bermicourt (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

What German Wikipedia does is up to them. This is the English Wikipedia, which is not bound by the policies, guidelines or accepted practices of any other Wikimedia project, other than those with a legal basis. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, German Wikipedia simply demonstrates that sorting by stream order is perfectly manageable and hasn't caused confusion. And I'm sure we're just as smart as they are... ☺

However, I do accept that the template, could be clearer, so I've simplified it. I'm sure we could improve it further. Bermicourt (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This sort order does not "bring order to a situation where most rivers and other waterbodies aren't categorised hydrologically at all". It is just not what users expect in a category. A user who is familiar with the stream order of a drainage basin may well be able to find the article he is looking for, but most users will not be familiar with the stream order and will be puzzled by the order - the rationale for the order is not obvious until you find and read the article (if then), so it cannot help you find the article. The way to bring hydrological order to rivers is a list, e.g. List of rivers of England, not a category. The category system is a finding aid - indexing, if you like - and in an index you expect to find pages in alphabetical or numerical order.--Mhockey (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's really not rocket science and there's a simple key to help newcomers. I remember being intrigued the first time I came across it, but found it really simple to understand ... and that was in German! Once you're in the category it takes about 3 nanoseconds to find the link you're looking especially as the average category has around 5-15 entries, first in numerical and then in alphabetical order. And then there's always the "search" facility in extremis. As to lists, if you check out e.g. List of rivers of England, it's much harder to locate a river and you definitely need a search button to find anything! Bermicourt (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well Category:Thames drainage basin has 77 entries, and I dread to think how many Category:Amazon drainage basin will have! If you only know the name of a river, alphabetical order is easiest. Not many people will know the stream order of a river without looking at a quite detailed map. More problems: the method would group together stream order 2 rivers which are tributaries of different tributaries, but would not group together rivers which are tributaries of the same tributary. There will also be difficulties in deciding what is the stream order of a particular river, for example, would you treat the River Ure as a tributary of the River Ouse, or as the upper course of the River Ouse?

List of rivers of England is more than a finding aid. It's also an outline of the hydrology of English rivers. The problem is that you're trying to make categories do the job of a list - a job for which they are not suited.--Mhockey (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually they've proven to be very well suited. But I accept you don't like it and I can see that no amount of discussion will persuade you. Let's just agree to differ. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

So why not make the list into a sortable table - see

WP:AOAL. In fact, that page Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates shows that it is not a crime to have a list and a category whose members are the same. --Redrose64 (talk

) 10:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me, Redrose. Bermicourt (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean something like this? (Where Trib BB is a tributary of Trib B etc)...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just discovered that

I think the GNIS entry in this case is mistaken, it's called "Mahantango Creek" on the current topo map as well, and the GNIS entry has conflicting info in the West Branch Mahantango Creek that you're referring to. The coordinates would include this stretch of stream, but the text description is "18 mile long tributary of Mahantango Creek", which if the coordinates are correct than Mahantango Creek doesn't exist and it's a tributary of the Susquehanna. I think I'd go with the topo map/text description and assume the coordinates are mistaken - I know that means we have an article on a stream not in GNIS, but the GNIS isn't infallible and we have other reliable sources. Kmusser (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. This won't do! I've filled out a form to request that the GNIS create a feature for Mahantango Creek. --

talk

) aka Jakec 20:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to request an article for the Angelina & Neches River Authority.
I would try to create one myself, but I understand that it would be a conflict of interest as I am employed by the Authority.
I'm available to provide any help/information that conflict of interest guidelines allow.

The Angelina & Neches River Authority is missing from the list of Texas State Agencies, as well as the River Authorities of Texas category, and it doesn't have a page of its own.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:River_authorities_of_Texas

It does appear on a list of river authorities in texas:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_river_authorities

Here are some sources of info:

• https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mwa01
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelina_River
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neches_River
• http://www.anra.org
• http://www.anra.org/about/history.html
• http://www.anra.org/divisions/water_quality/crp

Jeremiahpoling (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Jakec I copied the above message from WP:Texas talk page. That particular talk page isn't very active, and I don't know what advice to give this individual. I've seen you a lot at DYK and GA, you might have some insight for this person. He didn't leave any contact information, but of the links above, "anra.org" is the Angelina & Neches River Authority. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) aka Jakec 01:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Jakec Good job! Thanks! — Maile (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, thanks for the assist, and Jakec, Thanks so much for creating the page. Apologies for not including my contact info. I assumed you could access it via the username I created. My email address is <removed>. Is there a way I can provide input on the content of the page within the conflict of interest guidelines? Thanks again! -- Jeremiahpoling (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) aka Jakec 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

When I stumbled upon some articles about Finnish rivers I noticed that those whose names were "translated" to English seemed wrong without the ending "river" (e.g.

