Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Archive 1

message: I haven't seen any discussion of the proposed template on the project page.  Is this ready for prime-time?  I was going to start adding it to river pages. -- Walt Pohl 22:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The river articles using w:Template:River are listed here --scupper 08:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Ready? 

message: Whilst trying to help "fill in the reds" at Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics, I noticed that there was quite a few rivers still to do... I start extracting out the rivers (have done the first 11 pages worth so far) and listing them at User:Pcb21#rivers... so if you are looking for something to do... there is at least 100 hundred articles to write right there! THanks Pcb21| Pete 11:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source 

message: #Alpenrhein River
Arecibo River
#Arinos River
#Bakoye River
#Balsas River
#Bandama River
#Baram River
#Camu River
#Catatumbo River
#Cauto River
#Cavalla River
#Ceyhan River
#Chelif River
#Ch'in River
#Chin-Sha River
#Chiu-Lung River
#Ch'ongch'on River
#Chu River
#Cuiaba River
#Daly River
#Dawson River
#de Grey River
#Deseado River
#Digul River
#Dinder River
#Dja River
#Doca River
#Dong Nai River
#Dwanga River
#Escarvos River
#Fu-Ch'un River
#Gandak River
#Gascoyne River
#Gash River
#Great Scarcies River
#Grijalva River
#Groot River
#Guainia River
#Guapore River
#Guaviare River
#Gumal River
#Gundlakamma River
#Hei River
#Herbert River
#Hsin River
#Hung-Shui River
#Hunyani River
#Iskur River
#Itapicuru River
#Jacui River
#Jaguaribe River
#Jari River
#Javari River
#Kuei River
#Kushk River
#Laja River
#Larne River
#Lempa River
#Lerma River
#Loa River
#Logone River
#Loiza River
#Mazaruni River
#McArthur River
#Meta River
#Mohaka River
#Mokau River
#Moulouya River
#Mu River
#Murat River
#Naktong River
#Nan River
#Nazas River
#Nechako River
#Nen River
#Neosho River
#Nestos River
#Para River
#Paru River
#Rokel River
#Roper River
#Ruo River
#Ruvubu River
#Ruvuma River
#Sabbath River
#Sabi River
#Saint Paul River
#Salado River
#Saluda River
#Sanaga River
#Sankuru River
#Santa River
#Sao Lourenco River
#Sarda River
#Sassandra River
#Sebou River
#Seekonk River
#Semliki River
#Sewa River
#Shemanker River
#Shoshone River
#Shyok River
#Sierra Leone River
#Sileru River
#Sittang River
#Sobat River
#Sokoto River
#Solimoes River
#Solo River
#Somes River
#Sonora River
#Strawberry River
#Subarnarekha River
#Sure River
#Suriname River
#Surma River
#Swat River
#Tuckasegee River
#Tumut River
#Vardar River
#Verdigris River
#Wailua River
#Winisk River
#Wouri River
#Wu River
#Yu River
Pcb21| Pete 22:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of rivers in another major encyclopedia not in Wikipedia 

message: I was dissatisfied with using :Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale for rivers for two main reasons (google maps often don't show water--click the second google maps link; for the "Source"--and you just had to pick a single random spot on the river), so I created a river-specific :Template:Geolinks-US-river that can map both ends. I also tweaked the formatting a) to better support the two sets of maps, and b) because I didn't like some of the 'streetscale' formatting. Any comments/suggestions? I suspect the most likely area with room for improvement is the 'Mouth or other endpoint' and 'Source' labels. Waterguy 18:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This just needs a discussion page with some explanation of how to use it. Daniel Case 18:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Geolinks-US-river 

message: A proposal has arisen at Template talk:River to create a new infobox template to replace the current one from the Dutch Wikipedia. The current one, in the eyes of many (myself included), is inflexible and difficult to use and not consistent with most other infoboxes.
Participants of this project are invited to participate in the discussion, as Wikipedia:Infobox notes that "if you want to redesign an Infobox, please take it up in the appropriate WikiProject". Thanks, Wikiacc (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who's been putting together a new template. Somehow I missed the fact that there's a whole WikiProkect for rivers; it's not listed in a couple of the obvious places. I don't think Jdorje, who's been helping with the template, knew about it either. At any rate, glad to know you're all here, please do drop by and chime in. Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 21:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm eager to move rivers to the new template; I'd love to have more feedback before doing so, but I'm going to get started soon! The new structure is pretty flexible, so changes down the road will be easier than with the old template. Thanks much, —Papayoung ☯ 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox update 

message: Template:River has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:River. Thank you.--Wikiacc (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:River 

message: A recent move from Weiße Elster to White Elster made me wonder whether we should translate the adjectives in names like this. I'm only talking about rivers that have no commonly used English name. Some more examples (I put the link to where the article is located now):
* Schwarze Elster, Black Elster
* Fränkische Saale, Franconian Saale
* Tiroler Achen, Tyrolean Achen
* Bolshaya Belaya River, Great Belaya River or Great White River
* Oude IJssel, Old IJssel
* Sèvre Nantaise, Nantes Sèvre 
* Sèvre Niortaise, Niort Sèvre 
* Westerschelde, Western Scheldt
* Oosterschelde, Eastern Scheldt
* Nieuwe Maas, New Meuse
* Crişul Alb River, White Criş or White Körös
* Someşul Mare River, Great Someş
* Podkamennaya Tunguska, Stony Tunguska
I'd prefer not to translate them, but give the translation in the text. Thoughts? Markussep 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of river names 

message: Hello, there is a very enthusiastic new user presently insisting on adding these rivers to various broad categories (:Category:Human geography and :Category:Biogeography), and is also adding an array of strange messages, numbers, etc., to the Kansas River article.  I seem to be alone in the matter, so if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks -- Malepheasant 08:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This project was launched during 1968 with the Cimarron River watershed.
The expansion of specific Kansas Rivers was inspired by adult lifelong learners who particpated in the ALL-WinWin Kansas Envrionmental Leadership Program (1999-2005).
* See more USGS National Map Hydrology background: Talk:Kansas River/Biogeography RJBurkhart 15:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More nonsense not about improving articles. Rmhermen 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help request for [[Arkansas River]] ([[Talk:Arkansas River|Talk]]), [[Kansas River]] ([[Talk:Kansas River|Talk]]), [[Marais des Cygnes River]] ([[Talk:Marais des Cygnes River|Talk]]) 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: On a whim, creating Kurrum, I categorized it in :Category:Indus tributaries. Now before I create this category, I wanted to check here: How about grouping tributaries of major rivers in categories? Of course, this should remain at firstrestricted to major sea-going rivers, such as the Indus, Ganges, Rhine, Danube, Volga, Ob, Mississipi, Yangtze etc., but in principle, categories are perfect for reproducing hierarchical systems, so that there could be a full representation of the topology of the world's rivers in Wikipedia categories :) dab (ᛏ) 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have :Category:Tributaries of the Mississippi River, :Category:Tributaries of the Missouri River, :Category:Tributaries of the Ohio River so I don't see any problem. It shouldn't be used to replace the text about the tributaries, however. Rmhermen 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good to know. it would be better to choose the a consistent title of :Category:Tributaries of the Indus River, then. dab (ᛏ) 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: on second thoughts, "X basin" categories seem to be doing the same job. :Category:Rhine basin at least seems to render superfluous a :Category:Tributaries of the Rhine. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a :Category:Mississippi basin which serves as a parent for the three categories I mentioned before. The problem I see with this is that while "Tributaries of X" is explicit in what the category contains, "X basin" could include other subjects besides streams alone. Rmhermen 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: User:P-A. recently created several categories for tributaries, see for instance :Category:Atlantic European basins and its subcategories. I don't think he made any subcategories for major tributaries (yet). I don't really see the added value above the existing lists of rivers (provided they give that kind of information, like the list of rivers of Europe), but well, it doesn't hurt anyone. Markussep 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of tributaries 

