Talk:St. Johns River

message: Both this article and the vast majority of the official Florida state web docs  spell it "St. Johns River" -- "St." is not spelled out "Saint", and there is no possessive apostrophe.  Can anyone who lives there verify?  Catherine 01:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much agree with you. Change has been made. Official name is without apostrophe, and abbreviation St. is used by convention and is the standard Wikipedia usage too. -- Decumanus 22:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it is worth, the USGS names the river "Saint Johns River" (see http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=162:3:2107129359454427199::NO::P3_FID:308105). A GNIS search for St. or St Johns River in Florida turns up no hits. Also, the USGS United States Board on Geographic Names "discourages" the use of periods, like St. Johns. Far be it from the feds to tell people how to spell placenames, I'm just pointing out the name as given on this page won't be found in a GNIS search. Perhaps a comment on the full spelling being "official" according to the USGS? Pfly 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I'll just do it myself, this is a wiki after all! Pfly 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your compromise wording, rather than an actual move, was well-thought-out.Unschool 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[St. Johns River]]?

message: Are the bridges that cross the river truly relevant to the article?  If so, shouldn't all major bridges that cross the river be mentioned?
Spahi 00:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridges in Jacksonville 

message: The article claims that the St Johns River is the third longest navitable north-flowing river in the world - after the Nile and the Amazon. Is 'navitable' a word? If 'navigable' is meant then is this so? The Amazon does not flow north. I suspect that Europe and Asia is full of north flowing rivers which would exceed the St Johns in terms of navigable length (the Lena, the Rhine, the Yensei for example).
Stubebart (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out, there are a dozen or so that are longer in Russia alone. Kmusser (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Longest Navitable North-Flowing River in the World? 

message: As a native Floridian, I have been taught that the river was named after John the Baptist, but I see no wikipedia reference to this, either in this article or in the article section about places named after John the Baptist.
Was I misinformed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.77.8 (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint John's River named after John the Baptist? 

message: The text in the article (Section Upper basin) reads: The river is frequently cited as being a rare north-flowing river in North America,[9][10] though in fact most of Canada and parts of the United States also drain north.[11][12]
Something like this should be placed in a note. Citation 11 links to here where "St. Johns" or "north" (lower case, used in direction, not proper name) does not appear. What passage is being cited in this document? Similarly, citation 12--what is being cited? It would appear these sources cite the fragment "though in fact most of Canada and parts of the United States also drain north". If so, that's not relevant to the St. Johns River. 
After writing this article and returning to the same frustrating point, my thoughts about the issue are that a) the sources I use don't narrowly define what a northern flowing river is: the St. Johns is a N/S axis river. Is this what they mean? How many N/S axis rivers are there in North America that flow north? b) nobody knows what the hell anyone is talking about, or c) the entire argument is stupid and who really cares anyway? 
At any rate, something this vague and wtf? needs to go to a footnote. If Awickert can point out what source info is being used in these citations, I might be able to construct one. --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is the same as it was earlier - I think the entire sentence should be deleted.  Refs 11 and 12 are an attempt to cite the fact that north-flowing rivers are not rare, but I agree that it reads clumsily and neither really makes that point clearly - it's difficult to cite something for a negative statement. There are several hundred N/S axis rivers in the U.S. Every once in awhile someone will attempt to list them all, but they always get deleted (here and here). Kmusser (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bad Penny

message: The existing source in the article is incorrect. The stingrays in the St. John's River are Atlantic stingrays, not southern stingrays. Here are just a few of the sources that support this:     . Some of these are scientific sources and thus more reliable on the subject. -- Yzx (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Thank you for the sources. I will change out the one listed for a more accurate one. --Moni3 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stingrays

message: I started to delete the statement, The majority of rivers in the Northern Hemisphere tend to flow south towards the equator, probably caused by the force of the Earth's rotation. The St. Johns River is a notable exception, referenced to Benke. The equator [Earth's rotation (added 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed further up on this page. I could demonstrate that "The majority of rivers in the Northern Hemisphere tend to flow south" is a false statement with about 5 minutes of OR, but can't source it, probably for the same reason I'd have trouble sourcing "water is wet", but there you go.  Kmusser (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's the unfortunate and frustrating thing: nobody writes the obvious to disprove those who write the absurd :-(. Anyway, it's gone right now and will stay that way unless someone decides otherwise. Sorry for not looking at the earlier discussion and thanks for pointing it out; I was trying to burn through a review of this page and another one late last night. Awickert (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for river comment? 