After further research I noticed that the naming convention is based on naming German rivers (and French, Polish, etc.), because they often doesn't end with "river" (in their native languages). But in Finland, as in Sweden (and to some extent in Denmark), the rivers are often named "X river" (in both Swedish and Finnish; eg. "Aura å", "Aurajoki") and when I googled on a few of them (in books and on EU sites) they were often translated as "X river".

So I think the naming convention should be changed for Finland, or at least not enforced so rigorously, which already seems to be the case for rivers in Sweden.

86.50.88.109 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not really a translation and it's not based on particular countries e.g. Germany has lots of rivers ending in "-bach" or "-ach" which means stream and the sources don't tend to translate that. Thirdly, the sources variously call your example "the Aura", "Aura River", "River Aura" and "Aura river". so there is no universally adopted scheme. However, in English anything called "River Aura" or "Aura river" may entirely legitimately be called the "Aura", in fact that is very common. Wikipedia generally only uses "River Aura" or "Aura River" if the official English name of the river includes both words as e.g. in the US or UK. There may be a stronger case for naming it the "Aurajoki", if that is the most common English name, and I notice that many of the rivers of Finland are named "Foojoki" anyway. But that's in Finnish. In one of Finland's other languages, Northern Sami, I see that they drop the suffix "-joki" like we do. It would make sense if some comprehensive, objective research could be done before we rename everything. Meanwhile the convention serves us well. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See

A recent algorithm change to the way categories display has inadvertently screwed up the categorization of [mainly European] rivers by stream order. Instead of displaying first-order streams under "1", second-order streams under "2", etc. it now displays all streams under "0-9", e.g. see Category:Rhine basin. There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category sorting update which you are invited to participate in. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced since 2009.Xx236 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I verified it exists by doing a simple search on Google maps, I'm not sure how one would cite that though. Kmusser (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I also found it there and on the

Template:Google maps and Template:GEOnet2. A third ref came from a hit on google books, which was cited using the Google book tool, so I removed the unsourced tag...Jokulhlaup (talk

) 15:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the template links. Kmusser (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I added a {{Geobox|River}} to Tar River recently and was planning on improving the article. I don't know a ton about rivers, so this WikiProject has been super helpful. The main challenge here is that the Tar River has a different name (Pamlico River) past a certain bridge! I did see the community suggestion, but both rivers seem important (plus the Tar River is much longer, whereas the Pamlico River is closest to the mouth) and are ecologically distinct. Would it make better geological sense to keep two separate entries or consider combining them as Tar-Pamlico River or even Tar-Pamlico River Basin?

I suggest keeping the longer Tar River as the primary article in accordance with this guidance; and converting the Pamlico River article to a redirect by transferring its information to the Tar River article (with a second infobox in a sequential downstream segment of the course section.) Thewellman (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The federal government (

GNIS) defines the Pamlico River as being "formed by the junction of Tar River and Tranters Creek" at 35°33′09″N 77°05′05″W / 35.5523849°N 77.0846757°W / 35.5523849; -77.0846757 (i.e., beginning at the confluence of two smaller streams, not at a bridge), so I would cite that definition and keep the articles separate. --TimK MSI (talk

) 19:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with keeping them separate. The Tar River article should then be altered to show Pamlico River as its mouth/end point. Rmhermen (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone share my unease over the newly created category of Northward flowing rivers.

A search in the archives shows there was a discussion about similar lists that were summarily deleted here and here. My concern is that the category is based on the myth that rivers flowing north are unusual. Notifying the creator Dav4is as they may wish to contribute...Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur northward flowing rivers are relatively common, and the mouths of many rivers are north of some point on the perimeter of their drainage basin. I see little use for this category, and ambiguity about where rivers "rise" is likely to be a source of disagreement. Thewellman (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely delete. Apart from the eventual size of the category and the difficulty of ascertaining whether a river is flowing north or NNE or ENE and over what length, the statement that "most rivers rise on the south of a mountain — or other high ground — and flow further south" sounds highly implausible. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, while it may be true north flowing rivers are rare in the Continental US they are common elsewhere. Shannon 20:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Kill it with fire. Kmusser (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I groaned when I saw this category appear yesterday at the bottom of the Willamette River article. Finetooth (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree! This category of rivers that flow north tends to dispel the notion that all or most rivers flow to the south. The more rivers that appear here, the better! Removing it will do the opposite of what you intend! -dav4is (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments Dav4is, but it would seem that the category reinforces the misconception. As a number of people said in the links, maybe there is a need for an article that discusses the myth (but it would need some good references). As for the category I have now put it up for discussion given the strength of feeling above...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jokulhlaup: @Dav4is:: I do think there may be some basis for an article regarding the United States (as Jokulhlaup suggested above). A quick look at List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem) shows that out of the 38 longest US rivers, 13 flow primarily south, 14 east, 9 west and only 2 in a primarily north direction. (I still suggest delete the category, though.) A few links I found that reference this myth: [3] [4] [5] Shannon 18:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That could be because there is no sea border to the north of the USA, whereas there are seas to the east, west and south. ☺ Bermicourt (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shannon1: thanks for links. This one [6] uses the term geographic chauvinism which does help to understand why it is so persistent...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand the new political realities mean that what happens outside the USA has little significance now, and dissent from this view may be countered with enhanced interrogation. Nonetheless, may I mention in passing that there are rivers in the southern hemisphere. Perhaps Dav4is you could explain the relevance of your category to those rivers? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Gladly, @Epipelagic. Let the chips fall where they may. If a river flows (generally) northwards, it's in that category — otherwise not. (-dav4is (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC))

