|Yarlung Tsangpo has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Geography, Physical. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article talk has been given the wrong name - redirected without consensusEdit
This article and talk page has been moved from Yarlung Zangbo River and Talk:Yarlung Zangbo River. Please discuss or move back. Else rewrite the article to match the new name you have given it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Brahmaputra is the lowercase of Yarlung Zangbo, not the whole river. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with above. The pictures etc. apply only to Yarlung Zangbo and not to the part of the river in India, Brahmaputra, which has different features. —mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Favor - Existing arrangement disguises the fact that the same physical river has no less than four different names: Yarlung Zanbo in Tibet/China, Dihang in the mountains above Assam, Brahmaputra on the plains of Assam, then Jamuna in Bangladesh.
- The problem is, how can you possibly title the article without provoking endless edit wars between Chinese vs. Tibetan irredentists, China vs. India, India vs. Assamese separatists, India vs. Bangladesh and everyone against geographers wanting to lump together this system with Ganga/Ganges? LADave (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yarlung Tsangpo RiverEdit
This discussion was started on my talk page, but has been moved here, as it is more relevant to the article than on a personal talk page. --17:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Hi Mike,
Would it be possible to help move back "Yarlung Tsangpo River" to its original common English title as per discussion on the talk page (discussion closed on 9 May 2009, but the title was changed again on 19 July and 5 August of the same year?
- Done - Had to fix a dozen double redirects after the move. I've move protected the article for 30 days just in case. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Pseudo was mentioning an outdated discussion result to youEdit
The discussion Pseudo mentioned was an outdated one - the Yarlung Zangbo was even once moved to Yalu Tsangpo River by Davidchatet right after the discussion mentioned by Pseudois, showing that there's no consensus about the name by then. The last consensus was reached in 22 Nov 2009, and prefer the term "Yarlung Zangbo". So the article should be moved back to the last ratified one (Yarlung Zangbo River) until new consensus reached. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please not like that 虞海! You are once again trying to present my argumentation in a totally different light as it is in reality, and your own argumentation does not stand a rapid analysis. Here two points:
- You said that I mentioned an outdated discussion. I wrote clearly to Mike that "discussion closed on 9 May 2009, but the title was changed again on 19 July and 5 August of the same year". There was no other discussion after the 9 May 2009 to justify the changes made on 19 July and 5 August (the latest by you), and no consensus met. How can this be outdated?
- Your wrote that the last consensus was reached on 22 November and preferred the term "Yarlung Zangbo". That's simply false, or it is me who is not able to find where this discussion took place. Can you please enlighten me? According to what I found, a now banned editor (User:TrueColour) with a very conflicting edit history (User talk:TrueColour) made a requested move (uncontroversial request) on 21 November at 22:37 to move from "Yarlung Zangbo (river)" to "Yarlung Zangbo River" and a well intentioned admin (User:Anthony Appleyard) made the move a few hours later (22 November at 05:08), as, indeed, the point was about the use of the "(..)" around the word river. This had nothing to do with the discussion between Tsangpo and Zangbo, and did not require consensus or discussion.
- The fact is that your move on 5 August 2009 was done in total disregard to the talk page. It either went undetected, or the fact is that you are simply demotivating good faith and constructive editors, who are losing huge amount of time to revert your unconstructive edits or discuss your biaised comments as I have to do now. I also noticed during the Sishapangma discussion that you have continued doing controversial edits of similar nature on other pages while the other editors were patiently waiting for the end of the discussion. Is this a deliberate tactical behavior of yours? Deliberate or not, this is not serving the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, and I have come to the conclusion that you may not understand the true meaning of the term.--Pseudois (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- PS. Here the reference to the move maded by Anthony Appleyard--Pseudois (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Problem with mapEdit
The above map shown in this article seems to conflate the Y-T catchment with that of the upper Indus. AFAIK the Y-T rises east of the twin lakes Manasarovar and Rakshastal appearing just left of "Yarlung Tsangpo" on the map.
Another map associated with the Brahmaputra River article may be more accurate in this respect:
Source of river discussionEdit
This article presently gives the source of the river as Tamlung Tso, however the map attached to this article  in the journal of Himalayan Club  identifies a slightly more distal source shown as 'Khubi Gangri'. This is just NE of the Yarlung Tsangpo's triple divide with the Sutlej and Karnali at 30.32964N, 82.01128E on the Tibet-Nepal border. .
For another view see: . Placing your mouse cursor at the crosshairs in the image center produces a caption "Angri Glacier". "Khubri Gangri" may be synonymous with its terminus. Placing your mouse cursor over the small lake directly above, near the top, produces the caption "Tamlung Tso", the source identified in this article. However if accepted rules are followed to define a River source, the glacier terminus would seem to be a more definitive source for the river than the lake. Comments? LADave (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)