Talk:List of rivers by discharge

message: Don’t know how to edit, but the Colorado River is omitted from this list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdlong121 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: length in 		kilometers 	miles
 	Urubamba		724		448	
 	Caura			723		449  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.224.53 (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: This cannot be right - one must be longer than the other regardless of unit use

message: Including the Thames is ridiculous.  It is like a trickle compared to any of the others listed.  However, I will not remove it unless others agree.Ndriley97 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there should be a separate item on "iconic rivers", like Seine (Paris), Spree (Berlin) and Thames. Plust the East River in New York, which is not a river at all. Rbakels (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Thames?

message: The values given initially for Ganges was the combined discharge and drainage area of Ganges and Brahmaputra put together. The source of the new values are:
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/R_0208.htm for Brahmaputra's statistics and http://www.himalmag.com/2003/september/review_2.htm for Ganga's statistics.--Raghu 09:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ganga and Brahmaputra's Discharge

message: What is the need for this article considering that the List of rivers by length can already be sorted in order of average discharge? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is needed. In addition, a separate table on primary rivers would be needed. Primary rivers already include tributaries. The table of lengths contains inaccurate and outdated data on flows. 81.183.225.17 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's need

message: I am missing the Meghna River. 
Banglapedia: "Lower Meghna below Shaitnot is one of the largest rivers in the world, because it is the mouth of Ganges-Padma and Brahmaputra-Jamuna rivers. It is a tidal reach carrying almost the entire fluvial discharge of Ganges, Brahmaputra and Upper Meghna river. The net discharge through this river varies from 10,000 cumec in the dry season to 160,000 cumec in the wet season."
And: "The Lower Meghna, as the major outlet of the combined Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna has therefore somewhat less outflow than the Congo, which is second only to the Amazon".
The lower Meghna combines Brahmaputra 19,200 + Ganges 14,270 + upper Meghna 6,500 = 39,970 m³/s. --91.1.11.167 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meghna 

message: According figures in wiki - avg discharge of Volga (Russia) is higher - 8050 m3/s, Columbia River (USA, Canada) - 7,500 m3/s. Perhaps it's wrong value for Danube here or some explanation needed. -Anton
	I've changed this string. As i think it can be some more equatorial rivers that will have discharge over of European one. ~~Anton  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.157.120.26 (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danube has competitors 

message: Most of the data in this article is sourced from somebody calling himself Intergalactic Power and Light.  Some random guy's personal web page does not constitute a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: "Yellow River (Huang He)" is missing here.  It is included in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_length Friend2008 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yellow River of the present day does not have significant average discharge – these days, it often does not even reach the ocean (see, e.g., ). — Myasuda (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yellow River regularly reaches the sea. The lower reaches have higher surface run-off and collect more water than the upper and middle reaches. Its multi-year average discharge is over 2500 cubic metres per second. In dry years it is half of this, and in wet years it is over 3,000 m3/s. 81.183.225.17 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Yellow River

message: The end of the list seems to be about famous rivers that wouldn't make the list otherwise. It would be nice to 
separate the two lists to make it clear to the reader. It seems that Yukon rivers figures starts to drop really fast (transition is here?). Of course, the relative importance of a river depends on who's telling. I added Rio Sao Francisco, which is bigger than Nile and is also considered to be an important river here in Brazil.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.78.228 (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, this is not goint to be a list of all rivers. Cut-off is needed, i am setting it. --Jklamo (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fame 

message: As soon as I saw this list, I noticed that some very mighty rivers were missing. A bit of research confirmed that. Here is a list of the largest Brazilian rivers by outflow:
1°) Rio Amazonas (Bacia Amazônica) - 209.000; 2°) Rio Solimões (Bacia Amazônica) - 103.000; 3°) Rio Madeira (Bacia Amazônica) - 31.200; 4°) Rio Negro (Bacia Amazônica) - 28.400; 5°) Rio Japurá (Bacia Amazônica) - 18.620; 6°) Rio Tapajós (Bacia Amazônica) - 13.500; 7°) Rio Purus (Bacia Amazônica), Rio Tocantins (Bacia Tocantins-Araguaia) e Rio Paraná (Bacia do Prata) - 11.000; 10°) Rio Xingu (Bacia Amazônica) - 9.700; 11°) Rio Içá (Bacia Amazônica) - 8.800; 12°) Rio Juruá (Bacia Amazônica) - 8.440; 13°) Rio Araguaia (Bacia Tocantins-Araguaia) - 5.500; 14°) Rio Uruguai (Bacia do Prata) - 4.150; 15°) Rio São Francisco (Bacia do São Francisco) - 2.850; e 16°) Rio Paraguai (Bacia do Prata) - 1.290.
Wfgiuliano (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Several Amazon Tributaries Ignored

message: User Captain armenia has merged Europe and Asia into Eurasia with the explanation that most of the rivers in the Europe category were also in Asia. I couldn't find a single river in the table that flows both in Europe and Asia. I strongly believe that Europe and Asia should be kept as separate categories as Eurasia is simply too large for easy processing. Why, should we also merge South and North American continents into a single Americas region? --140.182.230.136 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and prefere to keep own Europe and Asia categories. --Jklamo (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Six years later I still see "Eurasia". I am from Europe and definitely do not consider Chinese rivers flowing on my continent. Still I can understand the sensitivity of an Armenian (is Armenia Europe or Asia? The same applies for other countries in the Kaukasus). Still the essence is that Europe and Asia are separate categories. Perhaps establish a separte catgory "Kaukasus". Incidentally, the Ural river is considered part of the deviding line between Europe and Asia, but (fortunately!) it only has a discharge of 400 m3/ second. Rbakels (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurasia?? 

