Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

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 {^????_???????? - WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

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.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

AFD notification

• I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill, which is a multi-article nomination that includes P?kio Stream.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Incorrect linking of rivers

Hundreds of river articles have the word "course" incorrectly linked to Course (navigation) when it should be linked to Watercourse. I have changed a few but would like to share the load, or to find someone who can partly automate the process. Any takers? Downsize43 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates

Should the Geobox river template continue to be used within river articles, or should it be replaced by the Infobox river template. relisted to generate further discussion Brustopher (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The debate about the use of Geoboxes in river articles has a long history, with discussions in 2012, 2013, and more recently since 2016. These discussions include many of the arguments for each of the boxes (both for and against). I have raised this RfC to establish a view on this, rather than it being restricted to a talk page of a single template, and as there are 15,700 river articles using the Geobox, and some 14,000 using the Infobox. The relevant guideline at WP:Infoboxuse states, "which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support:The ongoing use of the Geobox template within river articles as per WP:Infoboxuse...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Replace with Infoboxes and get rid of all geoboxes. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Coment: Neither of you gave any reasoning for your !vote. Rmhermen (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Replace all uses with {{Infobox river}}, as per Template_talk:Infobox_river#Standardising_on_one_template. Rehman 00:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Replace all of the {{Geobox}} usages on river articles with {{Infobox river}} as per the discussion already had on the template. No need for 2 templates & geobox is difficult to use. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

  Coment If the Geobox is more difficult to use, why is their usage higher than the Infobox (15,700 vs 14,000), surely it would be the other way around?...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  Obviously because Geobox is used for much more than rivers. -- SMcCandlish ? ¢ >^???_??^?< 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  Infobox is also used for much more than rivers. I'm sure the above statistic is specifically for geobox-river and infobox-river. Shannon [ Talk ] 05:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  OK, just to confirm these figures are only for the river templates Geobox river and Infobox river with the updated figures as 15788 and 14277...Jokulhlaup (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the geoboxes. As noted by Jokulhlaup, the main contributors to each river article have made a choice of box. Eliminating that choice will annoy them and solves no existing problem. The geoboxes work fine. Leave them alone. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep geoboxes This discussion seems to keep coming up every few years. There's nothing wrong with geobox. It's much better at displaying more detailed information. Let's just leave it be. (EDIT: Although I still stand by the notion this is a huge waste of time/effort that doesn't add anything of value to the wiki, I would not oppose the conversion if we at least streamlined parts of the infobox to make it less clunky - the "Discharge" section, for example, is super ugly and takes up six lines (assuming the "average", "min" and "max" fields are all filled in) whereas the geobox takes only three lines. This also applies to the "width" and "depth" fields. And why is "Basin size" grouped separately from "length" and "discharge"? The way the geobox does it, with source/mouth coordinates in one box and length/watershed/discharge in the next, is much neater and more intuitive for the reader. Finally, do trout me if I'm wrong but it appears that Infobox doesn't support automatic unit conversions - whereas Geobox does.) Shannon [ Talk ] 22:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  Comment The infobox has been updated quite a bit in 2017, and to me it now appears to be capable of displaying the same level of detailed information as geobox. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep both Standardization for the sake of conformity is a make-work project. The effort required for a blanket change might be more usefully spent finding missing information or sourcing of individual articles. Let's wait to see how these boxes and their interface with other parts of Wikipedia evolve, and we can make the change later if some compelling reason for standardization is recognized. Thewellman (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  Fallacious straw man argument, since "for the sake of conformity" isn't a rationale anyone has offered. -- SMcCandlish ? ¢>^???_??^?< 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  The discussion linked above is titled "standardising on one template", which means exactly the same thing as "for the sake of conformity". Shannon [ Talk ] 05:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Question: Are there examples of what the boxes look like in practice , as opposed to what their code looks like (here: Geobox river and Infobox river)? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) (Editor is a volunteer with Wikipedia:Feedback request service)