message: I'm trying to understand how the average discharge of the river could be less that the minimum discharge of the river. - Jlodman (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going on the infobox only? It's explained in the Flow rates and water quality section. Is that unclear? Infoboxes demand simple numbers when sometimes it's just not simple. I dislike infoboxes for that reason. --Moni3 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, good catch. The source cited says "total flow in the river is comprised of about 80%-90% tide-induced flow", and that "total discharge of the river is normally greater than 50,000 cfs and can exceed 150,000 cfs... The average annual nontidal discharge at the river mouth is approximately 15,000 cfs." So it doesn't exactly make sense to me for the minimum discharge to be put as 50,000 cfs--that figure is what the discharge is "normally greater than". Also, these figures are pretty vague. Perhaps it would be better to use USGS stream gage data? The gage closest to the river's mouth that has discharge statistics seems to be 02246500 St. Johns River at Jacksonville, FL. It gives the average/mean discharge as 8,603 cfs, the maximum as 120,000, and the minimum as -69,200 cfs. The negative figure is "reverse flow", due to tides. There's a similar negative discharge minimum stat on the Columbia Slough page (an FA article--it has a short little discharge subsection explaining things a little more). Discharge stats for tidally influenced rivers can be pretty weird. I was going to be bold and use the USGS figures instead, but Moni3 posted just before I was going to and gave me pause. So I'll just ask: wouldn't it be better to use the USGS figures? If nothing else they are more up to date. Pfly (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen this stream gage data. I'm all in for the night, so I can't make any sense of it. If there are obvious weaknesses, then we should discuss how to make the article as accurate as possible, but the source used for the Flow rate paragraph is from NOAA so I'm not ready to toss it out. Let me take a look at it tomorrow when I'm clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yea, it's nice that it's NOAA, and about the flow at the mouth itself. If I'm reading the page right the source for the discharge estimates is this paper, published by the NOAA and citing a 1985 NOAA report for the discharge info: "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1985. National Estuarine Inventory, Data Atlas. Volume 1, Physical and Hydrologic Characteristics. National Ocean Service. Rockville, MD." It looks like the NOAA data is still actively compiled and available, and probably more current, but probably in GIS format. This NOAA page describes what seems to be the same basic data collection cited in the USGS paper. It's interesting that the page says NOAA gets "freshwater inflow" data from USGS stream gages and "tidal range and tidal prism volume" from NOS tide stations. I can't quite figure out right now whether the USGS stream gage or the NOAA estuarine inventory data would be most appropriate. The topic gets complicated fast. There are a few Wikipedia pages that help (sort of): tidal range, tidal prism, Inflow (hydrology), Discharge (hydrology), and Streamflow. Anyway, my sense is that the USGS stream gage data might be more appropriate than the NOAA estuarine data, but I'm not an expert on this topic (just weirdly fascinated). If nothing else the infobox's minimum of 50,000 cfs doesn't seem right, even according to the NOAA source. Also, despite my babbling, please feel free to brush all this aside as unnecessary, time-consuming, trivial, and arcane. The infobox's min field could just be left blank and all would be fine. Pfly (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the section on flow rates and it offers nothing of any value to understand how the infobox average can be less than the minimum. It is apparent from reading that section that the 50,000 figure quoted as the minimum is in fact not a minimum at all. It is a number that apparently refers to the maximum of a non-rain condition plus maximum tidal effects. In any case, the infobox is clearly in error on this point.Jlodman (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average < Minimum? 

message: This article presently uses a sub-template to hold its infobox contents. This makes it more difficult to keep the article and infobox in sync, and it's not much of a maintainability gain considering that the infobox is only ~3k or so. I reckon it should be moved back in here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how it's difficult to maintain the infobox. It's quite easy actually. If anything should be done to the infobox, it should be removed entirely. --Moni3 (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox move 

message: It is stated in the article that "the St. Johns has a very slow flow rate at a third of a mile an hour (0.2 km/h)".
One of the two figures must be wrong : a third of a mile is in fact 0.5 km.
However, either 1/3 mile is false, either 0.2 km.
130.92.9.55 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit conversion error 

message: This is a pretty bad image. I can't see what it is (even when expanded to 350 px, which it should not be), and as it stands currently, probably should not be in a featured article. Tony, can you find a replacement of better quality?
Also, placing this image in the same section where the map is sandwiches the text, squeezing it together, which should be avoided, and which I would be told to fix immediately during FAC. Do you have a suggestion about how to fix this? --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Capture of USS Columbine2.jpg]] 

