Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Archive 6
This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. 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. |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I updated the template--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Just an update, I haven't forgotten about this. The
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)
- 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)
Different name same river
Beaver River (Oklahoma) and the North Canadian River are the same river with interchangeable names. I thought Beaver River might be about that part in Oklahoma but it does not appear to be the case. Otr500 (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've replied at Talk:Beaver River (Oklahoma) and I propose consolidating the discussion there. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
New bot to remove completed infobox requests
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Rivers since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Discussion about tributary and basin categories
Currently rivers are categorized hydrographically in two systems: Category:Tributaries by river and its subcategories, and Category:Drainage basins and its subcategories. Not all rivers are categorized by tributary, and not all rivers are categorized by basin, there is limited overlap (Category:Tributaries of the Prut River vs. Category:Prut basin, Category:Tributaries of the Po (river) vs. Category:Po basin). In this CfD discussion, it was proposed by Marcocapelle to categorize all rivers in "tributaries" categories, which are parented by the related "basin" category. This "basin" category would contain the related "tributaries" categories and the other waterbodies (lakes, reservoirs, canals etc.) of that basin. If a "basin" category only contains "tributaries" categories and no articles, it could be upmerged. Since this would be a major change, I would like to discuss it here. First whether it is considered an improvement to implement this idea, afterwards we can discuss details like how to sort the tributaries in the category, direct and indirect tributaries, how to nest the tributary and basin categories into their parent categories, etc. etc. Markussep Talk 08:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Making the basin categories parents of the tributary categories makes sense to me, as you mention the basin categories may contain things other then tributaries, but all tributaries are going to be in the basin by definition. Kmusser (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- That structure also sounds good to me. I do think the widely-used "Tributaries of..." naming convention is really bad. In common usage, to say "River A is a tributary of River B" is to say that River A flows directly into River B. The "Tributaries of..." categories are at odds with that common usage. I think something like "Rivers of the ___ basin" would better express the categories' purpose. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Both "indirect tributary" and "second-order tributary", "third-order tributary" etc. are commonly used, see these Google Scholar searches [1] and [2]. Maybe it's not beautiful English, but it exists outside Wikipedia. An alternative option (which involves less work, on European rivers at least) would be to abandon the "tributaries" categories completely and to rename or merge them to "basin" categories. Pinging users that were involved in a previous discussion: @Ymblanter:, @Bermicourt:, @Thewellman:, @Mhockey:, @Jokulhlaup:, @Redrose64:, @Hmains:. Markussep Talk 08:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I favour the system on German Wikipedia which is highly developed and even allows rivers to be grouped by stream order within a category using an initial number in the category syntax. Essentially they categorise all rivers and other waterbodies by basin down to 4th-order streams e.g. de:Kategorie:Flusssystem Rhein. There is no need for a tributaries category as all the tributaries are grouped by stream order within the basin category alongside the different types of waterbodies, each in their own group. This is achieved using the category syntax. Alongside that, especially for the bigger rivers, they have a river category e.g. de:Kategorie:Rhein which includes the basin but also covers the cultural, economic, historical, geographical and regional articles associated with the river.