message: According to a new report, the U.S. may help Tajikistan build a hydropower facility on the Piandj River - we don't seem to have an article for the river. Rmhermen 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's the same as the Panj River (Pyandzh in Russian). I've never seen the Piandj spelling before. Markussep 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you are correct and have updated the article. I suspect it is one of those translate from a foreign alphabet problems. This was the article that mentioned it. I see we already have an article for Vakhsh River. Rmhermen 23:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on this, Rmhermen! --Siva1979Talk to me 08:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested article 

message: Comments regarding a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) that would make "in country" the naming convention for Landform by country categories (such as rivers by country categories) would be very appreciated prior to a cfru. Kurieeto 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landforms by country 

message: Hello. I just found out about this project last week by typing in ":Template:Infobox River" and suddenly finding that, to add to Wallkill River, which I created last summer. I wished I had known of this project then.
Then I wound up adding the infobox to the articles on four of the five major rivers of the Northeastern United States (all except the Potomac).
This project needs greater visibility. I created the WP:RIVERS shortcut. I am surprised that unlike the 
mountains and protected areas projects (among others), no one has bothered to create a messagebox for corresponding talk pages.
I volunteer to do so. Can anyone recommend a good river image to use? Daniel Case 17:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done ... see . I chose a picture of the Columbia instead ... I wanted one that makes it clear it's a river and not a lake. Plus I feel using a pic of the Hudson would seem like regional boosterism on my part. Daniel Case 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now go and plant that on every river article's talk page. Daniel Case 02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly question, but before I plant this on every river talk page on my watchlist; is this a template you'd normally "subst:'?  Or sans subst? Kuru talk 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure that that image is clearly a river at the small resolution of the the template. I would suggest something like :Image:Cuyahoga_River.jpg if it wasn't so dark. Rmhermen 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is better: :Image:River gambia Niokolokoba National Park.gif. I think this would look better than the current one, clearly showing a meandering river. Rmhermen 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing project visibility 

message: Related to the above discussion, a user has politely proposed moving Cedar River (Iowa) to "Cedar River (Minnesota and Iowa)," because the river rises in Minnesota.  (It flows for most of its length in Iowa, but does pass through Austin, which is a fairly important town in its region in southern Minnesota.)  What is the preference in this case?  For a few examples, we have these hyphenated disambiguators (not all of them good articles):
*Chattooga River (Alabama-Georgia)
*Montreal River (Wisconsin-Michigan)
*North River (New York-New Jersey)
*Pearl River (Mississippi-Louisiana)
*Pigeon River (Minnesota-Ontario)
*Pigeon River (Tennessee - North Carolina) (with spaces around the hyphen)
*Red River (Tennessee-Kentucky)
*St. Croix River (Maine-New Brunswick)
*St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota)
*St. Marys River (Michigan-Ontario)
And these with slashes:
*Little River (Missouri/Arkansas)
*Little River (Oklahoma/Arkansas)
*St. Marys River (Florida/Georgia)
(Disclosure: I started the 2 "Little River" articles above with hyphens, and they were moved by another user to the "slash" format.)
(Further disclosure: The article at "Big Sandy River (Kentucky-West Virginia)" was recently moved to "Big Sandy River (Ohio River tributary)," and I moved it to Big Sandy River (Ohio River) per the above discussion.)
If the "tributary" format were used, the above lists would be:
*Chatooga River (Coosa River)
*Montreal River (Lake Superior)
*North River (Hudson River)
*Pearl River (Gulf of Mexico)
*Pigeon River (Lake Superior)
*Pigeon River (French Broad River)
*Red River (Cumberland River)
*St. Croix River (Atlantic Ocean) or St. Croix River (Bay of Fundy)
*St. Croix River (Mississippi River)
*St. Marys River (Lake Huron)
--
*Little River (Red River)
*Little River (St. Francis River)
*St. Marys River (Atlantic Ocean)
Which is better?  I think the second list looks cleaner, and I think I'm coming around to  Tobias Conradi's suggestion above that the "tributary" format might be worth considering as the generally preferred option for disambiguating -- because what we call the St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota) was a tributary of what we call the Mississippi River long before it was used to define the boundary between Minnesota and Wisconsin, and because the Mad River (California) went into the Pacific Ocean long before California existed; and because U.S. political subdivisions are well-represented on the Wikipedia whereas watershed networks are not.  But I can also see where such an approach might be viewed as extreme in practice (and it would create its own disambiguation problems where streams of the same name entered the same body of water).  Any thoughts?  And, more simply, if Cedar River (Iowa) is to be moved, where should it go?  To "Cedar River (Minnesota-Iowa)" or to "Cedar River (Iowa River)"?  Or should it not be moved?  Thanks -- Malepheasant 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I have never been a fan of the "Little River (St. Francis River)" format - how do I know (if I am The man on the Clapham omnibus) that this means the Little is a tributary of the S. Francis and not that St. Francis is an alternate name for the Little. I have moved a couple of rivers (which flowed close together) to "Y River (X River tributary)" which is think is more obvious in this respect. Rmhermen 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Maybe for X River (Y River) the word tributary should be added. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming: Multiple political jurisdictions in the U.S. 