  Template_talk:Infobox_river#Standardising_on_one_template shows them in proximity (Geobox then infobox), describing the same river. --TimK MSI (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Does that comparison show all information options completed on both templates? or only the duplicated information options? Thewellman (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think it shows the fields known for and/or applicable to the River Penk.--TimK MSI (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Drcrazy102 produced a nice side by side comparison for the Kansas River back in 2015, that may help...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that several infobox fields have been added updated in 2017, so this example wouldn't reflect that. Infobox couldn't formerly express "state," for instance, and now it can. And in 2015 "source" and "mouth" had one field each; each now has two (one for political jurisdiction and one for landform/waterbody, as geobox does.) --TimK MSI (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Replace {{Geobox}} with {{Infobox river}}, since the latter is more functional and easier to use, and per prior discussion that came to the same conclusion. -- SMcCandlish ? ¢ >^???_??^?< 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not quite sure which prior discussion you are referring to, but a discussion (not a RfC) on the talk page of a single template doesn't really count as a wider consensus, hence this RfC...Jokulhlaup (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  Question for SMcCandlish: Could you clarify what you mean by "more functional"? And/or specify the functions infobox performs that geobox does not? Thanks-- TimK MSI (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Replace geoboxes with Infobox river per above. It makes no sense to have this unnecessary duplication. The linked discussion above also supported deprecation, and seemed to think that all the major issues with such an action were resolved. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep (both) - more articles use the Geobox, Geobox automatically converts metric measurements to English and vice versa (where Infobox needs to use {{convert}} templates), and I prefer the layout in the Geobox (it is more compact and takes less vertical space than the comparable information in an infobox). If this were based on popularity (of usage) or ease of use (no need to use convert templates), or layout (admittedly a taste issue), then I would vote! to get rid of Infobox River, but why? Why not give editors a choice? I think getting rid of Geobox River (or the less popular Infobox River) is a solution in search of problem, and ask what the justification is for getting rid of either? Do we really have enough editors with nothing to do to convert 15,000 or so boxes (or clean up the errors if a bot does this)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  Questions for Keith D and SMcCandlish: Keith D, part of your rationale is that "geobox is difficult to use" and SMcCandlish part of your rationale is that the infobox is "more functional and easier to use". Since neither of you are members of WikiProject Rivers, and there are no river articles listed under your contributions on either of your user pages, what are your personal experiences writing / editing river articles and using either of the two templates in question? Keith D, how do you personally know that "geobox is difficult to use"? SMcCandlish, how do you personally know Infobox River is "more functional and easier to use"? Thanks in advance for your answers (and my apologies if I missed contributions to river articles either of you listed on your user pages or under your DYKs or GAs). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • • my main involvement with river articles has been part of WP:YORKS. The difficulties that I seem to remember were trying to get the output of units in the correct format and order which the Geobox template makes a nightmare. It is not helped by the poor documentation that I looked at at the time and I eventually abandoned the attempt. Keith D (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Ditch geobox generally in favor of specific templates, and infobox river here specifically per Patar knight/TimK. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep both per Ruhrfisch. Standardization is not needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep both but if a standardisation is required in the definite, then Keep Infobox. Geobox has a jarring problem of wikilinking to disambiguation pages when you fill the Tributary parameters. See User talk:Keith D/Archive 53#Disambiguation problems for my discussion with Keith D about this issue. The Geobox is still doing this (see here) and because there was/is not a Parameter names and descriptions section with the Geobox, it is difficult to now how to resolve it. Or I'm a biff. The joy of all things (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The joy of all things the solution is to use the Nowiki tags like this <nowiki>Middle Brook</nowiki>. I took the liberty of adding a duplicate box in your sandbox with the nowiki markup...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jokulhlaup Ta; but not having to add them into the Infobox River does make it easier than using the Geobox (though I am glad you solved it as I would have never have thought of adding the nowiki stuff in...!) Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

RFC on river name disambiguation is open at VPPOL

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 WP:UKRIVERS for a UK view. The essay says "In practice, most rivers needing disambiguation have been identified by the smallest appropriate political entity." In fact they are also often disambiguated by the most prominent settlement on the river. There are several examples in River Avon and River Yeo. Outside WP the common usage is the Bristol Avon, Warwickshire Avon (or 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)

Dicklyon there are lots of disambiguated 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 Agri? River (Arie?) means. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

More disambiguation issues - help needed

At User talk:Bkonrad#Beaver Creek (White River tributary), we're discussing how to handle cases like Beaver Creek (White River tributary) or Beaver Creek (White River tributary, Missouri) where it's not so easy to disambiguate between names on either their tributary relationships or their states (there's also a Beaver Creek (White River tributary, Alaska) listed in List of rivers in Alaska; it previously linked to the one in Missouri, but now it's a redlink). Can someone pick better disambiguators, or point to a better strategy? What about the other rivers that include more than one disambiguating term for similar reasons? Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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) is a case in inadequate disambiguation, being about the one in Missouri but not distinguishing from Beaver Creek (White River tributary, Alaska); maybe that's OK as the latter is merely mentioned in a list but doesn't have an article. Personally, I think we should move it to 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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Rivers in Iran

I'm trying to remake this old (and wildly inaccurate) map of the Karun river but extensive research hasn't yielded much geographic information for the area. Furthermore Wikipedia itself seems to list some conflicting information; there is an article for Koohrang river which says "which joins the Dez River to form the Karun" - does that mean the entire river above the Dez confluence is actually the Koohrang? There are articles for Kouhrang 1, Kouhrang 2 and Kouhrang 3 Dam, which suggests that this part of the river is the Koohrang (Kouhrang?) but then Shahid Abbaspour Dam (Karun-1), Karun-3 and Karun-4 Dam are located downstream on the same river, suggesting that the Koohrang becomes the Karun somewhere in between. (Note that this map has "Koohrang" in the completely wrong location.) If by chance someone has knowledge of the area, or can link me to an relevant resource, help is greatly appreciated. Shannon [ Talk ] 09:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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 ????????, 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 ?????????, which is Hirsanrud or Khirsanrud; the southern one is ????-????? 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)

Source of the article : Wikipedia