Assuming we might reach agreement about the point from which the direction to the mouth should be measured, ambiguity might remain from flows (generally) northwards in comparison to what? Comparison to south would imply a 180° window, while comparison to the four compass directions would imply a 90° window, and comparison to finer compass points might imply a more restricted window. Is there an element of directional significance to justify the effort for such categorization? Thewellman (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned groaning, above, but should have elaborated. After a featured-article debate about this issue some years ago, I decided to test the claim that north-flowing rivers are rare or relatively rare by doing something akin to what Dav4is has done, except that it never got further than my sandbox. As Thewellman notes above, defining "north-flowing" is part of the problem. I tried defining it as a "river with a mouth north of its source" to see what kind of list that would produce, and it produced a long list even within the United States. When I looked further north, to Canada for example, the supposed rarity of north-flowing rivers didn't hold up well at all. Then I began to wonder how rare east-flowing rivers might be. This presented a new puzzle. Is the Missouri a south-flowing river, or is it an east-flowing river? Is the Yukon a north-flowing river or a west-flowing river? Is it helpful to create these categories? I decided it wasn't and erased the work in my sandbox. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Finetooth, welcome to the discussion. I was up early & decided to tackle this very question in my sandbox -- my first forray there! Is that something that you can view? (-dav4is (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)) I think this does it: User:Dav4is/sandbox (-dav4is (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC))

Hi Dav4is. I appreciate your efforts, but my point was that I don't think that grouping rivers by flow direction, however that is defined, will be helpful to readers of the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

My intent is not to group rivers by flow direction, but rather to dispel the notion (or myth?) that most rivers flow south, or conversely, that few rivers flow north. Having a list of northern flowing rivers would accomplish this. Forbidding such a list will tend to perpetuate the myth. (-dav4is (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC))

It makes much more sense to organise rivers by river basins (aka catchments in the UK and elsewhere) which can then be grouped by the ocean the main river discharges into. We even had a neat way of grouping rivers within basin categories too until it was destroyed by a technical change to the way categories work which was implemented without checking the consequences (see above. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

	The GA nominator and article-creator of WP:COI . Am hoping that a WikiProject Rivers participant would be willing to step in and fix this article up so we can work together and I can then complete my Review. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

	The GA nominator and article-creator of WP:COI . Am hoping that a WikiProject Rivers participant would be willing to step in and fix this article up so we can work together and I can then complete my Review. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC))

Hi there Shearonink - this is greatly appreciated but do consider User:Jakec is probably not going to return, and he has nominated a total of 6 such articles to GAN.

Everyone else on WP:RIVERS- is there a standard protocol for tying up 'loose ends' such as these when editors leave the wiki? Sorry for sounding blunt, and as a Project member I would like to help, but I've got my hands tied for the time being... Shannon 19:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It might be useful to consider a team approach where two editors work on at least two articles. The first member of the team might act as reviewer for the Eddy Creek article which the second member of the team would research and edit. The second team member doing that editing might simultaneously act as reviewer of the Leggetts Creek article which would be researched and edited by the first member of the team. That team approach would avoid the impression of one member directing another to meet their expectations without reciprocity. Thewellman (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand Project members are overwhelmed with the many editing tasks to do around Wikipedia. I just wanted to let any interested editors know that I intend to either abandon the Review or Fail the GAN at

Update:

Eddy Creek (Lackawanna River) before the end of the month if no one volunteers to fix up its issues. Shearonink (talk

) 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to editing and was curious on this community's take on creating a new page (or pages!) for intermittent and ephemeral streams. I see they're mentioned in perennial streams and wonder if you think they deserve their own page. What degree of minutia is appreciated? Graycake (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Could be useful to have further articles, but you may want to check that it can be covered in more detail/ better presented than existing articles such as

dictionary definition stub though...Jokulhlaup (talk

) 10:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest duration of surface flow may be less important than factors like the size of the drainage basin, the population using subsurface flow as a water supply, or the volume, frequency, and consequences of surface flows. Thewellman (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I (along with another editor) am trying to improve the article on Suramula, a Georgian river. Can anybody more experienced in this subject help out? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

We have no article for the Pumpum River which include Kintampo waterfalls where a deadly accident just occurred. Anyone up for writing one? Rmhermen (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The proposed naming convention at the project page includes:

• A river can be identified uniquely as a tributary of another river. It should be named with the name of the principal river following in parentheses. So
  St. Joseph River (Maumee River)
  .