message: I would appreciate it very much if anyone could take a look at Larrys Creek, which is up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Larrys Creek/archive1. It does not have a list of tributaries yet. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Peer Review help 

message: *Talk:Aura (river) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moves 

message: *shall "X reka" in :Category:Rivers of Serbia be moved to "X River"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move questions 

message: Can anybody join this group?  I've never joined a WikiProject, but as a California based water resources engineer (presently I work on the Bay-Delta estuary for the government, but Oct. 1 I'll be joining the State's flood forecasting group), I have access to large amounts of information (including photos) on California rivers.  MCalamari 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can join. The Wikiprojects mostly function to keep terminology and styles the same among large groups of articles. And to provide a pool of interested and knowledgeable persons to ask questions of when they arise. Rmhermen 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quickly looked at List of California rivers (I don't know how complete that is) and noticed there are a lot of articles started for California rivers. Hoewever randomly checking two found one (Big Pine Creek) using unit of acre-feet but no metric (or possibly more common "English" system) units and another (Sespe Creek) stating that it "...is one of the longest creeks untouched by dams or concrete channels." without stating how long the creek is or where it is one of the longest (longest in the world?, in California?) So obviously there is work to be done yet. Rmhermen 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: See the proposal to move Litani River to Litani River, Lebanon at Talk:Litani River. Rmhermen 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: I'm not signing on as a participant; too much already on the boil; but when I saw the  tag on the Talk:Okanogan River page I went at the BC Rivers Category and added it throughout, where it wasn't placed already.  Just wanted to note that the tag has been placed on some major creeks, which have articles, and it's worth understanding for non-BCers reviewing any of these pages that many creeks in BC are much larger than "named rivers"; and there will be more to come.  Also I'd already used the rule-of-distance in naming the Okanogan River article, as most of the length, especially the naturally-flowing length, of that river, is in the US and so the US spelling seemed a propos; even though the name for the valley, Okanagan, is a major geographic name/region in BC.  I also amended the Pend Oreille River article to give the BC/Canadian spelling for its brief stretch there, "Pend d'Oreille River"; and somewhere in there made an edit-comment that the official mapped name of the Clark Fork is exactly that, NOT "Clark Fork River"; "Fork" turns up here and there for "river" in the same way that "creek" does, y'see.  But especially in that case (the Snake River used to be the Lewis Fork or something like that, as I recall); Skookum1 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the correction on the Clark Fork River page.  There are quite a few rivers in the U.S. that use both Fork and River in the official name, but Clark Fork isn't one of them. Not sure if the page should actually be moved though as it is useful to distinguish it from the town of the same name. Kmusser 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to Clark Fork (river). Rmhermen 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: which is not in line with the Naming conventions of this project. (river) is depreceated. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it isn't deprecated. "Clark (river)" would be a deprecated form. Clark Fork (river) isn't. The phrase could also be (stream) as the USGS uses. It is a name with an added disambiguation phrase to separate it from Clark Fork. I can't think of any other rivers disambiguated this way. All the others I can remember not only disambiguate from towns, but also, other rivers of the same name. Like the example Indian River. Rmhermen 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Columbia Rivers added to project 

message: Larrys Creek (in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, USA and with our project tag) is a Featured Article Candidate. If you want to weigh in on the nomination, it is here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Larrys Creek. Thanks for any feedback! Ruhrfisch 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A River Featured Article Candidate 

message: Looking over the above FAC, I noticed that it displays the "Basin countries" listing a single county. It will be the case that many rivers do not cross international borders. I think that this line would be better called "Basin location" allowing more variability in the information included. Rmhermen 18:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the map I just made the orange a little more orange for you.  Kmusser 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the variable mouth_elevation to the infobox to allow entry of the elevation at the end of the river. The source elevation still uses the variable named elevation which is slightly confusing. Changing that to source_elevation (or changing basin_countries to basin_location) would require changing all the pages that use the template. Rmhermen 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with River infobox 

message: I have nominated a set of rivers at Wikipedia:Version_0.5_Set_Nominations#Rivers for Version 0.5.  This is a small test CD (~1500 articles total) representing some of the key articles on Wikipedia.  Geography was chosen as an emphasis, hence we want to get perhaps 20 or so major rivers.  It is a balance of importance and quality, with importance being the more important.  We have to include the "must-have" rivers, but beyond obvious ones like the Amazon we have to look at quality too.  Can you look over my proposal and give comments and suggestions?  Thanks, Walkerma 03:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 0.5 Rivers selection - request for comment 

message: In writing Ada covered bridge I realised there is no article for Thornapple River (a tributary of the Grand). How short or small is the thinking on where a cutoff ought to be? thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is none. We have article on the world's shortest river (can't think of their names but there are two competing claimants.) We have articles on some creeks. If you look at List of Michigan rivers you will find that large numbers remain without articles yet. If you want to start one, please do. Rmhermen 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability, or how short can a river be? 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I invite all of you to take a look at Paulins Kill, an article I've been working on for a while, regarding a river in Northwestern New Jersey (USA).  I should be almost finished with tonight.  I wanted your comments, etc. on it before I submitted it for peer review and possibly as a featured article candidate. —ExplorerCDT 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a few changes. Rmhermen 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paulins Kill]] 

message: I'm not a member of this project, but I went ahead and tagged the New River (California) as part of this project. According to a National Geographic article I read about a year ago, this is the most polluted river in the U.S., if not the world. The article could use some expanding and cleanup, if anyone is interested in helping out. --Lethargy 02:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New River 

message: Is there an agreed upon source for drainage basins of rivers? I noticed a rather big difference (800.000 km2!) between the figure mentioned in Amazon River and the figure mentioned for that river in the article drainage basin. I could suggest using the figures from World Resources Institute, but there may be others? --Sir48 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't find a general source that I trust. When making maps I use both WRI and USGS and they often disagree with each other and I've found definite mistakes in both databases though they're still the best I've found. I think the best you can do is pick a source and cite it. WRI does have the advantage that it doesn't take GIS software to get at it, though it only has the largest rivers.  Kmusser 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drainage basins 

message: White Deer Hole Creek (in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania and with our project tag) is a Featured Article Candidate. If you want to weigh in on the nomination, it is here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White Deer Hole Creek. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch 15:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another River Featured Article Candidate 

message: The Paulins Kill, a river in Northwestern New Jersey, is now a Featured Article Candidate.  Please feel free to comment, throw your support, or trash the article here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paulins_Kill.  Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paulins Kill is still a Featured Article candidate, suggestions have been made and the article has been edited to address all concerns raised...but very few people have given their SUPPORT (The only OPPOSE/OBJECT vote was retracted).  Please show up at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paulins_Kill and give your SUPPORT.  Your support and feedback is needed and appreciated. —ExplorerCDT 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Candidate: [[Paulins Kill]] 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The article Paulins Kill was promoted to Featured Article just few hours ago.  Just to inform y'all and to thank you for any contributions or suggestions some of you have made to help improve the article and develop it well enough to earn inclusion among Wikipedia's finest work.  Thank y'all. —ExplorerCDT 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paulins Kill is now a Featured Article 

message: For anybody unaware, a replacement of the river infobox template was proposed for discussion by another editor at Template talk:Infobox River. --Malepheasant 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of river infobox template proposed 

message: I have a list of missing topics that includes a section about rivers. I've tried to make sure there is no equivalent Wikipedia article but I'd appreciate if anyone could have a look at the list. - Skysmith 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some comments. Several of these seem dubious. What was the method used to assemble the list? I would guess that there are thousands of rivers awaiting articles so this is a very small sample. Rmhermen 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this list come from? I think your Moracha refers to the Morača River, Meckar might be a typo of Neckar, Irawasi might be Irawadi/Irrawaddy/Ayeyarwady River (d and s are next to each other on the keyboard), Syrfarja could be Syr Darya (same for d and f). Tenryū River is probably your Tenryugawi, Yoshino River your Yosginogawa, Ngounie River your N'Gounie, Sanaga River your Sanage, Tocantins River your Tocantis. Markussep 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find any other list of missing river articles (I only found User:Markussep/rivers which lists existing articles with some missing information.) One could start to assemble such a list from the red links in the various "List of rivers in..." articles and Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics which lists several rivers. Rmhermen 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing topics 