- The problem with having both basin and tributary categories is that, often, the latter is often just a large subset of the former; not quite a duplication, but almost so. Bermicourt (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Rivers are also categorized Category:Rivers of political subdivision. I see no reason why the drainage basin categories (which might also contain cities or historic sites within the basin) would be any more objectionably duplicative than the present political subdivision categories. Thewellman (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to sort a category of rivers by "stream order" is prone to opinion. Consider the River Goyt and River Tame; their confluence is at Stockport. Which river is the tributary of the other? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Thewellman: I don't propose to delete the "basin" categories, I'd like to discuss whether we need "tributaries" categories (as subcategories of "basin" categories). @Bermicourt: the method we used for grouping by stream order doesn't work anymore because of a change in how numbers are sorted in categories, which German wikipedia apparently escaped from. I don't think we'll succeed in reverting that, so probably we should give up this grouping system, unless we can think of a good alternative. @Redrose64: I guess they would both be tributaries of the Mersey, just like Brigach and Breg are tributaries of the Danube, and Mayenne and Sarthe are tributaries of the Maine. Markussep Talk 08:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- As an inclusionist, I perceive value in tributary subcategories (particularly for rivers within lake basins) and didn't intend to imply basin categories should be cause for their deletion. Thewellman (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Thewellman: I don't propose to delete the "basin" categories, I'd like to discuss whether we need "tributaries" categories (as subcategories of "basin" categories). @Bermicourt: the method we used for grouping by stream order doesn't work anymore because of a change in how numbers are sorted in categories, which German wikipedia apparently escaped from. I don't think we'll succeed in reverting that, so probably we should give up this grouping system, unless we can think of a good alternative. @Redrose64: I guess they would both be tributaries of the Mersey, just like Brigach and Breg are tributaries of the Danube, and Mayenne and Sarthe are tributaries of the Maine. Markussep Talk 08:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to sort a category of rivers by "stream order" is prone to opinion. Consider the River Goyt and River Tame; their confluence is at Stockport. Which river is the tributary of the other? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Rivers are also categorized Category:Rivers of political subdivision. I see no reason why the drainage basin categories (which might also contain cities or historic sites within the basin) would be any more objectionably duplicative than the present political subdivision categories. Thewellman (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Both "indirect tributary" and "second-order tributary", "third-order tributary" etc. are commonly used, see these Google Scholar searches [1] and [2]. Maybe it's not beautiful English, but it exists outside Wikipedia. An alternative option (which involves less work, on European rivers at least) would be to abandon the "tributaries" categories completely and to rename or merge them to "basin" categories. Pinging users that were involved in a previous discussion: @Ymblanter:, @Bermicourt:, @Thewellman:, @Mhockey:, @Jokulhlaup:, @Redrose64:, @Hmains:. Markussep Talk 08:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- That structure also sounds good to me. I do think the widely-used "Tributaries of..." naming convention is really bad. In common usage, to say "River A is a tributary of River B" is to say that River A flows directly into River B. The "Tributaries of..." categories are at odds with that common usage. I think something like "Rivers of the ___ basin" would better express the categories' purpose. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- There seems to be a consensus, or at least a majority towards having both "basin" and "tributaries" categories, where "tributaries" categories are subcategories of "basin" categories. Meanwhile, Marcocapelle has started implementing this for the Category:Prut basin. Before we continue, I think it's good to find agreement on some issues regarding the structure:
- Do we sort all rivers alphabetically in the "tributaries" categories, or do we want to discriminate between direct and indirect tributaries (1st order, 2nd order, 3rd order etc.)? And if we want the latter, how?
- Do we show all sub-basins in the main basin category? For instance: the Jijia flows into the Prut, and the Prut flows into the Danube. Should Category:Jijia basin be a subcategory of both Category:Prut basin and Category:Danube basin, or only of Category:Prut basin?
- Same question for the tributaries categories: should Category:Tributaries of the Chineja be a subcategory of both Category:Tributaries of the Prut and Category:Tributaries of the Danube, or only of Category:Tributaries of the Prut?
- Many river articles use river succession templates to show their progression or discharge route. Templates like {{RChineja}} automatically categorize the river article in the correct basin or tributaries category. If we're going to create tributaries categories, these templates should be updated as well. Markussep Talk 21:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- By default the content of Wikipedia categories is sorted alphabetically. Sorting by number requires a lot of explanation and is merely confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, I think that's in line with the WP:CAT guideline. The way it is done in German wikipedia is nice, but not really what a category is meant for IMO. And it doesn't work here anymore due to the changed number sorting in categories. About categorizing the categories: the complete category tree of for instance Category:Danube basin is also available by expanding the subcategories (for instance Category:Tisza basin), so do we really need all grandchildren and greatgrandchildren in the parent category? Markussep Talk 11:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Can we agree on the following proposal?
