Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

River maps

@Finetooth and Shannon1: – The project page says every river article should get a map, but I've been pushing back on edits like this that add an uninformative map of a pin on a large state (California in all the cases of the ones I reverted, I think), especially on articles that have illustrations that get displaced down the page by this waste of space. I'd suggest modifying the guideline to ask for good maps, not useless maps. For example, see lots of good maps in the Commons uploads of Shannon1. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that map myself, especially since the river is only 14 miles long, and it shows exactly where it is in context to the rest of the state. Not sure why you're reverting it. If it were a longer river a pushpin map would make less sense. SportingFlyer T·C 17:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong is that the map takes up a lot of space near the top of the article, pushing pictures down, and only provides a vague idea of where it is (indistinguishable from the many other creeks in the area). And if you click on it, you get less info, not more. A county or region push-pin map, hopefully showing the course and nearby other creeks, would be informative, but this is not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Are there any examples of US county push-pin maps? It seems like it'd be nice to have them but I can't think of any articles with them. I'd be happy to help make some, though I am not familiar with how they work. Shannon [ Talk ] 21:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I also don't have a problem with the pushpin maps, they aren't ideal, but I think they are still better than no map at all - giving a vague idea of location is better than no idea of location. Good maps take a long time to make and it can be useful to at least have something in the meantime. I don't see pushing other images further down the page a particularly compelling negative. Kmusser (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree - a better map is possible, but the page is better off with the pushpin map than no map. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Lots of infobox templates now automatically add a OSM map if the coordinates exist. These are in addition to the pushpin maps if they are present. Dunes_(hotel_and_casino) is an example. MB 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice, does Infobox River support this, or can it be added? I think in the example beginning this conversation a OSM pushpin map would be a definitely improvement over the California pushpin map. Kmusser (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe it could be added if there was consensus here. Making the change would add an OSM map to every River infobox that had coordinates (either in the infobox or Wikidata - same was with the pushpin maps). MB 15:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, it would be nice as an option, but I don't think I'd necessarily want it to be "on" as the default as we'd only want it where we didn't have a better map. Kmusser (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What's an OSM map? Show us an example? Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I gave you a link above to a casino article. Aerial lighthouse is a lighthouse. Or see any article in Category:Lighthouses. MB 16:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see it probably means OpenStreetMap. But in those examples I don't see how to put one in an article; must be the template magic doing it. Is there an info page about how to use OSM maps? I see WP:OSM, but it's pretty cryptic. Maybe you can show us how to do one on a river article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a Template:OSM Location map that I have used to make some manually. You can see samples here. But that is a fairly tedious process (you have to specify the coord of the center of the displayed map in addition to the location you are mapping, and get the scaling right). The ones in the infoboxes are an improved automated version. I don't know exactly how they work, but a Template Editor familiar with them could add the functionality to the river infobox template just like has been done to the others already. MB 03:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

My thought in adding a pushpin map to a river article with no map is to make the location more instantly apparent to a reader living thousands of miles from the river in question. Most readers will know where the United States is. Some will know exactly where each state is within the United States, and almost none will know where each county lies. The pushpin maps with the state and national options, as in Dunes_(hotel_and_casino), partially solve the location problem until something better comes along. If the pushpin maps cause layout problems, I think these can be solved by rearranging the images or by adding a gallery section if there's no way to accommodate the images without creating text sandwiches or displacing the article heads and subheads. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an actual participant in the WikiProject, but I was trying to add an infobox to the newly-made Uchee Creek (Georgia) page. However, the map didn't show up correctly. Can someone assist in correcting it? Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. MB 16:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Finetooth: I agree with you, I think a state level pushpin-map is useful for people who live thousands of miles away (or even hundreds of miles away) and have no idea where a given river might be. -Furicorn (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Androscoggin River for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Androscoggin River is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Androscoggin River until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Request: Lane's Balance

Lane's Balance was instrumental to me for understanding fluvial geomorphology. I would consider it to be a mid-importance page. I'd be happy to contribute to it if it existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus720 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Rivers of Romania