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight#Irrigation in Australia or Water supply in Australia for a proposed new article, probably to be called Irrigation in Australia. As a lot of irrigation water comes from the Murray-Darling Basin, the article may interest participants of this project too. If you would be interested in helping to develop the article, anyone (Australian or not) is welcome to add support and comments. --Scott Davis Talk 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Australian collaboration 

message: Just saw this added to Stave River and remarked that the language used in it is highly US-centric, i.e. "state" as the default for national subdivision; I'm coming at it from the Canadian end, of course, and while it's true Australia, Mexico, Brazil, India have "states" as well as the US, this is still not workable; Canada and China (to name only two) use "province", and then there's Norway with fylker.  The rest of the GeoBox details I'll have to think about after seeing it applied here and there, but I just wanted to do a heads-up that if someone is designing such a box could they please think outside of the usual "Lower 48 box" and remember that the rest of the world is constituted differently, and that Wikipedia isn't only American in content/language.Skookum1 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GeoBox River 

message: There is a discussion on whether the name of the article should Ganges or Ganga (the name in the Indian languages). Please provide your opinion. Thanks! GizzaChat © 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Ganges]] 

message: Are historical floods and crests of rivers and/or major tributaries to be included on that article's main page or within a separate article? For example, the Ohio River at Wheeling, West Virginia has a known historical crest of 55.5 ft. in March 1936. Which particular page or heading should it go on to keep in accordance with this Wikiproject? Mphamilton 06:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical floods/crests 

message: Hello. I have joined the project as I am in the process of creating an article on every river in Rhode Island.
Cheers! --Analogdemon (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhode Island Rivers 

message: I've done some articles on streams in northeast Iowa, and have come across name space problems. Im following the ideas on the project page. See Smith Creek, Trout Run and Village Creek, and how I have done disambig pages. I'm tempted to move Menominee River to Menominee River (Lake Michigan), and turn the resulting redirect into a disambig. Another issue is how creeks tributary to rivers are to be handled in categories; for the moment, I've been dumping them in category Rivers of Iowa. Similarly, there are some very tiny tributaries of the Mississippi, e.g., Village Creek (Allamakee County, Iowa) which share category space with some very significant tributaries. --Ace Telephone 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your disambig pages and names look fine by me.  Menominee River though I'd leave as is, there are just the two of them and I think the MI-WI one is much more well known.   Kmusser 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stream names 

message: Requested move:
*Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab —(Discuss)— Thus moving the article on this Iranian and Iraqi river from a double "Persian/Arabic" title to the Arabic-language name alone, to reflect common English usage, in accordance to Wikipedia's naming conventions. — See some examples of usage in the article's talk page.
The previous move request (which took place 30 March to 6 April 2007) was rather problematic. So, I encourage (ok, beg :-) everyone to take at least a quick look at the issue.
I believe the issue to be a simple, straight-forward case of reflecting the common English usage clearly exemplified by the examples of usage.
Best regards, Ev 03:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New opinions on this unsolved issue will be most welcomed at the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, we're repeating the move request from Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) to Shatt al-Arab. Your input to the discussion will be greatly appreciated. - Best regards, Ev 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab 

message: I have a few thoughts, questions, and maybe a source, on the topic of river discharge statistics.
While working on river pages I've often had trouble finding good discharge numbers. Stream gauge data often comes in "realtime" form, giving stats for the last few days, without providing long term averages. I understand why this kind of data is not good for a river's discharge in general, but still, even when you can find good long term discharge data, it is clear that there is no truly "correct" way to determine a river's discharge, especially when it comes to maximum and minimum discharges.
For example, for the minimum discharge of a river, do you use lowest-ever reading of a stream gauge ("instantaneous") or the lowest daily mean, or the lowest 7-day mean (as the USGS often reports). For many rivers, especially those with irrigation diversion, dams, and dam construction over the stream gauge's life, the lowest-ever reading will sometimes be zero or close to it (sometimes even a negative number due to some river modification project). Even the lowest daily means can be absurdly low, representative of some very unusual, probably artificial circumstance -- and thus not really about the river's streamflow but rather some special event. In such cases, I'm tempted to use the lowest 7-day mean, or even the lowest monthly mean, depending on which stat seems least absurd.
Also, even for average discharge there are often choices to make without obvious answers. For example, some rivers achieve a high discharge volume along their course only to have large amounts of water diverted for irrigation. Some rivers dry up completely, some sink into the ground. If there are several stream gauges along a river and the discharge is higher at an upriver one due to diversions downriver, I'm tempted to use the upriver one as more "natural".
I'm wondering what thoughts the river wikiproject people have on these things.
Also, the project page refers to the relatively new Template:Infobox River Geography, but it is now called Template:Geobox River. The link redirects, but still, would be nice to have the template's current name. Perhaps I'll just edit that change myself (never edited a wikiproject page before).
Finally, on sources for discharge data, including max and min values over a stream gauge's lifetime -- I'm curious to know what sources people use. I hurt my brain trying to coax such things from the USGS stream gauge pages, but have begun to find other sources that give a streamgauge's lifetime annual mean discharge and various forms of max and min. This webpage has links to PDF files with such streamgauge data for Washington state, and this one does for Montana. Does anyone know more about these kind of reports and where to find them more easily than google hit-and-miss? Any other good sources?
And, more importantly, sources for discharge stats, stream gauge data, etc, outside the United States? I've been working on some rivers that cross and recross between the US and Canada, and the USGS's streamgauge data simply ends at the border, frustratingly. The one site I have found, just today, that looks promising at first glance, is this one. Looking for more resources! Thanks. Pfly 03:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think annual mean discharge is what you want if you can find it, but for many rivers it's probably never been calculated.  I haven't found any more reliable than what you already have.  Kmusser 03:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree:  I've often wondered what the intent of the numbers is.  For example, the Willamette River has reverse flow for a few minutes or hours each day due to Pacific tidal effects, and a wide degree of natural seasonal variation in flow rate.  I "stretched" the info box to handle these, but even that wasn't adequate:  the end of the description section gives detailed extrema. —EncMstr 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (annual mean) discharge numbers are used as one way to compare rivers using a single number for each, although as noted, which number to use and how to get it are often problematic. While rivers can also be compared using their length or drainage basin area, two rivers could have identical lengths and drainage areas and very different discharges (say one in an arid area vs. one in a rain forest). Might I suggest the article on discharge (hydrology) be updated to reflect some of the problems / issues discussed here? Ruhrfisch 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For U.S. rivers, I found this USGS link, which links to PDFs of stream gauge reports for most of the states (several are missing), of the type Pfly mentioned above.  Also, I had a go at working the data into a short narrative on the Middle Fork River and Tygart Valley River articles, under the heading "flow rate."  It makes for pretty dry reading, though no more so than the bot-generated census sections on the articles about U.S. cities.  I'd very much welcome any improvements to the wording; I'd like to settle on a basic structure that I could copy-paste into other articles I work on, and then plug in the data.  Thanks -- Malepheasant 05:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks Malepheasant. I found this link for all the US States reports  and have also had some success emailing USGS and asking them about data for specific streams. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 11:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discharge statistics 