This seems very odd to me, as in essentially all other areas of Wikipedia, parenthetical identifiers say what kind of thing the topic is (the generic class, subject, or context per

It looks like this "proposal" is 13 years old. Probably predates

Actually, the idea of parenthetical generic or context is even older (2002). Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that St. Joseph (Lake Michigan) would not normally be called a tributary of a lake so you would have to have multiple conventions depending on where the mouth of the river is. Rmhermen (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, rivers flowing into lakes would need a different appropriate convention; what do you call that? Or maybe the lake name is OK; St. Joseph (Lake Michigan) seems a lot less odd than Rio Puerco (Rio Grande), somehow. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The lake disambiguator isn't a problem, the river is. Andrewa (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So maybe I need to open an RM discussion, like

@

Talk:Rio Puerco (Rio Grande). I agree that the existing "River name (River name)" convention results in many "strange and unhelpful titles," as you say, and I'm willing to help with drafting and applying a new convention. I think "River name (Lake name)" constructions aren't as confusing, so the addition of "tributary" may not be necessary, but on the other hand, I don't find the notion of a river being a tributary of a lake to be problematic. (If it is, then the first sentence of the tributary article should be clarified, and we should find new names for Category:Tributaries of Lake Michigan, Category:Tributaries of the Caspian Sea, etc.) Thanks --TimK MSI (talk

) 11:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for your support on the RM. I'm easy on the lakes; hopefully we can get a few others with opinions to speak up. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I really have no preference, but do be aware that the current convention has been widely implemented, so you'd be talking about moving thousands of pages. I'm ok with that, but you'll probably need bot assistance in implementing a change. Kmusser (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If we don't disambiguate rivers by their parent river, how are we going to disambiguate them? The parent river option is at least unambiguous (every river has a parent or flows into a lake or sea). We can't consistently choose an administrative region e.g. county or country, because there will always be rivers that flow through several. The primary aim has to be clear disambiguation; not some Wiki convention. Otherwise the tail is wagging the dog. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Although it may not be appropriate to disambiguate rivers by political subdivision as a first choice, I believe there will be situations requiring disambiguation on that basis. Large bodies of water, like the Atlantic Ocean, may have multiple small rivers of some common names like Big, Little, Muddy, or Salt River. In situations where the river may flow through several subdivisions, the subdivision containing the mouth of the river would seem a logical choice, with the option of (State/State) if the mouth of the river forms a political boundary. Thewellman (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody in this discussion has proposed that we not disambiguate rivers by their parent river. The discussion has followed from the observation that adding the word "tributary" to such disambiguations -- i.e., "River A (River B tributary)" instead of "River A (River B)" -- would make the meaning of the title clearer to general readers, and better align with conventions in place for other topics. --TimK MSI (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Surely if the disambiguator contains the word "river" or is well known (e.g. Rio Grande) it's obvious and so adding tributary is superfluous. In fact it's confusing because it could be read as River A is part of a tributary of River B. I'd leave it. Otherwise why not go for "Dallas, Texas state" etc? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW if you check out

WP:PLACE you can see that it's standard Wiki practice to disambiguate geographical articles by another geographical entity without stating what that is. So if we want to change the thousands of river articles by adding "tributary", we should think about whether this is setting an uncomfortable precedent for thousands of other geographical articles. Bermicourt (talk

) 18:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Most rivers aren't well known. I think the meaning of a construction like

Dogwood Creek (Little Indian Creek) is opaque, and that it would be approximately one gazillion times clearer if you simply added the word "tributary." ----TimK MSI (talk

