Talk:Orange River

message: Hi, When I have to refer to a subject that is covered by an existing article I have come to like using a short introduction to the subject and then refering to the main article in that introduction. Then I learnt how to use:
 
now I see it has been undone.. Please advise..
Gregorydavid 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to main articles

message: Why does Zaian consider my aside to be "gratuitous"? Is he suggesting that the renaming of the dams was not politically motivated? Or does he label as "political" (and delete) those remarks of which he does not approve? Why not go the whole hog and delete the (political) observation that the names of the dams were changed? Few would notice the omission. I don't really care what the dams are called. I don't worry too much that history in South Africa is being rewritten. It is human nature to do so. To the victor the spoils. (For what it is worth, I grew up in the time of Verwoerd and loathed the man). But I draw the line at trying to kid myself that it isn't happening...
P.S. Somebody might add the new names. I don't know them.Captainbeefart 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I seem to stand accused of something.  It seemed a pretty gratuitous link to me.  PS The new names are already there in the previous sentence. Zaian 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming names and Politikal Korektniz

message: I do not think it is Eurocentric to state a date when Europeans first climbed Table Mountain or explored the Orange River. Are we going to edit all the articles from Cape to China to note rather vaguely that the indigenous populations all got there first? Gregorydavid 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indiginous people

message: Just to clarify, Template:Geobox_River states that the country field is for countries which the river flows through. As such, I've removed Botswana. Whether or not the river's catchment includes Botswana, it most certainly does not run through the country. -Kieran 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries in the infobox

message: The catchment and course map was removed by Gregorydavid. Regardless of the debate on the catchment area of the river, that map is the only one we have showing the river's course, so I have restored it. I have also expanded the caption to explain the ambiguity regarding the inclusion of the Kalahari as part of the catchment, as has been debated above. -Kieran 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I actually needed that! (unsigned)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.138.133 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of catchment map

message: There was a reason I originally excluded Namibia from the box. That is that, according to one source I read, there is currently a border dispute between Namibia and South Africa over the river. Apparently the standard for rivers forming national boundaries is for the boundary to be in the middle of the river. However, according to the treaty that set the Orange as a border, South Africa owns everything up to the north bank. Thus, technically speaking, the river does not run through Namibia, although it comes as close as it possibly could to doing so without actually doing it.
I don't have the source on hand, but I can get hold of it. I'm not sure what the best thing would be, though: Technically the infobox is supposed to contain only countries that the river runs through. Discussion welcome.-Kieran 23:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have preferred a definition which allowed the inclusion of all countries in which major tributaries occur.Gregorydavid 09:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, if they are major tributaries, they would deserve an article of their own. For example, if we were to put in the provinces the Orange flows through, it would be strange to include Gauteng, which the Vaal does flow through (and form the border of). However, the Vaal is (or should be) listed as a tributary, so the information is there. -Kieran 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are major tributaries and they do have articles of their own, eg Fish River (Namibia) which in my opinion qualifies Namibia for the Geobox. How does this apply to Botswana?Gregorydavid 08:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Namibia in the Geobox

message: I have also heard that Orange River is considered rich as it has diamonds flowing in it? Please verify it so we could add to the article. 
The "Tributaries" section should be made a separate article in a list and main ones should only be listed in this article. -- Extra999 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamonds and 'tributaries section'   

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Orange River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120710162812/http://myfundi.co.za/e/Key_rivers_of_South_Africa to http://myfundi.co.za/e/Key_rivers_of_South_Africa
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813015647/http://www.waterandnature.org/en/resources/publications/thematic-collection/facts-figures/watersheds-world to http://www.waterandnature.org/en/resources/publications/thematic-collection/facts-figures/watersheds-world
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Can anyone help to clarify the etymology of Senqu? The source that is cited in the introductory paragraph most definitely does not state that the word Senqu is derived from ǂNū, meaning 'black'. The source only says that the river is known in Lesotho as the Senqu River and does not give any etymological details. SmallMossie (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymological sources 

message: This major river has some pollution issues, but the topic is not addressed in this article. That is surprising. - - Prairieplant (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water pollution