Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers: Difference between revisions

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges etc

• 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.

Question re: conventions and river identity

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 35.5523849°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)

Northward flowing rivers

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: [1] [2] [3] 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 [4] 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)

Talk:Leggetts Creek/GA1 - Looking for some help

The GA nominator and article-creator of Leggetts Creek has not edited Wikipedia since this past September. I am attempting a Review of this article but I cannot edit it or fix its issues because that would, of course, be a 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)

Talk:Eddy Creek (Lackawanna River)/GA1 - Looking for some help

The GA nominator and article-creator of Eddy Creek (Lackawanna River) has not edited Wikipedia since this past September. I am attempting a Review of this article but I cannot edit it or fix its issues because that would, of course, be a 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)

Tributary naming convention

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 (Lake Michigan) and 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 WP:NCDAB), not another related concept. For the last, why not St. Joseph River (Maumee River tributrary) to make it more like the usual naming conventions? I encountered this in Rio Puerco (Rio Grande) and Rio Puerco (Rio Chama), which seem like such strange and unhelpful titles to anyone not familiar with this project's proposed conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this "proposal" is 13 years old. Probably predates WP:NCDAB. Should we consider harmonizing? Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

GA Nominations without active editor-nominators...

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 Talk:Leggetts Creek/GA1 and also abandon the Review or Fail the GAN at Talk:Eddy Creek (Lackawanna River)/GA1, if the articles don't receive the needed edits and the various issues aren't fixed within the next few weeks. I had high hopes when I started that they could perhaps get to GA status...it's a shame, they're nice little articles - in my opinion they just need some fixes and tweaks to possibly pass to GA status. I felt like I owed the Project some notice. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Leggetts Creek has now been passed to GA status with the help of User:Hanif Al Husaini & User:Sir Joseph. I still intend to fail 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)

Intermittent/Ephemeral Streams

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)