Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

Active discussions
WikiProject Rivers (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

AFD on List of Latin names of riversEdit

See ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of rivers, where there is suggestion that List of Latin names of rivers might be deleted or might be merged to List of European rivers with alternative names. --Doncram (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Article titles for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and BelarusEdit

Clarification to WP:NCRIVER for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus: Articles should be titled "X" if they're the only or primary topic
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several years ago we established a naming convention for rivers, see WP:NCRIVER. I quote:

River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage. "River X" is used for many (but not all) rivers in the UK and Ireland. "X River" is the norm in the Americas. "X river" (i.e. non-capitalized "river") is not recommended. When common usage does not include the word "River", but disambiguation is required (e.g. the river Inn in central Europe), parenthetical, non-capitalized "river" should be used: Inn (river). In other words neither "river" (without parentheses) nor "River" should be used to disambiguate articles. Country-specific exceptions to this rule should be discussed within WikiProject Rivers and/or that country's WikiProject.

Currently, the plain "X" (or "X (river)" in case of ambiguity) is now used for rivers in most European countries, except Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, where most article titles are "X River". I don't think "River" is part of the name of these rivers, nor is the Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian equivalent Река, Річка or Рака part of the local names of the rivers (see for instance the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine). Therefore I propose to move these river articles to titles that are consistent with WP:NCRIVER and with articles about rivers in other European countries: "X", or "X (river)" if disambiguation is needed. In total there's about 1,100 river articles that would need to be moved. So yes that's quite some work, but I don't mind doing it. I will announce this discussion at the three country Wikiprojects as well. Markussep Talk 14:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  • That sounds good to me. Thank you! --TimK MSI (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not see why it should be consistent. This is not a Wikipedia policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Surprised anyone would oppose this, so voicing my support as long as they're not referred to as "X reka" locally. Just be careful if you do it in bulk. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    They are not referred as X reka locally in Russian (well, nost of them - for example the Moskva is always Moskva reka). And, indeed, in the Russian Wikipedia most titles do not have river in the title, for example, the Volga River is just Волга. However, we are in the English Wikipedia. and the relevant question is how these rivers are referred to in English. And if I take Britannica for example, I find there - surprise - Volga River.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    But the word "River" in "Volga River" may or may not be used as a proper noun in English. I don't see any reason why this can't be moved to Volga (river). A better example would be the Tereshka River - this isn't referenced much in English and is typically referred to as a river or as Tereshka River or River Tereshka. And in any circumstance, the same occurs with other rivers in eastern Europe which have had their naming conventions changed. It's also not that big of a change and works within existing consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    There is no existing consensus, otherwise we would not have separate naming conventions for the UK or the US. And current naming is we covered by River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X".--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    WP:NCRIVER is part of WP:NCGN, which is a guideline. You're right that we should follow English usage, and that Britannica uses "Volga River". Britannica also uses "Rhine River", "Nile River" and "Danube River", where Wikipedia uses "Rhine", "Nile" and "Danube". Many other English language encylopedias and dictionaries do not use the "River" form, see Columbia Encyclopedia,, Lexico, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Collins. Markussep Talk 08:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    Right, which means we are in a "I do not like it" area.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    The separate naming convention for the UK and US is nothing to do with a lack of consensus. Both those countries have official names for their rivers which can be looked up. Indeed in Britain there are even rivers called Sydling Water, Bere Stream and Carnon River. However, for other countries authors tend to use the convention of their homeland e.g. it's unsurprising that Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Foo River" because it's an American publication. But calling a river "Foo" is also very common and has the advantage that a) it often reflects national naming and b) it is region-neutral i.e. neither American nor British nor Australian etc. in flavour. But insisting on e.g. Russian rivers always being called "Foo River" is forcing an American convention on them that even their native nomenclature doesn't use. Bermicourt (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel the names of these rivers will be sufficiently unusual in the context of English Wikipedia to avoid difficulty in locating the appropriate articles. Is there some more important reason to adhere to an inflexible convention? Thewellman (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Partial support. I support moving river articles from "X River" to "X" in cases that are not ambiguous or where the river is clearly a primary topic. For example, I support moving "Volga River" to "Volga" (Volga already redirects to Volga River) for simplicity and in accordance to predominant usage. I do not support moving "X River" to "X (river)" because I don't see any benefit of doing so. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    There is a fundamental difference between "X River" and "X (river)": the former implies that "River" is part of the name. Note that WP:NCRIVER now says neither "river" (without parentheses) nor "River" should be used to disambiguate articles. You said you don't see a benefit of moving "X River" to "X (river)", but do you see objections (apart from the work moving the articles and updating links)? Markussep Talk 07:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency, for compliance with the guideline, but most of all because it reflects general usage in English as well as Russian sources.Bermicourt (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support less for consistency and more per User:Bermicourt's comments above: "[I]nsisting on e.g. Russian rivers always being called "Foo River" is forcing an American convention on them that even their native nomenclature doesn't use." Volga River in particular grates the eyes (but not any worse than Yenisei River or Irtysh River). I you want to get more input, do a move request with a couple of them and see what happens. —  AjaxSmack  21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support to no surprise I fully support the idea, since I already tried it before but failed. My argumentation follows exactly the line of Bermicourt's and AjaxSmack's. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for participating in the discussion. I think the conclusion is that articles about rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus should be titled "X" if they're the only or primary topic (for example Volga, Yenisei, Irtysh, Berezina) and "X (river)" if disambiguation is needed and they are not obviously the primary topic (for example Kostroma (river), Don (river), Pripyat (river)). If there are more rivers with the same name, parentheses will be used for disambiguation, see WP:NCRIVER. I will notify the three country Wikiprojects, and then I will start moving articles. Markussep Talk 08:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but this needs to be formally closed by someone who has not participated in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That's just gaming the system - this is definitely a case of WP:SNOW. Bermicourt (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Ymblanter, i have reviewed this conversation. A preponderance of respondents support the proposal. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Then please close it, with {{atop}}, {{abot}}, some (possibly brief) summary of arguments, and your signature.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Ideally, the arguments must be supported by a policy, but it is probably too much to expect this.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Philoserf: could you close the discussion formally? The discussion was about how to apply the existing WP:NCRIVER to rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and specifically whether common usage for these rivers includes the word "River". If an argument is needed, probably WP:CONCISE. Markussep Talk 17:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Markussep, can do...standby —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