) 19:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a change would impact the other geographic articles, most of them the feature being used to disambiguate isn't the same type as the topic as in Feature (Province) so there's no confusion, only with rivers is it River (River) so I can see where it might confuse unless you're already familiar with wiki conventions - but then again for most river articles disambiguated this way it's explained in the first sentence, so I'm not sure it's needed either. Kmusser (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@TimK. Most readers would understand "Little Indian Creek" to be... a creek. Adding tributary just adds confusion because we've now disambiguated Dogwood Creek to a tributary of Little Indian Creek. This is one that's best left alone. As Kmusser says, if a reader is really unclear, s/he just needs to read (normally) the first sentence of the lede. To be frank, Wikipedia's dab convention is mainly there to separate article titles from one another; the word in brackets is not meant to be a dictionary definition. So in some ways, the shorter it is the better. Bermicourt (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that a closer adherence to those principles -- that disamiguation conventions are intended mainly to distinguish among articles, that there isn't a particular requirement that the disambiguation method fully define the topic, and that brevity in disambiguation is good -- would encourage a return to the old practice from years ago of disambiguating rivers by the jurisdiction at the mouth, wherever possible. Thus,

Wills Creek (Maryland)

. These titles would be fully disambiguate the articles from all other articles, using the names of large and well-known geographic entities to do so, and readers would be able to ascertain by reading the articles' leads that the Rock River also flows through Wisconsin, and that Wills Creek also flows through Pennsylvania. Right?

(Personally, I've come to think that "Rock River (Wisconsin and Illinois)" and "Wills Creek (Pennsylvania and Maryland)" would be friendliest to readers, but oh well.)

I really do think that for many Wikipedia readers who have not been and never will be editors, who are encountering articles about rivers randomly, "in the wild," during the course of non-river-centric personal research on Wikipedia -- i.e., linked from, say, an article about a city or a historical event (and not from the bird's-eye view of a list or category of rivers) -- blind encounters with titles like

Little Satilla River (Satilla River) have a high potential for being unnecessarily distracting interruptions to the experience of browsing and reading the encyclopedia. Wouldn't a common first impression for such readers be that the name in parentheses represents a variant name of the first name? And then we make them do the work of figuring out why that (entirely understandable and predictable) first impression was incorrect. I think it would be kind to our readers to try to find ways to lessen the potential for confusion and distraction wherever possible. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk

) 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've just closed the test RM as moved, unanimous in fact, so it looks to me like there's no problem. Andrewa (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I and most of the editors in this discussion missed the test RM, so I don't think we should now move all similar river articles on the basis of an agreement after 7 days by one editor on one article. This discussion hasn't achieved consensus; it's a major move involving potentially thousands of articles and I think it's totally unnecessary and potentially confusing. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We should make some definite proposals here and see what has consensus, not have one small RM be taken as decisive. I had hoped that people who cared would have seen this discussion, and where it mentioned the RM, and would have joined in, but that didn't happen. Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

• 1. The old "proposed naming convention", e.g.
  Rio Puerco (Rio Chama)
• 2. Per recent RM that added "tributary", e.g. Rio Puerco (Rio Grande tributary), Rio Puerco (Rio Chama tributary)
• 3. Political jurisdiction at mouth, e.g. Rio Puerco (Valencia County, New Mexico), Rio Puerco (Rio Arriba County, New Mexico)

Survey

• 2. is what I proposed; it makes sense to me. Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Make it an RFC?

Not getting any action here. Should we do an RFC? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Another section should be proposed per this guide, somewhere between Natural history, Geology and Economy, we should have section which describes river "Ecology" and/ or "Protection status", "Natural value or evaluation" or something like that. It shouldn't be confused with either of these three existing section, simply because it could/should discuss eventual impact described within those, among other --౪ • • • ౪^{• • • 99° ४} 23:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Until recently, a large number of basin categories, mainly in Europe, had their rivers sorted by stream order (see here for a German Wiki example of the Moselle basin. Note that, within their stream order, the rivers still sort alphabetically. Unfortunately a recent technical change was made to the way categories are sorted numerically which inadvertently screwed up stream orders so that all rivers in a basin are just grouped under the heading "0-9" (see the English version of the Moselle basin category here). Despite objections, it is now set in stone. The same problem has happened on French Wikipedia.

However, all is not lost as there are ways round it. For example, we could still use the format [[Foo Basin|xFoolet]] to group tributaries by stream order. For example, if first order streams are given the letter "A" after the pipe (instead of "1" as before) and second order streams the letter "B", etc, they would still be grouped in stream order and the text on the category page can explain the key as before. That's one option; you may come up with a better one.

I want to stress that I'm not wanting to pressurise anyone to use this system - I believe we should have the editorial freedom to decide. Currently, it's mainly European rivers where editors use stream order. But where it is used, it makes sense to have a common system. I'm willing to amend the basin categories for German rivers to enable this, but don't want to waste time doing this if there is downstream (pardon the pun!) opposition that undoes all my efforts again. Bermicourt (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with your assessment of the stream order system for European rivers, where I think it would work well for many river systems. I am less certain it would be appropriate in other locations. I think we previously discussed the North American situation of rivers flowing through multiple lakes and being renamed upstream and downstream of each lake. How would you envision designating order to streams between lakes, or perhaps to the lake itself for relatively long, narrow lakes?