message: A series of reports from the United States National Research Council review a St. Johns River Water Management District study of the possible ecological impacts of using the St. Johns River as a source of public water. The report can be found here:  http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Review-Johns-River/13314
Could we add some text on this? How about:
: The St. Johns River is under consideration as an additional water source to meet growing public water needs. In 2008, the river's Water Management District undertook a Water Supply Impact Study of the proposed water withdrawals and asked the National Research Council to review science aspects of the study as it progressed. This resulted in a series of four reports that assessed the impact of water withdrawal on river level and flow, reviewed potential impacts on wetland ecosystems, and presented overall perspectives on the Water Management District study http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13314. The National Research Council found that, overall, the District performed a competent job in relating predicted environmental responses, including their magnitude and general degree of uncertainty, to the proposed range of water withdrawals. However, the report noted that the District’s final report should acknowledge such critical issues as include future sea-level rises, population growth, and urban development. Although the District predicted that changes in water management would increase water levels and flows that exceed the proposed surface water withdrawals, these predictions have have high uncertainties. http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Review-Johns-River/13314
:The report also noted concerns about the District's conclusion that the water withdrawals will have few deleterious ecological effects. This conclusion was based on the model findings that increased flows from upper basin projects and from changes in land use (increases in impervious areas) largely compensated for the impacts of water withdrawals on water flows and levels. Although the upper basin projects are positive insofar as they will return land to the basin (and water to the river), the same cannot be said about increased urban runoff, the poor quality of which is well-known.http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Review-Johns-River/13314
I'd welcome any feedback. Earlgrey101 (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose adding mention of National Research Council reports on St. Johns River?

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/St. Johns River --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on St. Johns River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716143602/http://www.stjohnsriveralliance.com/waterwithdrawl.pdf to http://www.stjohnsriveralliance.com/waterwithdrawl.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on St. Johns River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005131503/http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/upper_st_johns/ to http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/upper_st_johns/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005131347/http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/middle_st_johns/ to http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/middle_st_johns/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005131342/http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/lower_st_johns/ to http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/lower_st_johns/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005131342/http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/lower_st_johns/ to http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/lower_st_johns/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005131347/http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/middle_st_johns/ to http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/middle_st_johns/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005131503/http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/upper_st_johns/ to http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/upper_st_johns/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813002433/http://sjr.state.fl.us/ to http://sjr.state.fl.us/
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) 19:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on St. Johns River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608195157/http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/ocklawaha/ to http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/ocklawaha/
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) 19:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on St. Johns River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060201012634/http://www.epa.gov/rivers/plan/stjohn1.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/rivers/plan/stjohn1.pdf
*Added  tag to http://sjr.state.fl.us/publications/pdfs/fs_sjrbigpicture.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116085805/http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to350/pap311/p311.htm to http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to350/pap311/p311.htm
*Added  tag to http://sjr.state.fl.us/publications/pdfs/fs_msjrb.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060201012642/http://www.epa.gov/rivers/plan/stjohn2.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/rivers/plan/stjohn2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002190645/http://www.kingfishtournament.com/rules_gt.php to http://www.kingfishtournament.com/rules_gt.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315112507/http://sjr.state.fl.us/springs/marion/silver.html to http://sjr.state.fl.us/springs/marion/silver.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504113900/http://sjr.state.fl.us/springs/marion/silver_glen.html to http://sjr.state.fl.us/springs/marion/silver_glen.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524074735/http://sjr.state.fl.us/springs/lake/alexander.html to http://sjr.state.fl.us/springs/lake/alexander.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315112512/http://sjr.state.fl.us/springs/volusia/blue.html to http://sjr.state.fl.us/springs/volusia/blue.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625062112/http://sjr.state.fl.us/minimumflowsandlevels/bluespring/index.html to http://sjr.state.fl.us/minimumflowsandlevels/bluespring/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831174528/http://www.epa.gov/rivers/eo13061.html to http://www.epa.gov/rivers/eo13061.html
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) 12:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on St. Johns River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027234557/http://www.sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_otters.pdf to http://www.sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_otters.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028002538/http://www.sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_lapopka.pdf to http://www.sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_lapopka.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160610114847/http://www.sjrwmd.com/stjohnsriver/facts.html to http://www.sjrwmd.com/stjohnsriver/facts.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731100438/http://www.sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_minflowlevels.pdf to http://www.sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_minflowlevels.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514201922/http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/pdf/History_Report.pdf to http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/pdf/History_Report.pdf
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) 20:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on St. Johns River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316054402/http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/073108/lif_311065844.shtml to http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/073108/lif_311065844.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705162754/http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041708/met_269111418.shtml to http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041708/met_269111418.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705133726/http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041808/opl_269404251.shtml to http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041808/opl_269404251.shtml
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) 06:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)