Talk:River source

message: If two named rivers, say East River and West River, join and become South River, what is the usual terminology?
Are East and West Rivers the source of South River?
Or are they the headwaters of South River?
Does South River have headwaters at all?
Are the headwaters of East and West Rivers the headwaters of South River?  Thank you.  Wanderer57 03:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology question 

message: There seems to be nothing about deposition in this article at all, let alone any use of the word "deposit".  So I've changed the redirect to Deposition (geology).  Am I missing something?  4pq1injbok (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would [[Depositing stream]] redirect here? 

message: I apologize if anyone is upset with the move of this article. The formal move process is time consuming, and this article does not receive much traffic, so I decided to just go for it. If you want me to move it back, please ask me to do it on my talk page, not here. I am not crazy about the new name, "river source", but I think it is better than the old name, "source (river or stream)". I would have preferred to go with "stream source", as it is used by geologists to denote a flowing body of water without regard to size, but it does not seem to be used nearly as much as "river source" and it sounds a bit off. I also considered going with "source (stream)". For me, it is better than "river source", but I did not know if it would be accepted by others and I wanted to avoid parentheses if possible. I think that "source (hydrology)" may have been the name of the article previously. It has the advantage of being very inclusive, being shorter than "source (river or stream)" and having the same disambiguation as other hydrological articles, like inflow (hydrology) and quite a few other articles. My favorite option would be to use "headwater", second choice "headwaters", but there were objections to this name in the first section of this talk page. I will put a list of name options below and people can indicate which one they prefer. If there is another name, please add it to the list. I will change it to whatever the consensus is. You could do it voting style and put two asterisks followed by your signature (four tildes in a row) below the name or names that you like. The other option is to state what name or names that you prefer and to explain why. I suppose that you could also put a short message about why you like a particular name in your voting entry, like discussions at Articles for Deletion (AfD). I encourage expressing support for more than one name, as it will be easier to form a consensus. You may want to indicate your order of preference for the names. Please let me know on my talk page if a consensus is formed.
*Headwater
*Headwaters
*River source
*Source (headwater)
*Source (hydrology)
*Source (river or stream)
*Source (river)
*Source (stream)
*Stream source
-- Kjkolb (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name 

message: Three ips have added a quote by someone who navigated the Congo as a source for "spring" as a river source. A canoists comments are not a "source" for that claim. The ips have also referred to a biblical verse as a reference for "spring" as a river's source. A bible verse doesn't work as a WP:RS for such a definition - just evidence of usage. Can a "spring" be a river's source? Of course, but a reliable source is needed to define it that way. To the anon, please discuss rather than edit warring. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Congo quote doesn't really belong here, although certainly headwaters are often springs. A good example might be Mammoth Spring. The "Characteristics of sources" section mentions marshes and glaciers, without any sources cited. That seems like the appropriate place to mention springs, rather than the "Definition" section, which is more abstract or conceptual. Pfly (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring as source:  Anon edits 

message: Currently the entire introduction reads: The source or headwaters of a river or stream is the place from which the water in the river or stream originates.
This is not correct. Obviously the water in a river or stream could originate from anywhere in the drainage basin. There are a few definitions for "source" but this introduction doesn't match any of them.Ordinary Person (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've been bold and fixed it. It seems that poor introduction had survived since 2008! It didn't make any kind of physical sense. The water of a particular river could originate from anywhere within the drainage basin. Ordinary Person (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.  Nicely worded fix. DLinth (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction misleading 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on River source. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110615121345/http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=885&id_pagina=1%2F to http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=885&id_pagina=1%2F
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) 15:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)