While Europe has a fairly long recorded history, more recently developed areas may have poorly documented drainage patterns and names. Subterranean flow through Karst terrain or lava tubes might be an example. Drainage changes effected for irrigated agriculture or for agricultural conversion of wetlands might be another. How flexible would your proposed categorization scheme be for situations where stream order may be changed as new articles appear for tributaries unrecognized at the time of initial categorization? Thewellman (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, you pose two really good questions: "how do we work out the stream order for complicated situations?" and "what if the data are unavailable?". Firstly I would say, let's only use stream order categorization if the river basin is well documented. If there are no data or we're unsure, the tributaries will just be listed alphabetically along with all lakes, canals, reservoirs, bogs, wetlands, etc. If only one or two streams in a basin are problematic, we could use the letter "U" for "unclassified". In most cases, the system is easy to use because most river articles shown the progression to the sea and the name of the river, lake or sea at the mouth. I tend to follow the stream order at German Wikipedia because someone's already worked it out. But I don't think we should feel under compulsion to use it; it's just a useful added extra where the data are known. ☺ --Bermicourt (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• If we were to test your proposed categorization scheme on a single river system to assess user response, can you suggest a user-friendly format to readily distinguish that river system from other river systems? It seems such differentiation might be required on a larger scale if the test were successful. Thewellman (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the sort of things that lists are good for and categories are not. They both have their strengths which is why we retain both systems. Rmhermen (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that lists (and in particular sortable tables) would be a better place for communication of stream order. --TimK MSI (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• IMO it would be more sensible to use the order the tributaries physically enter the main stream: For the Mississippi, this would list the Arkansas, Missouri and Ohio in the order "Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas". That's also a heck of a lot easier to work out than stream order (its simple by looking at a map). However, that will mix up the major and minor tributaries. Two logical, but distinct, orders strongly indicates that the default, alphabetical order is preferred.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Watershed navigation bars typically list geographic features including tributaries, lakes, and population centers. Comments are invited here concerning the value of including transportation system links. Thewellman (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

An article was created for

Although I see it on maps - like Google maps, etc. - I am not finding a published source at all for this creek in Pennsylvania. I'm not finding it in GNIS or PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources... nor any other reliable published sources.

How do you handle situations like this? Is there a source of information that I may be missing? Does this meet notability requirements if we cannot find published source?

Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The USGS 7.5 minute topo for the area (Doylston, PA, 1:24000, 1988) does show a stream with those coords, but doesn't give it a name and it appears unnamed on earlier maps of the area. (see https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#14/40.2891/-75.2396 (in topo view)). The cited google map provides the name, but is that a RS? So a small stream does exist there, but we need a ref to support the name. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I have not been able to find a reliable source for this, so I am going to nominate it for deletion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Then, I totally agree, should be deleted. So, this discussion over the last few days has certainly educated me as to what is considered reliable and not reliable sources. I will certainly keep this in mind for the future. Thanks for your help, all.Are1718 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Post-RfC discussion

I don't think a "be flexible" result is a bad outcome. The subsection at the end of RFC is mostly a good summary and could make good guidance, but for two issues.

1. It ignores the RM that concluded to use "Rio Puerco (Rio Grande tributary)" for clarity; that consensus isn't erased by the above RfC failing to come to a new consensus, so it continues to stand. Approaches like "St. Joseph River (Maumee River)" and "Rio Puerco (Rio Chama)" are probably the least useful, because they look like alternative names for the same thing, and are directly confusing for readers (they fail
   WP:RECOGNIZABLE
   ). There is no indication to the reader that a tributary relationship is intended to be implied.
2. It's weird and confusingly
   inconsistent
   that we're using a different geographical disambiguation format for the UK, especially since British editors frequently complain that that the "Foo, Bar" format is not a common usage in the UK for place names (people write "Foo in Bar"); the same parenthetical style should be applied consistently.

PS: The penultimate bullet point in that list has a misplaced item; the "St. Joseph River (Lake Michigan)" example belongs to the last point, about bodies of water.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As

Hi all, I am requesting a reassessment for this article by community. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have proposed to merge these two articles. Reasons for are listed here Talk:West Beck#Merger proposal. Please comment. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have opened
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Rivers

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hundreds of river articles have the word "course" incorrectly linked to

For a project with 62 active members the lack of a response to this item is disappointing. Downsize43 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, projects are generally pretty dead and unresponsive. I was disappointed to my requests for comments on disambig style, too. I'd ask instead at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks – just add a section describing what needs to be done, and someone will figure out how to semi-automate it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start on this - 400 or so fixed, a few hundred to go. I saw the request on the AWB task request page. Mcewan (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Saw this request on my talk page, wasn't sure what it was about then, but now I realized what was up. So, I went to Course (navigation), selected what links here. Fixed a couple of dozen that I found, requeried the list, fixed a few more. Didn't find any more then. I'll check back occasionally for more. Seems almost all of the bad links were rivers in Australia, style seemed similar, may be the same writer.Are1718 (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