- river articles are categorized hydrographically into the most specific "tributaries" category (e.g. Category:Tributaries of the Chineja), which is sorted alphabetically
- "tributaries" categories are subcategories of the most specific "basin" category (e.g. Category:Tributaries of the Chineja is a subcategory of Category:Prut basin) and of the higher level "tributaries" category (e.g. Category:Tributaries of the Chineja is a subcategory of Category:Tributaries of the Prut)
- "basin" categories are subcategories of the higher level "basin" category (e.g. Category:Prut basin is a subcategory of Category:Danube basin)
- a "basin" category contains the relevant "tributaries" and "basin" subcategories, and the other waterbodies (lakes, reservoirs, springs, canals, branches) of that drainage basin
Markussep Talk 09:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Are these suggested specifications intended to inclusive, or exclusive? Thewellman (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean with "exclusive" that a "tributaries" category should be a subcategory of only one "basin" category, and only one higher "tributaries" category? And a "basin" category a subcategory of only one "basin" category? That's what I intended. Markussep Talk 19:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- My question was whether the specifications would be one of several possible categorization options, or if they would be the only acceptable categorization scheme. Do I understand correctly you propose to exclude other categorization options? Thewellman (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- The categorization of rivers by country, region, state, province etc. can remain as is IMO, I propose a standard for hydrographic categorization (by basin/tributaries). Markussep Talk 08:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Might these tributary and basin categories contain things other than rivers? Your suggested list of possible water features failed to include marshes, caves, aquifers, (and possibly others which don't come to mind at the moment.) Basin categories are potentially as useful as (and more durable than) political subdivisions, and might contain other non-hydrographic features like mountains, deserts, cities, or historic sites. Thewellman (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? The basin categories are perfectly suited for that. I didn't mention marshes, but bogs and swamps are in the {{Category doc drainage basin}} documentation template. I thought I'd seen a "cities in the X basin" category, but I can't find them now. Markussep Talk 19:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Might these tributary and basin categories contain things other than rivers? Your suggested list of possible water features failed to include marshes, caves, aquifers, (and possibly others which don't come to mind at the moment.) Basin categories are potentially as useful as (and more durable than) political subdivisions, and might contain other non-hydrographic features like mountains, deserts, cities, or historic sites. Thewellman (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- The categorization of rivers by country, region, state, province etc. can remain as is IMO, I propose a standard for hydrographic categorization (by basin/tributaries). Markussep Talk 08:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- My question was whether the specifications would be one of several possible categorization options, or if they would be the only acceptable categorization scheme. Do I understand correctly you propose to exclude other categorization options? Thewellman (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean with "exclusive" that a "tributaries" category should be a subcategory of only one "basin" category, and only one higher "tributaries" category? And a "basin" category a subcategory of only one "basin" category? That's what I intended. Markussep Talk 19:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The Limnology and Oceanography Barnstar
I've made the Template:The Limnology and Oceanography Barnstar. Awarded to users who've shown great editing skills in improving Limnology and Oceanography related-articles. Jerm (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Consistency of Lists of Rivers
I noticed inconsistency between List of rivers by discharge and List of U.S. rivers by discharge which sparked a thought. For information displayed as rows in a table, it seems that defaults such as ordering columns, ordering direction and display units should be consistent. To achieve this, it seems that the table on river list pages should be generated by a query to a single underlying Wikidata store rather than written manually. This could work even in the cases when sources disagree on underlying measurements as long as we specify a consistent default for which source takes precedence.Lextrounce (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon
Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
See ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of rivers, where there is suggestion that List of Latin names of rivers might be deleted or might be merged to List of European rivers with alternative names. --Doncram (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Article titles for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several years ago we established a naming convention for rivers, see WP:NCRIVER. I quote:
River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage. "River X" is used for many (but not all) rivers in the UK and Ireland. "X River" is the norm in the Americas. "X river" (i.e. non-capitalized "river") is not recommended. When common usage does not include the word "River", but disambiguation is required (e.g. the river Inn in central Europe), parenthetical, non-capitalized "river" should be used: Inn (river). In other words neither "river" (without parentheses) nor "River" should be used to disambiguate articles. Country-specific exceptions to this rule should be discussed within WikiProject Rivers and/or that country's WikiProject.