message: If we are going to list the Ob-Irtysh, we need to list the Mississippi-Missouri. It is NOT, historically, "one" river. Since the longest route traces the Mississippi-Missouri-Red Rock, we should list that.Ryoung122 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Double-Rivers

message: Several of the figures for length, drainage area and average discharge appear to be inconsistent between List of rivers by length and List of rivers by discharge. 76.23.244.154 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not merge the 2 articles? Each can be sorted both ways. They have almost the same info, with clearer sourcing here. The criteria for inclusion would be having either discharge over 2,000 m3/sec or 1,000 km. I wanted to discuss before making a formal proposal. Kim9988 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

text: The table of lengths contains inaccurate and outdated data on flows. 81.183.225.17 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency with other article 

message: The Fly River is omitted from this list despite being stated in the Wikipedia article as the 25th river in the world by volume. The Sepik has lesser volume, but is included. I suggest it be added to this list. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fly River omitted 

message: The Ganges Delta complicates things, but, since further down in the table the Ganges river is listed as following into the Padma river, I renamed the Ganges in the third entry to Padma. --174.116.141.16 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganges/Padma 

message: 16,800 m^2/s seems way more than it really is. Is this the peak or is this the average? Someone needs to check into it.
Tatlayoko (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Length and discharge of the Saint Lawrence will vary widely depending on how the mouth of the river is defined - the river reaches mean sea level just downstream from Montreal and should properly be considered to end there, where its flow is ~11,000 cubic meters/second. But the estuary continues for hundreds of km, picking up large tributaries such as the Saguenay which boost the flow to ~17,000 cubic meters/second. Thus the discrepancy... 23.127.175.106 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Lawrence Flow? 

message: It's 7th in the graph at the bottom, the graph made recently, not matching the umber in the table. Did the numbers change since 2010? comp.arch (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In recent decades, the Negro River   has been more extensive than the Madeira and Yangtze. 81.183.225.17 (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guainía/Negro is out of place, is 5th or 7th correct? 

message: The data in the table refer to the entire water system (Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna), not just the Padma River (one of the names of the lower Ganges). The delta from Meghna to Hoogly is the entire water system. In addition, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra are unduly included twice in the table. For example, Yarlung Tsangpo is the name of the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra, not a separate tributary. There is no justification or sense in listing the same river more than once. Thus the order is not realistic. 2A02:AB88:4701:2100:BDA4:FA1:69DA:57A7 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganges, Brahmaputa 

message: Greater volume than Detroit an is omitted. Gfkiii (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niagara River 

message: The Niger River is further up the order (Table No36 --> Primary river No16). The data in the table show the flow at Lokoja station (1946-1992: 5,589 cubic meters per second - Tommaso Abrate, Pierre Hubert, Daniel Sighomnou: A study on hydrological series of the Niger River - https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.752575). Basically a misused and outdated data. For the period 2000 to 2022, the flow rate at Lokoja is 6,769 cubic meters per second and at the delta 8,630 cubic meters per second (official website: Niger-HYCOS). This is a significant increase compared to previous decades. The annual average in the delta since the beginning of the measurements is 250 cubic kilometres (~7,900 cubic meters per second - Itolima Ologhadien: Developments in river bank protection schemes in the lower Niger Delta basin - https://medcraveonline.com/MOJCE/developments-in-river-bank-protection-schemes-in-the-lower-niger-delta-basin.html). 2A00:1110:102:E742:0:37:C2D6:3A01 (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niger River  

message: Hamza River flowrate is approximatly 3,000 cubic metres (110,000 cu ft) per second 46.117.97.217 (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the water yield of the Hamza River (~3,000 or ~3,900 m3/s) is a theoretical figure. The water flow of surface rivers is normally measured at measuring stations or with the ADCP process. 2A02:AB88:4701:2100:1E8D:C9CA:A957:B27D (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should include the Hamza River as well 

message: It appears the Slave River is missing from the list. I noticed as the Peace river is listed (as a tributary of the Slave river) but the Slave itself is not there. Which seems odd as you would think the primary river would be higher than a tributary unless there was a lot of drainage/evaporation/siphoning which I doubt is happening that far North.
Sure enough I checked the wikipedia entry for the Slave river and it lists the average flow as 3414m3, which would place it 93rd.Though I just noticed it doesn't site sources for this... is that the issue? Minas anor (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!It made the list. 2A02:AB88:4701:2100:61B2:4D73:CB03:436C (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave River 

message: How come the continent name is before the river name. I would argue it should behind the data. The name and the relevant data for the article so always be prioritised. Anyone agree? 139.28.109.162 (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence of data