At

Thanks. This sort of problem is exactly why we need people with specialist knowledge to help with these.— Rod ^talk 07:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There will always be exceptions to every arbitrary "solution". In situation such as this one - the simple addition of the state name works. The resulting lengthy link becomes a bit of a problem - article names should be as concise as possible to make editing easier. Changing Beaver Creek (White River) to Beaver Creek (White River tributary) adds unneeded length - adding "tributary" to essentially every stream name just adds to editor work, however "elegant" it may be. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that adding that state seems OK. On the "tributary" question, join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#rfc_832FABC. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to oppose making hybrids of what are currently presented as alternative schema where disambiguation is needed (i.e., one based on tributary and the other based on political entity). The current guideline gives preference to using political entity: In practice, most rivers needing disambiguation have been identified by the smallest appropriate political entity. Disambiguation by tributary is given as an alternative. In this particular case, things are complicated by how common the names are. Not only is there a Beaver Creek that is a tributary of the White River in both Alaska and Missouri (which argues against the use of

Beaver Creek (White River)) there are also two Beaver Creeks in the state of Missouri (which argues against the use of Beaver Creek (Missouri)) and the creek flows through two counties (which argues against the use of Beaver Creek (Douglas County) or Beaver Creek (Douglas County, Missouri)

.

In some areas, the county name is included with the state name such as Spring Creek (Macon County, Illinois) and Spring Creek (Sangamon County, Illinois) (which are both part of the Sangamon River system). In some areas, the county names are used without the state name, for example Little Carp River (Gogebic-Ontonagon counties) is a river disambiguated with two counties. Another possibility is to qualify the region of the state such as with Black River (Southwest Michigan), Coldwater River (Western Michigan), and Huron River (northern Michigan). If we want to keep with tributaries, we might want to include the next level tributary for additional disambiguation.

So to summarize, here are some of the alternatives to consider

• Beaver Creek (White River tributary, Missouri)
• Beaver Creek (southern Missouri)
• Beaver Creek (Douglas–Taney counties)
• Beaver Creek (White River– Mississippi River tributary)

older ≠ wiser 18:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, river folks should feel free to solve this any way y'all like. The problem at present is that

Beaver Creek (White River tributary, Missouri), but when I did that I got reverted, so I'm going to leave it. Dicklyon (talk

) 01:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually kinda like the Beaver Creek (White River - Mississippi River) thing. Rivers are natural features and perhaps should point to the next natural feature rather than political areas. Also, the political reference could be confusing when there are more than one such as two counties. The natural feature one also gives a hint as to the river progression from parent stream to higher parent stream. It really gets confusing when one checks GNIS for 'Mill Creek'. There are six of them in Bucks County, Pennsylvania alone, two of them are tributaries of the Neshaminy Creek. There are over two hundred in Pennsylvania, and a couple of thousand in the U.S. That would be a heluva disambiguation page.Are1718 (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#rfc_832FABC. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't get much in the way of river project input there, did we? I'm done converting US and Canada rivers to the new scheme. Does anyone know if disambiguation by tributary relationship is used in other countries? I'd be happy to help move them toward conformance with the new disambig conventions if so. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

See

Stratford Avon) and Hampshire Avon, but the articles are at River Avon, Bristol, etc. (The comma disambiguation looks odd to me and is not based on common UK usage). Dab by tributary relationship would not really work - the Bristol and Warwickshire Avons both flow into the River Severn, and the Hampshire Avon flows into the sea.--Mhockey (talk

) 23:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Rivers in Romania that you could look at, not surprising given that there are some 9,000 articles in Category:Rivers of Romania...Jokulhlaup (talk

) 10:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll leave those for someone who understands things like what

Agriș River (Arieș) means. Dicklyon (talk

) 02:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to remake this old (and wildly inaccurate) map of the