Currently, the plain "X" (or "X (river)" in case of ambiguity) is now used for rivers in most European countries, except Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, where most article titles are "X River". I don't think "River" is part of the name of these rivers, nor is the Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian equivalent Река, Річка or Рака part of the local names of the rivers (see for instance the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine). Therefore I propose to move these river articles to titles that are consistent with WP:NCRIVER and with articles about rivers in other European countries: "X", or "X (river)" if disambiguation is needed. In total there's about 1,100 river articles that would need to be moved. So yes that's quite some work, but I don't mind doing it. I will announce this discussion at the three country Wikiprojects as well. Markussep Talk 14:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. Thank you! --TimK MSI (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I do not see why it should be consistent. This is not a Wikipedia policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Surprised anyone would oppose this, so voicing my support as long as they're not referred to as "X reka" locally. Just be careful if you do it in bulk. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- They are not referred as X reka locally in Russian (well, nost of them - for example the Moskva is always Moskva reka). And, indeed, in the Russian Wikipedia most titles do not have river in the title, for example, the Volga River is just Волга. However, we are in the English Wikipedia. and the relevant question is how these rivers are referred to in English. And if I take Britannica for example, I find there - surprise - Volga River.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- But the word "River" in "Volga River" may or may not be used as a proper noun in English. I don't see any reason why this can't be moved to Volga (river). A better example would be the Tereshka River - this isn't referenced much in English and is typically referred to as a river or as Tereshka River or River Tereshka. And in any circumstance, the same occurs with other rivers in eastern Europe which have had their naming conventions changed. It's also not that big of a change and works within existing consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is no existing consensus, otherwise we would not have separate naming conventions for the UK or the US. And current naming is we covered by River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X".--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NCRIVER is part of WP:NCGN, which is a guideline. You're right that we should follow English usage, and that Britannica uses "Volga River". Britannica also uses "Rhine River", "Nile River" and "Danube River", where Wikipedia uses "Rhine", "Nile" and "Danube". Many other English language encylopedias and dictionaries do not use the "River" form, see Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.com, Lexico, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Collins. Markussep Talk 08:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Right, which means we are in a "I do not like it" area.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- The separate naming convention for the UK and US is nothing to do with a lack of consensus. Both those countries have official names for their rivers which can be looked up. Indeed in Britain there are even rivers called Sydling Water, Bere Stream and Carnon River. However, for other countries authors tend to use the convention of their homeland e.g. it's unsurprising that Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Foo River" because it's an American publication. But calling a river "Foo" is also very common and has the advantage that a) it often reflects national naming and b) it is region-neutral i.e. neither American nor British nor Australian etc. in flavour. But insisting on e.g. Russian rivers always being called "Foo River" is forcing an American convention on them that even their native nomenclature doesn't use. Bermicourt (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Right, which means we are in a "I do not like it" area.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NCRIVER is part of WP:NCGN, which is a guideline. You're right that we should follow English usage, and that Britannica uses "Volga River". Britannica also uses "Rhine River", "Nile River" and "Danube River", where Wikipedia uses "Rhine", "Nile" and "Danube". Many other English language encylopedias and dictionaries do not use the "River" form, see Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.com, Lexico, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Collins. Markussep Talk 08:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is no existing consensus, otherwise we would not have separate naming conventions for the UK or the US. And current naming is we covered by River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X".