message: I would like to add a navbox to every stream in the Susquehanna River system and have made three different versions of possible navboxes to add, which I would appreciate any and all feedback on. The navboxes and some questions about them are here: User:Ruhrfisch/Frog. Since it is in User space you can add comments right in the page (it is one of my sandboxes, so I don't use the Talk page for it generally). Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback sought on navboxes for the [[Susquehanna River]] system 

message: Niagara Falls has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4 00:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR of [[Niagara Falls]] 

message: As some of you may have noticed, the  template now has an argument for assessing an article's quality. This was initially set up by User:Bejnar, and I've since created the categories and tweaked the template so it adds the articles to the correct category. Details are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers/Assessment. I'm kinda new to this project, but I think it might be an idea to mention this use of the template, and put a link to the assessment page on the main project page. Anyway, I hope it all works right, and can provide us with a useful means of finding articles to improve -Kieran 18:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: I am a water engineer and, though living in the USA, I have a long experience working overseas in various countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. I would like to join the team if the list is not yet closed. I have started compiling a list of rivers, for the time being I have started with Romania. I intend to continue, to make the list as complete as possible before moving ahead to other items, though I think it would be presumptious ever to claim that the list of rivers for any particular country is complete. 
I also consider that besides articles on rivers, the project could also be concerned with developments on rivers, such as dams, storage reservoirs, hydroelectric plants etc. Maybe there is another project, which I failed to identify, dealing with those. But that is valid for the future. At present I just want to know that what I started is OK with everybody else.
I may be dealing with water but still dont intend to make waves. Afil 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the project, have fun editing.  VerruckteDan 13:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I? 

message: Hiya,
I know nothing about rivers, except that my grandad used to live beside one. :-) Anyhow, I have a question. I'm reading an article that was translated from Chinese, discussing the Yangtze river in the area between Wuhan and Dongting Lake. It repeatedly uses the term "meander" to describe this: Imagine a river running more or less northeast. Centuries pass, earth  & sand shift and alter the course of the river gradually until it hits a big hill. At that point, the flow alters in such a way that a minor tributary suddenly becomes the main course of the flow.. but the "meander" bit is that the new path no longer runs roughly northeast, it has a couple kilometers-long bulges shaped like the head of a q-tip (or like the shape of the piece that sticks out of a crossword puzzle piece) where the water ran around large obstacles. Those bulges... are they properly called "meanders"? Thanks! Ling.Nut 15:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS The relevant article is Battle of Red Cliffs, and I'm gonna write a very brief bit (perhaps a paragraph, perhaps less) about the Yangtze river changing its course. It just occurred to me that if some WP:RIVER folks would look it over in the future (the section isn't written yet) and ensure that it uses proper terminology and has relevant wikilinks, that would be a Good Thing. Thanks! Ling.Nut 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are called meanders. I have included a link to the meander article in the one you wrote, so that persons interested can get additional information. Glad to help in the future, just let me know.Afil 19:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about correct terminology 

message: The present order is to present tributaries starting from the mouth and going upstreams. This presentation should be discussed. Logically rivers are discussed from upstreams to downstreams. Thus presentations of the course of the river start with the source, describe the course of the river and finally reach to the mouth of the river. When defining the tributaries right and left are defined looking downstreams. Why would the list of the tributaries be done in a different order?Afil 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I asked about this a while back here, but the discussion did not develop.  Any river that I work on follows the source to mouth convention and the left right designation is based on this perspective.  Hopefully a discussion will develop this time so a guideline can be agreed upon.  VerruckteDan 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree on the source-to-mouth order. An exception would be for "hierarchical" lists, like Tributaries of the Columbia River, in which it only makes sense to start at the mouth. Pfly 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is logic to both systems, source-to-mouth and mouth-to-source. For hierarchical lists such as List of rivers of Europe mouth-to-source is a lot more practical indeed. Generally the tributaries are less significant/important further upstream, that could be an argument for mouth-to-source as well. I'm not sure whether it's really desirable to choose a standard presentation, it's more important that the article text shows which order is applied. Markussep Talk 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I consider that Markussep is right and that a standard presentation is not really desirable. I would therefore suggest that the prescription in the list paragraph of the main article should be appropriately modified, accepting both orders, as required by the logic of the article. I also agree that the order chosen should be indicated so that readers understand what is being done.Afil 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I prefer mouth to source order, I can understand that the reverse order (source to mouth) might be useful in some cases. I also think that the same order should be followed for all aspects of river articles (i.e. describing the course, listing the order of tributaries, etc.). The problem is that a standard presentation is already given in the WikiProject River guidelines, which currently call for mouth to source order for listing tributaries: "Lists: List the tributaries, starting from the mouth and going upstream.". Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to be clear in our discussion here. It may well be logical to discuss them source to mouth in an article (like Amazon River but where is its source exactly?) but mouth to source works much better for standalone lists (like List of rivers in Montana). Rmhermen 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of presenting tributaries 

message: At present the categories for articles and stubs is to indicate the country or countries they cross as Rivers of.... However, I start getting to many articles in the category Rivers of Romania and have been advised by the administrators to indicate subunits. It is of course possible to invent categories such as rivers of district X or rivers of county Y. However this does not make much sense to me. I would rather indicate rivers by river basins or subbasins. Of course it could be both. 
I would welcome the input of the participants to the Rivers project on this matter, as they are the experts in this field. We could then submit to the administrators a coherent proposal on the best waty to subdivide the categories and stub categories agreed upon by the participants of the project.Afil 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subclassification of rivers 

message: So, I'm doing the Lyre River article in my sandbox, and when trying to find stats, I find this document here which says: "The Lyre River has a total length of 16.8 miles, with a basin covering 66.1 square miles. The Lyre is the only watershed in the region that is fed by a natural lake, Lake Crescent, resulting in a unique flow, temperature and water chemistry regime. Lake Crescent, located at RM 5.2, is a large, deep lake of 4,700 acres with a depth of 640 feet." So, if the river has a total length of 16.8 miles, how can Lake Crescent, it's source, be located at River Mile 5.2? Murderbike 22:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, checking other sources, I've decided the 16.8 number is wrong. Does someone want to rate this article? Murderbike 23:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with river length 

message: Hi folks, I've been working pretty hard on the Columbia River article for a few months. I would like to nominate it for GA status soon, though there is certainly more work needed - see the Talk:Columbia River page for some of my thoughts on that.
At any rate, I'd love to have a few more eyes on it leading up to, and during, the nomination. I just noticed the recommended article structure here, and will consider restructuring the article more along those lines - there are some good ideas there. -Pete 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Columbia River]]? 