Are you not happy with the Google Maps (which seem to say that Karun = Karoong, and Dez is a right confluence)?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I did some digging, the Koohrang doesn't run into the Dez at all, on the Karun map it's that river than runs parallel and just east of the Bazuft, joining the Karun at the confluence of the Vanak (so above that confluence should not be labeled Karun), I found it on the old military maps at http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/tpc/ and geonames.org had it starting at the Vanak confluence, once you know where you're looking you can follow its course from the dams on Google maps satellite. Kmusser (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:: I did consult Google Maps but a lot of the labels are missing in the upstream areas; also I'm not sure about the reliability of Google outside North America/Europe. @Kmusser: Thanks for the link - I'd actually been trying to find the old US Army topo maps, but all I could find before were Soviet army maps (and I can't read Russian) so this is a big help! I suppose this also means the Wikipedia article on Koohrang has the wrong info, so I'll go correct it after I have all the names sorted out. Shannon [ Talk ] 17:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I can read Russian if it helps.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be great if you could help! On the Soviet map here I was wondering if you could find the actual English name of the river labeled as "Koohrang" on the Wikipedia map, as well as the major tributary extending north from the Vanak - the Soviet maps seem to be much more detailed than the American ones. Shannon [ Talk ] 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For "Koohrang", the map says Бахтиари, which can be reverse transliteration of Bahtiari, Bakhtiari, Bakhtiary or smth similar. For the tributary of the Vanak I do not quite get what you mean - is it the Karun itself?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my bad - I meant the tributary of the Khersan. My research suggested it might be the Marbare (and the southern branch being the "Garmrud" or "Gamrud"?), but I'm not particularly sure. Thanks in advance - I have to leave for an errand right now. Shannon [ Talk ] 18:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The northern branch is Хирсанруд, which is Hirsanrud or Khirsanrud; the southern one is Руле-Бешар which is most likely Rule-Beshar.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Done (I think)! Let me know if you spot any errors in the new map. Shannon [ Talk ] 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Very nice, since you put in on there I'd go ahead and label the Karkheh river as well, according to its article its waters and those of the Dez mingle in the marshy area between them, so it's good to have a visual of how close they are. Kmusser (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching that - I've added it in now. Shannon [ Talk ] 04:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges
• Category:Rivers of the Canadian Rockies
• Category:Rivers of the Omineca Mountains
• Category:Rivers of the Pacific Ranges
• Category:Rivers of the Kitimat Ranges
• and various others by-region

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Category:Rivers_of_the_Boundary_Ranges on the Categories for discussion page.

Adding this comment to enable archiving (been here since 2014)--Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this is my first time on Wikipedia, apologies if I go about this incorrectly.

I have noticed that the article relating to River Dulas (Ceredigion) is accompanied by a photo of a different Dulas, namely one a little further north, on the other side of the Teifi, which is a tributary of the Brefi. To reiterate, the subject of the article (the river passing Llangybi) is not the river in the image on the page ; the latter, as the text next to the image says, is a tributary of the Brefi (which is on the other side of the Teifi to Llangybi, near Llanddewi Brefi). If anyone can help me to change this image for one that is definitely of the relevant Dulas that would be great.

Many thanks JSWILD (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 13/02/18

Thanks for pointing out the image problem. Are all of the images on Commons for this other river? Keith D (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted, I'm having a look at this as I added the image back in 2015...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ve now corrected the image and tidied up the article etc...Jokulhlaup (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help with this Jokulhlaup and Keith D, much appreciated. In my attempt to 'talk' on the Dulas page in order to alert other people who contributed to the page, I accidentally wrote on this page 'WikiProject Rivers' - how did you find my section above, out of interest? What would have been the best means of contacting relevant contributors / wikipedians about this? Also, Jokulhlaup, I pasted the same message on your talk page but it didn't appear as a new section, just added on to the end of Section 34. Sorry about that. Any tips very welcome and appreciated. Cheers, --JSWILD (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This page is on my

watchlist so I can see when any changes are made to the page. Keith D (talk

) 14:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

JSWILD I've added a welcome message to your talk page that has lots of tips and links to help you with editing. You did the right thing asking here for help as some of the talk pages for minor rivers are not always watched by many editors. Although it has been pointed out that sometimes you don't get a quick answer, I replied as I had added the image previously...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Redux

In an RfC where, supposedly, "There is no compelling argument made by either 'side'" and so "the status quo is usually appropriate" an appropriate close would be "no consensus", not the "keep both" expressed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys - some input from this project would be appreciated over at CfD on the best way to organise categories for Canadian rivers. There's an editor inconsistently slapping variations on "Hydrological System" on different articles. Le Deluge (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm cleaning up the page on the

All rivers, streams, brooks, becks, creeks, kills and runs are welcome here, so I have added the project template and a couple of others to the talk page for you...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded the USGS GNIS names to Mix'n'match GNIS Streams USA program to make it easier to get Wikidata elements for the infoboxes and creating lists, other maintenance tasks, and linking across languages. This will help build tools and assess completeness for the USA. I'm looking for other keys to build out international coverage. Hope this is of interest to others in the project. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been working on

Was that what you wanted? You will need to move the locator pin- I only did a rough estimate. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I wanted. Thank you Clem.

Kablammo (talk

) 14:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors from this project with an interest in Commons may wish to comment at Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Rivers.--Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)