--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- But the word "River" in "Volga River" may or may not be used as a proper noun in English. I don't see any reason why this can't be moved to Volga (river). A better example would be the Tereshka River - this isn't referenced much in English and is typically referred to as a river or as Tereshka River or River Tereshka. And in any circumstance, the same occurs with other rivers in eastern Europe which have had their naming conventions changed. It's also not that big of a change and works within existing consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- They are not referred as X reka locally in Russian (well, nost of them - for example the Moskva is always Moskva reka). And, indeed, in the Russian Wikipedia most titles do not have river in the title, for example, the Volga River is just Волга. However, we are in the English Wikipedia. and the relevant question is how these rivers are referred to in English. And if I take Britannica for example, I find there - surprise - Volga River.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I feel the names of these rivers will be sufficiently unusual in the context of English Wikipedia to avoid difficulty in locating the appropriate articles. Is there some more important reason to adhere to an inflexible convention? Thewellman (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Partial support. I support moving river articles from "X River" to "X" in cases that are not ambiguous or where the river is clearly a primary topic. For example, I support moving "Volga River" to "Volga" (Volga already redirects to Volga River) for simplicity and in accordance to predominant usage. I do not support moving "X River" to "X (river)" because I don't see any benefit of doing so. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is a fundamental difference between "X River" and "X (river)": the former implies that "River" is part of the name. Note that WP:NCRIVER now says
neither "river" (without parentheses) nor "River" should be used to disambiguate articles
. You said you don't see a benefit of moving "X River" to "X (river)", but do you see objections (apart from the work moving the articles and updating links)? Markussep Talk 07:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is a fundamental difference between "X River" and "X (river)": the former implies that "River" is part of the name. Note that WP:NCRIVER now says
- Support for consistency, for compliance with the guideline, but most of all because it reflects general usage in English as well as Russian sources.Bermicourt (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support less for consistency and more per User:Bermicourt's comments above: "[I]nsisting on e.g. Russian rivers always being called "Foo River" is forcing an American convention on them that even their native nomenclature doesn't use." Volga River in particular grates the eyes (but not any worse than Yenisei River or Irtysh River). I you want to get more input, do a move request with a couple of them and see what happens. — AjaxSmack 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support to no surprise I fully support the idea, since I already tried it before but failed. My argumentation follows exactly the line of Bermicourt's and AjaxSmack's. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for participating in the discussion. I think the conclusion is that articles about rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus should be titled "X" if they're the only or primary topic (for example Volga, Yenisei, Irtysh, Berezina) and "X (river)" if disambiguation is needed and they are not obviously the primary topic (for example Kostroma (river), Don (river), Pripyat (river)). If there are more rivers with the same name, parentheses will be used for disambiguation, see WP:NCRIVER. I will notify the three country Wikiprojects, and then I will start moving articles. Markussep Talk 08:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry but this needs to be formally closed by someone who has not participated in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's just gaming the system - this is definitely a case of WP:SNOW. Bermicourt (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, i have reviewed this conversation. A preponderance of respondents support the proposal. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then please close it, with {{atop}}, {{abot}}, some (possibly brief) summary of arguments, and your signature.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ideally, the arguments must be supported by a policy, but it is probably too much to expect this.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Philoserf: could you close the discussion formally? The discussion was about how to apply the existing WP:NCRIVER to rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and specifically whether common usage for these rivers includes the word "River". If an argument is needed, probably WP:CONCISE. Markussep Talk 17:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Markussep, can do...standby —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Philoserf: could you close the discussion formally? The discussion was about how to apply the existing WP:NCRIVER to rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and specifically whether common usage for these rivers includes the word "River". If an argument is needed, probably WP:CONCISE. Markussep Talk 17:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ideally, the arguments must be supported by a policy, but it is probably too much to expect this.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then please close it, with {{atop}}, {{abot}}, some (possibly brief) summary of arguments, and your signature.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)