Talk:Suriname River

Comments

Re spelling - WP policy is that either UK or US spelling is allowed, but must be consitent within the article. Once a choice is made, it stays as once it starts getting changed it inevitably drags in other editors & starts interminable edit wars (cf. Jewellery) I personally could care less which spelling & am not at all offended by aluminium, but please let's stick with WP policy on this.Bridesmill 14:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment2

Just revisited your article and slightly rephrased opening sentence so that it sounds more natural in English. I'll remove proofreading request from Translation page now. Hikitsurisan 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The Upper Suriname River should be merged here. It is just a subset of the same river. Both articles are not so large that a split is warranted. Not even the largest rivers on earth (Nile and Amazon) have the info split in upper and lower sections. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 22:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Support - I agree with this proposal. SOUTHCOM (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2024

Do not merge This question is not logical/mathematical. In between is a hydrolic lake (Brokopondo Lake). As well Samaaka people are living here, not down stream. And this region is different for culture reasons, after Brokopondo Lake the world is completely different. One doesn't merge Mexico and USA either. Ymnes (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is not logical. These articles are about the river, not regions or countries. Any differences in culture and people should be discussed in the region articles. So the example of Mexico and USA is totally irrelevant. True, we don't doesn't merge Mexico and USA, but there is only 1 article for each river that flows through both countries (e.g. Rio Grande). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The river was naturally just one stream but, when a dam was created, it was artificially interrupted by Brokopondo Reservoir which split Suriname River into two. I can see Ymnes's point. The Nile river also has separate articles for the Blue Nile and White Nile. Perhaps we should leave it as is. SOUTHCOM (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The example of Blue Nile and White Nile is also not quite relevant, because they are tributaries. On the other hand, the Nile also has a huge man-made lake that "cuts" the river in 2 - Lake Nasser - south of which is a different country and culture. And yet, there is still only one article because it is the same river. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This area is culturally and historically different. There is no need for a merger, that is not logical. Ymnes (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@P199: In that case, it would make perfect sense to merge this with the main Suriname River article. I think the merge should go forward. Let's go ahead. We have subsections that can accommodate any cultural differences (the entire Suriname River population is culturally diverse). History is one of the same. SOUTHCOM (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• comments: 1. In upper Suriname, second sentence, the first 3 words do not make sense. 2. Need explain relation between Maroons on the two rivers. 3. In Suriname,"lower suriname' should be added where appropriate and the distinction should be emphasized. 4. Maybe keep the split since river articles often cover history and culture and the 2 halves are different in those terms, Benjamin Trovato (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)