Talk:Yarra River

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Australia: Melbourne B‑class High‑importance

	Australia portal Yarra River is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Template:Maintained

Rivers Unassessed

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Naming

How do we refer to the river? Birrarung or Yarra? Yarra is a mistranslation of a term for flowing water or waterfalls, not this river in particular, but for any creek or river. Birrarung on the other hand has been used for an unknowable ammount of time and is still used today, it has roots in Wurundjeri phrases such as "river" (being the central river of the region, and "river of mist", "the great river", etc. The best option is Birrarung, but how do other people feel about this? Just because Yarra is the official name doesn't mean that it is the name that should be used. Discuss. Nick carson (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. We have policies regarding naming of articles in Wikipedia, and the policy is that the most commonly recognised name should be recognised. Further this is the English language Wikipedia, so we use the most commonly used English language name. By all means mention the Wurundjeri name in the article. Even create a redirect page if you think anybody is going to look for the river under that name. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awsum, thanks. I guess the bigger issue is what gives European settlers defacto naming rights? I mean surely just because a name is in wide-spread use is not reason enough to use it, surely we can do better than to have such a lazy attitude. Nick carson (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always challenge that policy if you wish. But the idea is to make things easier to find, not harder. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments about naming rights do not belong in on this article in WP. It would be original research. If there is a WP article on the topic then talk about it there... but it will need external references. Format (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would know it as the yarra river, so they would search for it as such, but we could redirect "Yarra River" to something like "Birrarung" or "Birrarung River" and people would soon discover its rightful name. I think this is not an issue about naming rights, a river's name is a river's name, you can't come along with millions of your buddies and say "nup, we're calling it this now". I agree it would be easier to leave it as "Yarra" but it's incorrect and history must be written correctly, not by the winners, or we'll keep going round in loops. Also, this discussion requires no mediation, but thanks. Nick carson (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No history does not need to be "corrected" here. This is not the forum. If you feel strongly about it start a campaign to get the name changed, as was Uluru. When you succeed the name will be changed here. In the meantime I'll refer you to WP:NC --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We needn't waste our lives on campaigns, petitions and policies. Anyone can see that, as with Uluru, the European names are innapropriate. A good encyclopedia is not merely a mirror of current society, but a mirror of truth and reality. Wikipedia is no different, in fact, better than most in regards to that. Nick carson (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we can consider the topic closed? --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes & "History of Yarra River" article

I have noticed some recent changes as of October 2008. If you are going to add information by all means do, just make sure you incorporate it into the existing article properly. Simple grammar and spelling mistakes can be corrected easily, but overall re-organisation of the article can be difficult. If you've got big ammounts of info such as the recent changes to the 'history' section, please discuss it here first because (as is the case with the history section) we may need to create a separate article. Please discuss here. Nick carson (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding history, alot of the information pertains to the history of Melbourne more than the river itself, we have to be selective and keep in mind that this is an article about the river, not Melbourne, thanks. Nick carson (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some major work

I have added all sorts of information, organised existing information, added river info box, rearranged photos, added some maps, fixed some spelling, created some sub-articles for sections that were too big or required lists and such, yet to add references. All you Melburnians! This is a really important river, appreciate it, enjoy it, help it, fix it.Nick carson (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed up typo (fishes-fish)Kingkyle222 06:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting last edit

I've reverted the edit: This naming error is yet to be reverted. There is a presumption in this edit that a significant body of people consider the current name for the Yarra to be an "error" that needs to be corrected, but no evidence of this is provided. If the editor can provide a source that, for instance, Mr. Notable or organisation X has called for the river to be renamed, then that could be included. Otherwise the edit seems to reflect the editors personal POV, and for that reason I reverted it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helping contributers source such references is more productive than reverting. Nick carson (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier if you inserted the reference when you made the edit. Why should other editors chase around adding references you could put in at the time of your edit? If there is no reference you shouldn't have made the edit, especially if the edit expresses a pov or obscure fact. You are welcome to reverse with a reference. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a naming error, it is yet to be reverted. That is not bias, POV, unfounded or untrue. There are little or no references for it because it is a "sky is blue" statement. It was once named something and is now named was changed for no good reason at all, and is yet to be changed back. Simple. I was once an ignorant ill-informed European settler descendent myself on the topic, but I have learnt and evolved as an individual and become better informed and aware of such things. The fact that the majority hasn't is no justification for the maintenance of incorrect terminology. Nick carson (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is you are making assumptions you cannot (or will not) support with sources. The first is that the people who named the river "Yarra" consider they made a mistake. They may have been aware of the original name and preferred Yarra, or may just not have cared. Secondly there is no general requirement that something once renamed, by necessity should revert to a previous name. Indeed there are millions of examples of locations or geographical features worldwide that have been renamed, perhaps numerous times, or are called different things in different languages. Indeed it would be almost certain that at some point the Wurundjeri replaced another Aboriginal language group who would most likely have had a different name. Sometimes a proposal to rename becomes an issue of notability sometimes not. Where is the source that this case is notable? --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that they did make a mistake. It wasn't up to them to choose what to name it or what name they preferred, it already had a name. The fact that they were ignorant to it's actual name or didn't care either way is no justification to maintain the current name. A source is provided in the lead next to the: "originally Birrarung" wording. This is not a natural evolution of a name, nor is it a natural sucession of a name, nor was it aproved by anyone, the current name is entirely invalid. This does indeed extend to many other European-named locations that already had names, in Melbourne, Victoria and Australia abroad. Nick carson (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely a POV. At the moment it seems to be only your POV. If you can provide a source that it is somebody elses POV, in the form of a verifiable source, it would certainly e worth adding to the article. As for "approval" obviously the name has been approved by the colonising authorities. And their legal sucessors continue to use the name. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native vegetation beyond Southbank - contentious statement

I removed the following statement ...

Lasting effects of pollution in the river can be seen in the lack of vegetation along the river at various locations, particularly downstream of Southbank, where there is no native vegetation at all.

Because this statement is misleading, makes far too many assumptions and has no citations. In fact it is most likely due to the fact that vegetation has been physically removed for development rather than the result of pollution. Unless someone can prove otherwise. I have heard, for example, that when they built Queens Bridge, they had to remove a significant number of trees, and massive stumps that were submerged due to decades of flooding. No doubt trees were also removed right down the Yarra to make it easier for ships to navigate from the bay .... --Biatch (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than remove it entirely, make sure you build upon it, correct it, etc. This is the sort of cleanup I usually do when I have more time but I don't of late. Nick carson (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. You make a broad statement, heavily loaded with POV, then complain that others should waste their time finding sources rather than deleting it when you have failed to do so yourself. Then you have the temerity to put a tag on this article claiming you are providing sources. Broadly speaking, I support most of your edits in a political sense, but you fail as an editor because you won't do the hard work of backing up your edits with sources. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for not being a super-human reference/source hunting imortal machine. We, I, you, all of us need help from eachother. I'm merely asking for it where I can't, lack the knowledge or don't have the time to contribute it myself. Nick carson (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but your edits are often obscure facts or POV's, and you cannot expect them to stand without sources. If you know something is X but cannot provide a source, what makes you think that somebody who didn't know it was X, or who even thinks it is Y, is capable of providing a source? --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flow rate

The flow rate is wrong (I don't know the correct flow) - it's currently given as ~3x the amazon - I suspect confusion of units? Cphi (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]