message: Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) (in Lycoming and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania and with our project tag) is a Featured Article Candidate. If you want to weigh in on the nomination, it is here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek). Thanks for any feedback! Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet Another Featured Article Candidate 

message: And the Columbia River - just nominated that one. Please evaluate according to the Wikipedia:What is a good article? criteria, and comment on the Talk:Columbia River page. Thanks! -Pete 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia River nominated for "Good Article" 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: List of well-known rivers 

message: Hi, everyone. I recently created an article for Islais Creek, a small creek in San Francisco, California. I am trying to put this article in relevant wikipeojects, and am wondering if this article should be considered as part of the WP:RIVERS. Thanks. Chris! ct 02:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islais Creek 

message: I'm considering nominating Antuã for deletion. It seems to be non-notable, but I'd think all rivers are notable. What, according to WP:RIVER, constitutes a notable river? --Montchav 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus over at AfD has generally been that all rivers are inherently notable.Kmusser 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the Portugese article there is a free image (lovely too) here and some info on the source elevation, basin area, etc not in this version. I do not speak Portugese, but I can puzzle out things sometimes - I think the name of the river is disputed, but if someone who can read Portugese could check this out, that would help, thanks Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antuã]] 

message: Anybody working on this one?  I'm interested in how the northwest Bronx was relandscaped, resulting in the diversion of this watercourse.  Hard to see how this one, like the Saw Mill R. to its north, had a natural course to the Hudson, when now both end in buried sewers/surface canals that cut under/thru+_+ a high ridge to the west.  Seems the "history" section in cases like this should include the actual history of the river's course, not just the history of things around it. Robert Goodman (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibbet's Brook and diverted rivers 

message: I've started work on this article (not to be confused the the White Salmon River) in my sandbox, but have kinda hit a wall on sources. Does anyone here happen to know any decent books that would focus on rivers in Washington that would have more info than I'm finding? Murderbike 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Salmon River (Washington)]] 

message: Similar to the last question, on this page is a debate on whether a river should be called "dead" or changed to "dry". Rmhermen (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Saraswati River (Bengal)]] 

message: This seems the most obvious place to put this idea. Has this already been done? Franamax (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki-canoe 

message: Under Article structure: lists, it states that tributaries should be listed starting from the mouth and moving upriver.  However, the article on tributaries states that in orography tributaries are ordered from nearest the source to the mouth.  If that is the standard in academia, then the guideline should be changed.  VerruckteDan 03:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too, am puzzled by this. Has there been any other talk that I have missed? It makes the writing of an article quite difficult as the two cannot be integrated properly in the text.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See /Archive 2#Order of presenting tributaries. Markussep Talk 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: I think I could set up this project's banner with some additional parameters allowing it to assess for the various national WikiProjects as well, thus reducing the number of banners on several pages and making updating assessments as required easier. Would the members of this project be interested in such an action? If yes, I could draft a sample banner and let you all look over it before implementation. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested in seeing a draft banner. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner question 

message: As a geographer I should like to question why tributaries should be listed from the mouth and going upstream? Surely that is illogical - the rational idea is that a river grows in stature as it proceeds from source to mouth, and that is simply because of its tributaries? In any case, rivers all flow that way? Peter Shearan (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion about that some months ago, see /Archive 2#Order of presenting tributaries. I think the conclusion was that there's logic to both ways, source-to-mouth and mouth-to-source. Markussep Talk 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tributaries: lists of 

message: I have nominated List of tributaries of Larrys Creek for peer review here and would appreciate any feedback from knowledgable river editors on its structure, layout and anything else. It is an attempt to list all 42 named tributaries of one creek in a series of tables. The next step after this is WP:FLC, so I would really appreciate some other eyes looking at this before that. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request 

message: Hello, I saw a request for coordinates for the Talk:Pearl River (China).  This lead me to look at Yangtze River's and Yellow River's coordinates.  It seems weird to me that their coordinates aren't qualified by what location — whether its the source, delta, somewhere else — the coordinates refer to, such as the source coordinates shown by Amazon River.  Is it implied that the coordinates mean the river's source's coordinates?  Would someone at this project clarify this?  Or am I complete off-base about coordinates?  If so, please direct me to the appropriate information.  Thanks.  --Tesscass (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A river's coordinates 

message: It's customary and useful to pinpoint locations on a river by river mile (distance from the mouth). Since other quantities in Wikipedia are expressed in metric as well as imperial units, should we be expressing river miles as river kilometers (RK)s as well? I've been working recently on Balch Creek and other creek and river articles. It's tempting to go back and add the conversions from RMs to RKs. An example from Balch Creek might look like this: "From its source, the creek runs east on private property before turning briefly south through private land and a short segment of Forest Park, a large municipal park in Portland, at about river mile (RM) 3 or river kilometer (RK) 4.8.... It enters the city and the Portland Audubon Sanctuary simultaneously at about RM 2 (RK 3.2) and then flows northeast, entering the Forest Park subsection known as Macleay Park. Any thoughts about RM to RK conversions and vice versa? Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look at google shows 200,000 hits for river mile - but less than 10,000 total for river kilometer/kilometre. Makes me think that river kilometer is not in wide use - but I wonder what term is usually used in metric? Rmhermen (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  River kilometers 

message: There is a proposal to merge List of rivers by length with the List of rivers by discharge as the first mentioned list includes discharge information already. Rmhermen (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: In that these are features on a river, shouldn't all such articles be part of this project?  I just added WP:Rivers to Waddington Canyon but didnt' to Lava Canyon; ditto Basalt Falls.  Thoughtts?Skookum1 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure about canyons - some of them may have no river at all. Waterfalls seems ok - if no other project has claimed them yet. Rmhermen (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't canyons always formed by rivers? They may no longer have them, but they did once. --NE2 11:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canyon and waterfall articles 