Rivers of Romania, List of rivers of Romania and four other related redirects have been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 17#Rivers of Romania where your comments are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Merging WP:Waterfalls into this project

Hi all, WikiProject Waterfalls seems to have fallen silent. There was a very brief discussion on its talk page about what to do, and some had suggested merging with this project as a task force. Basically, the 1,100 articles marked with the WP:Waterfalls template would instead get marked with a WP:RIVERS template with a new parameter "|waterfall=yes" or something like that. The sole purpose of the parameter would be to maintain article tracking for waterfall articles, in case folks in the present or future would still like to sort through waterfall articles. So my question: are folks alright with this change? It would result in up to 1,100 waterfall articles being added to this project (though I suspect some are already tagged with WP:RIVERS). Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable idea--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hah, as I read this I was thinking, "Oh I should show this person how we did the merges over at WP:MOLBIO" and then I saw your name. I guess you already know most of it! For anyone else, check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Possible_Merger:_WP:GEN_+_WP:MCB_+_WP:COMBIO_+_WP:BIOP and some of the neighboring discussions, as well as the "end" result at MOLBIO. We aren't actually done yet. But essentially, we made the smaller projects into taskforces and combined the talk page archives so that they can be searched as one. We did some redesign as well and added some new functionality to the main page. Anyway, that is a model for how a merge process could look. I should note that there is also precedent in WP:VG and WP:USA for merging inactive projects, though I was not involved there. This one would be a lot simpler with only two total projects. If this reaches consensus but there are still technical difficulties or major questions, please feel free to ping me! And to clarify, I am in support of this merger. However, as I am not an active editor in either project (yet, it's on my docket which is why I watch here), my thoughts should count for less than those of the active members here.Prometheus720 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not a very active member either, though the merge seems to be a logical step. The joy of all things (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is a reasonable idea which should help integrate the hydropower and inland navigation aspects of waterfalls within river ecosystems. Thewellman (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just an update, I haven't forgotten about this. The {{WikiProject Rivers}} template is template protected, so I'm waiting on an admin or template editor to respond to my template edit request which theoretically should allow the WP:Rivers template to accept a Taskforce Waterfalls parameter. I'll post here when that process is complete. Thanks all for your input! Ajpolino (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I updated the template--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic! Then we're off to the races. I've filed a bot request to update the talk page tags. I'll post here before and after any bot run so folks can be on the lookout for any mistakes. Also feel free to let me know and/or comment at the bot request if you see any errors in it. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done by JJMC89. Thanks all for your input and JJMC89 for your assistance!`Ajpolino (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguating by county

We have lots of same-named rivers and creeks in California and other places, and lots of disambiguating by county. When we do so, we most often include the state name with the county name. I recently moved Adobe Creek (Santa Clara County, California) to Adobe Creek (Santa Clara County) before I noticed that including the state is most common. Should it be? The combination of creek name and county name is most often unique without the state, so it's not ambiguous to omit the state; and the ambiguity is most often within a state when the county is needed. So, should we have some preference for how to do this? More concise vs more fully disambiguated? Or should we try to disambiguate these some other way? I find about 325 cases of creeks disambiguated by county, with near 75% of those including the state. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll remove some more states if nobody objects. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd just double check that the creek county combination is indeed unique, for example GNIS has 4 creeks that would match Little Creek (Jefferson County). Kmusser (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to reply to this thread earlier and forgot. Thanks for raising the issue. My personal feeling is that invoking the county name without naming the state makes the title feel incomplete, and it kind of feels like it's asserting an assumption (however unintended) that "of course everybody knows which state ___ County is in." In the text of articles, county names are usually not invoked without somehow establishing the context of the county's larger jurisdiction, and to me it seems friendlier to readers (maybe not to editors) to do that in the title, too. Thanks-- TimK MSI (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently about 3/4 of editors feel that way. Perhaps we should make that the convention then? Also, in many rivers that are disambiguated by county, it might just be better to do something completely different. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)