Zapzooma
Edits River Colne
editThank you for your edits on the River Colne, however you have not provided any comments on your reasons for changing them and thus enable dialogue between fellow editors. I would like to draw your attention to WikiProject Rivers and their guidelines for article structure. There is no need to separate source and course into different sections as the former is intrinsically a part of the other. I will be merging these together again. Your other edits are perfectly good. This particular article has been identified by the Yorkshire Wiki Project as need of clean up which I and others are undertaking as part of work on bringing other geographic articles up to a minimum standard, please feel free to join the effort. I recommend you use the help sections which help you editing.Rimmer1993 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article is clearer the way i've done it. Why bother to merge it and confuse readers? Describing the source separately is more educational for the lay-reader. If you put the source under course then the meaning becomes obscure because it describes the courses of several brooks before the river is formed, and so the courses of those brooks do not constitute the course of the colne. Those brooks are the source of the river colne, not its course. The course only begins after the river has been formed at the confluence.Zapzooma (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for discussing these changes. The intention is not to confuse, but to achieve some consistency between articles. At the moment there are a lot of river articles that are stubs like the River Colne. I would ask you to look at the WikiProject page for Rivers as above, where there is some guidance on how these articles could be written. These are guidelines and so not written in stone and not all headings will be appropriate or used for all articles on rivers. As stated above also, this article needs work to add more information and this discussion should really be on the discussion page of the article for others to contribute and come to a consensus. Good Wikipedia articles are the result of a collaborative effort.Rimmer1993 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've copied this conversation to the river colne discussion page as requested, and proposed the source idea on the rivers project page to see what other people think.Zapzooma (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for discussing these changes. The intention is not to confuse, but to achieve some consistency between articles. At the moment there are a lot of river articles that are stubs like the River Colne. I would ask you to look at the WikiProject page for Rivers as above, where there is some guidance on how these articles could be written. These are guidelines and so not written in stone and not all headings will be appropriate or used for all articles on rivers. As stated above also, this article needs work to add more information and this discussion should really be on the discussion page of the article for others to contribute and come to a consensus. Good Wikipedia articles are the result of a collaborative effort.Rimmer1993 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)