message: I created User:NE2/US watersheds from USGS GIS data. I have disambiguated and fixed all links except for the "Cataloging Unit" (which is the actual name of each watershed). Thus we have, more or less, a list of major rivers if we ignore that column. The following are red links:
*Christian River (Alaska)
*Clear Fork Brazos River (Texas)
*North Fork Red River (Oklahoma, Texas)
*Saline Bayou (Louisiana)
*Salt River (Missouri)
Some Mexican rivers with U.S. tributaries:
*Rio de Bavispe
*Rio de la Concepción
*Rio Sonoyta
Some endorheic basins:
*Buena Vista Lake (California)
*Central Lahontan Basin (California, Nevada)
*Central Nevada Desert Basins (California, Nevada)
*North Lahontan Basin (California, Nevada)
*Oregon Closed Basins (California, Nevada, Oregon)
*Rio Grande Closed Basins (New Mexico, Texas)
*Willcox Playa (Arizona)
--NE2 11:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First I think we should clearly note that those are government defined watersheds - not the standard geological definition. I seem to see some variations in the Michigan entries from those differences. Second I am not sure we need all the information - the Hydrologic Unit Code column doesn't seem to have a good encyclopedic value; the Water Resource Region and Subregion entries all identical in the majority of cases - is it really valuable to have both columns? Rmhermen (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I forgot to mention that the table isn't directly for article purposes. It's useful as a sort of "missing articles" list though. --NE2 17:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I encountered the non-existence of a page for Buena Vista Lake when working on a Kern River page a while ago. The lake doesn't exist anymore but could have a page like the similarly extinct Tulare Lake. The two small surviving lakes in Buena Vista Lake, Lake Webb and Lake Evans, are also pageless. Also, "Oregon Closed Basins" is kind of a catch-all term. We do have pages for some of these basins, like Harney Basin. A number of other closed basin pages are linked to from Great Basin. Pfly (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If these basins are all listed in Great Basin, a redirect there from the catch-all terms is probably a good plan. --NE2 06:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of U.S. watersheds 

message: Any  versus  consensus?
Any beneficial changes which WP:RIVERS should request to them?
Personally,
for those who do not have access to a nice GIS system capable of producing "free" maps compatible with Wikipedias various copyright/licensing requirements, it would be nice if we had at least the functionality provided by  and  so that at least mouth and source could be plotted if not also the confluence points with major tributaries (to present a rough idea of the river's course).
For some rivers, it would also be nice to present a river mile versus elevation chart (with dams, falls, major confluences, rapids, ... annotated).
A very very crude one can be produced as a "Bar chart" with  and .
Has anyone addressed the issue(s) of Rivers having "Lakes" in them?
i.e. Some rivers are considered to "flow through" a Lake, usually but not always a Reservoir (artificial Lake) created by a dam.
Has anyone considered a Navigation box template to "connect" inter-related tributaries or Lakes (or Waterfalls, rapids, dams, ...)?
LeheckaG (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geobox versus Infobox 

message: Use this on your User: page to show you are part of this project:
Code	Result
    	
This is the "standard" way a WikiProject shows user membership,
It transcludes a WikiProject Rivers Category to your User page.
LeheckaG (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a way of showing membership. But not a requirement or the standard. In fact, some of us reject all userboxes (a number of which have caused controversy in the past). Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants 

message: Please use the "official name" from a Geographic Names Information System
for a River article title, and create REDIRECTS when there is a "Common" name.
For instance (for the United States of America):
GNIS Search by United States Geological Survey, and
enumerate all/any additional names within the article under "Etymology" which should be under "History".
LeheckaG (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is too U.S. specific - and at Wikipedia we use the common name for article titles - even if it conflicts with an official name. Rivers often cross national and subnational language boundaries which would cause conflicts with this criteria. There is no need to include ever alternate name listed in a database as some are very uncommon, unlikely or too minor of variations to need mentioning. Rmhermen (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic Names Information System 

message: While it is often common to refer to a Lake by the smallest civil subdivision which contains it, most larger Rivers, Streams, Creeks, ... with "non-unique" names requiring disambiguation tend to cross multiple civil subdivision boundaries.
*For those in the U.S., please perform a GNIS query for the uniqueness of the Official_Name, and Downstream_Parent.
:*A "contested" ambiguous name should redirect to a "Official_name (disambiguation)" page and not to an "Official_name" article.
:*Please document your justification for "most important", compare:  Flow volume, Length, Historical Significance, Population, Traffic, ...
:*An undisambiguated "Official_name" article name needs to have a disambiguation template at the top linking to an appropriate (disambiguation) page.
*Rivers pay little attention to political boundaries!
:*A river can be identified uniquely as a tributary of another river or waterbody (lake or definable sea).
::*In the U.S., the USGS, (Federal and State) EPA, and (State) Department of Natural Resources, ... uniquely identify rivers by either a hierarchical "hydrological unit code" (8-, 11-, or 14-digit) number or by their downstream parent.
:*Article should be named with the downstream river or waterbody following in parentheses "Official_Name (Downstream_Parent)", Examples:
:*St. Joseph River (Lake Michigan) and St. Joseph River (Maumee River)
:*Brandywine Creek (Christina River), Brandywine Creek (Cuyahoga River), ...
:*Churchill River (Hudson Bay)
::*Remember to perform GNIS queries for the uniqueness of the Official_Name, and Downstream_Parent.
::*If you are not sure whether two or more rivers share a common downstream parent,
:::*For those in the U.S., go to a "Feature Detail Report" (by selecting a Feature ID), and select "Find the Watershed", if the leading/leftmost digits of the USGS Hydrological Unit Code (8-, 11-, or 14-digit number) are different, then they are different downstream watersheds, For example:
::::*Brandywine Creek (Broken Sword Creek);  in Crawford County
::::*Brandywine Creek (Cuyahoga River); in Summit County
::::*Brandywine Creek (Miami River);  in Logan County and Shelby County
::::*Brandywine Creek (Sugar Creek);  in Tuscarawas County
:::*Useful resources: USGS; (Federal and State) EPA, (State) Department of Natural Resources.
:*In the case where two or more rivers cannot be disambiguated by "Official_Name (Downstream_Parent)":
::*In practice, most rivers needing disambiguation have been identified by the smallest appropriate civil subdivision (Town or Village, City, Township, Borough or County, Province or State, Country, or Continent).
:::*Colorado River and Colorado River (Texas).
:::*Litani River (South America)
:*Smallest appropriate means:
::*Civil sub-division needs to completely contain the named river
:::*mouth to source including unnamed tributaries, but NOT named tributaries nor watershed).
::*River name needs to be disambiguous within that civil sub-division.
::*Where two or more rivers cannot be disambiguated by "Official_Name (smallest appropriate civil sub-division)":
:::*Use the smallest appropriate civil sub-division containing a river's mouth and as much of the river as possible, while still being disambiguous.
:*Always use parentheses for the disambiguator for U.S. and Australian rivers, not a comma.
::*For example Indian River (Michigan) not Indian River, Michigan which is actually a town.
:*New Zealand and British rivers have used the River, place format.
*Failing that, the most "common" disambiguating name could follow in parentheses.
*Try to be accurate, but be consistent!
LeheckaG (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the enthusiasm!, which I find misplaced, you have reversed our two disambiguation schemes. "In practice, most rivers needing disambiguation have been identified by the smallest appropriate civil subdivision" is the primarty scheme, not by tributary as you have listed. See the archives for these discussions. Rmhermen (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree regarding the reversal of standard disambiguation scheme -- but this statement is also mistaken (or at least misleading): A "contested" ambiguous name should redirect to a "Official_name (disambiguation)" page and not to an "Official_name" article. Per WP:DAB regarding primary topics, if the simple title (that is, without any parenthetical phrase) is not a primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be at the simple title. There should not be redirects from Simple title Simple title (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Read the current Template documentation! and Please update the WikiProject documentation accordingly:
 has be superseded by the Geobox2 templates:  and supplying a parameter of River; See: Template:Geobox/type/river.
LeheckaG (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The WikiProject does not recommend the use of Geobox River so the request to upgrade to Geobox2 seems out of place. In fact, it appears that Geobox River was poorly reviewed by members of this project commenting on that template. A first step would be to either get Geobox used here before getting it upgraded. Rmhermen (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you read template documentation?  What I said above, and what the documentation cited above says is that they made several "in-place" modifications to the Geobox template, i.e. when you transclude  you are really transcluding "Geobox2", which is not a separate template but one Geobox template with all the modifications they made to the original.  The difference in usage is whether you say "Geobox River" or "Geobox|River", the former separate templates have been superseded by the later which implements all the various Geoboxes, i.e. "Geobox" versus Geobox "2" is a matter of making sure you are reading the appropriate version "2" of the documentation. LeheckaG (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: My "point" was that the "new Geobox" template "recommendation" (on the WP Rivers page) is not in synchronization with the Geobox template documentation, which has changed from the "Geobox River" to the "Geobox|River" a.k.a. "version 2" format.  LeheckaG (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: My question was:  Has anyone done an evaluation or taken a poll/vote on "Infobox River" versus "Geobox|River"?  I am not sure whether there is another motivation, but in some other WikiProjects - there has been a "push" to use Geobox instead of Infobox so that they are consistent (across feature types and projects).  Geobox is based on one single template - whereas the Infoboxes diverged into a "family" of templates which are now sometimes a bit different from each other.  As far as I can see, "Geobox|River" can do everything "Infobox River" can do - I am not aware of something which it can not do, and it offers a little bit more.  Which I see as both a plus and a minus, there are some useful additional things it can do, but I also can see people "misusing" parts it if they do not have proper guidance.  i.e. specific project recommendations on how to use certain parts - and how not to.  LeheckaG (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, almost all of the Featured Articles that also have this project's banner on their talk pages use either Geobox2 (or the older Geobox). I think Zambezi is the only one that does not. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 12:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Geobox 

message: Currently, 12297 articles are assigned to this project, of which 480, or 3.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the list would be here or linked from here? I am interested. Thanks, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: Does anyone at this project care to comment on the recent additional section in Yangtze River called "The Arrival of Steamships for a variety of purposes"?  I've suggested that it be split off, but the author is an anonymous IP and I've gotton no response.  Thanks! --Tesscass (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yangtze River 

message: I created :Category:International rivers, molded after :Category:International lakes and populated it based on some lists for Asia, Africa and Europe. I wasn't able to find any source for border-crossing American rivers though. Now, as I was working on this I realized that the name I had picked perhaps wasn't the most appropriate name, so I nominated the category for renaming. You might want to participate in the renaming discussion. __meco (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:International rivers 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for River 

message: Hi folks. A few of us have been working on articles about rivers and streams in Oregon. Since we are starting to get into major creeks, things like :Category:Rivers of Oregon and List of rivers of Oregon, which are the default places where we add the creek articles, are seeming increasingly narrow. Has there been a discussion about creeks and their categorization that anyone could direct me to? I'm thinking of proposing a move from :Category:Rivers of Oregon to :Category:Rivers and streams of Oregon, or maybe make a parent cat :Category:Streams of Oregon and then make the rivers cat and :Category:Creeks of Oregon subcats of that one (though it starts to get messy with the forks, branches, swales, sloughs, etc., but maybe those will just default to the stream cat). Anyway, I noticed that in :Category:Rivers of the United States by state, only the Virgin Islands had a "rivers and streams" cat and I was thinking that if I propose to rename the Oregon cat, we might as well move all the U.S. states at the same time. But maybe that's a really really bad idea for some reason. Thoughts? Valfontis (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main question for me would be: is there a clear difference between a river, a stream and a creek? If not, I wouldn't bother renaming the categories. Markussep Talk 08:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to GNIS, "stream" is the generic term for a body of flowing water (in the U.S.). Creeks are, well, things that are named "Foo Creek" and rivers are things that are named "Foo River". Rivers and creeks are streams, streams are not necessarily rivers or creeks. Valfontis (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal there takes as "main coordinate" the mouth/estuary. For many rivers, neither the source nor the mouth are clearly defined points. When displaying a map for a river, it would be desirable that most of its course would be visible on a map centered on the main coordinate. Using the mouth (or estuary) as primary coordinate that would waste a lot of space. Therefore it has been proposed earlier to use a point somewhere "in the middle". As guidance could be given: the point on the river closest to the smallest circle containing all its branches. Although theoretically not unique, this would in practice be relatively easy to determine. So I propose to change the "main coordinate" in the table accordingly and move the estuary/mouth to "further coordinates". −Woodstone (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all rivers have a defined mouth (exception might include Okavango and perhaps Amazon), so it makes a logical choice for a single point coordinate. Rmhermen (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you display a map centered on the mouth, on a scale to show the whole river, a lot of screen space will be wasted. −Woodstone (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates for linear features 

message: I cannot get the River infobox to display an image. Can someone take a look for me? Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 08:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I added image_size and map_size fields to force the width to be 250px. The standard width for images in the infobox is 256px, I don't know why that doesn't work for these images. Markussep Talk 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that. I was getting very frustrated! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maribyrnong River]] 

message: I was looking up someting on the obscure Sikanni Chief River, part of the Peace-Mackenzie drainage, and found this great resource on all Arctic basins, the Saskatchewan-Churchill, Hudson's Bay, Yenisey, etc etc.  Just dropping it here for refernce if someone happens to be looking for flow/discharge rates on those rivers.Skookum1 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found resource for Arctic-basin rivers 

message: Many rivers provide recreational opportunities - boating, canoeing, angling, walking - and I wonder if this should have its own section under  Article_Structure or if these activities should be listed under Economy? In some areas they might be important economic drivers, in others of little economic relevance. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation 

message: Hi, we are currently having a problem at Talk:Egiin Gol. Basically, the question here is what is an acceptable source: can a reproducable measurement on a (published) map/ computer image be acceptable? The problem is that literature offers different values for the river's lentgh (this is even true for bigger rivers like the Selenga), so it's hard to decide which one to pick. In fact, given that other sources usually don't tell how they arrived at their result, giving a reproducable method and its result might even be the more meaningful way? Yaan (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use them all - while providing their sources. If conflicting measurements exist, the article should mention it. Rmhermen (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources on river length 

message: Could someone re-assess the River Irwell article? - it's moved on a lot since it was assessed as  start class. Richerman (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[River Irwell]] 

message: Please give your input at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 12:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are maps to be considered primary or secondary sources?