course of the riverEdit


this just to say that the Woluwe does not cross the municipality of Evere

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luc Lebrun 2 (talkcontribs) 09:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal at Charding NullahEdit

Hi, there is a proposal here to split part of the article on the river Charding Nullah into a new article called Demchok dispute. Any input is appreciated! — MarkH21talk 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

More tributary disambiguators to updateEdit

I've done about 1200 river moves to update to the 2017 consensus convention (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 139#RfC about river disambiguation conventions), but there are still about 500 to go according to my latest search. I've compiled a list at User:Dicklyon/tributaries, and if there are no objections here I can ask for a bot to do these moves. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of adding the seemingly superfluous word "tributary" to an already perfectly good disambiguator, but if there is a consensus among American editors to do that for American rivers, who am I to object. Bermicourt (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not that often that you see a unanimous consent like this. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed a few outliers on the list like Chu River (Tributary of Wei River) that should be held back from the bot (a ctrl-f search for "tributary of" will identify the ones in that format) but otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks! --TimK MSI (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Good catch; I had caught "tributary to" but not "tributary of". I went ahead and removed the Russian Ob and Ik related ones, as there's a separate discussion about Russian river name conventions, and at least one of those was a redirect anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and manually moved 3 Chinese ones, to see if that gets any pushback, and took them out of the list so that we don't have to worry about that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I made the list using queries like this one. I'm sure I missed some things. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have requested a bot to do this, at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Move 500 River articles per consensus on tributary disambiguator. Please comment if you care one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:BD2412 has been doing a bunch of these by hand in the meantime. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Please note that Ship canal, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

German riversEdit

A lot of the German rivers are poorly sourced, even by German wiki standards and don't have many sources available in a search. We have stubs on small tributaries and even the parent rivers which are tributaries of more notable rivers are still short stubs. In looking I think we'd be better off having stubs on the larger ones and redirecting the smaller tributaries and simply listing them as tributaries and at least trying to write a few sourced paragraphs. Dill (river) for example we ought to have a detailed article on that and for tributaries such as Aar (Dill). The German wikipedia article for Aar for instance is detailed but poorly sourced so it's difficult to transwiki it and chase up the sourcing. I don't think we should have seperate articles on tributaries of the Aar too like Monzenbach (which I redirected). The granddad river needs writing properly first! I really think a great number of the German rivers should be redirected into a tributary list/summary in the larger rivers until they can be researched properly. It's difficult to find detailed sources on a lot of them. Ideally we'd have decent articles on every one, but it's frustrating browsing categories by German state and not being able to find the more notable rivers and a decent well-researched article.† Encyclopædius 12:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that many of the about 3000 German river articles are very short, and do not give much more information than their location and the river they flow into. But IMO the question is whether all these rivers are notable or not. WP:GEOLAND states that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.". And also: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.". I think it's not too difficult to find German sources for most of these rivers, it's just much work. So it's a good idea to set priorities about which articles to improve first. About Encyclopædius' last remark, the main rivers of a state should be mentioned in the geography section of the articles about the state. Maybe this could be improved as well. Markussep Talk 20:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Redirecting rivers of less import to their parents works for me; should the need or desire manifest itself, they can always be reverted and then constructed as actual articles rather than mere thumbnails. –Vami_IV♠ 16:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That's true, but I would only do that if the article is not referenced, and there's no hope that it will ever be expanded beyond coordinates and length. For instance because it is a very small stream, like the Dittenbach (2.4 km according to German Wikipedia). Markussep Talk 12:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd caution against turning lots of river stubs into redirects. It only takes seconds to trash something, but much longer to rebuild it once it's been trashed. I've expanded dozens of German river stubs into bigger articles because there's been a basis on which to build (infobox, categories, interwiki links, lede and basic structure and data), but I wouldn't waste the effort of starting the article up from scratch if it's a redirect.
So, being positive, I'd focus our efforts on expanding the stubs, not scrapping them unless they really are very small, in which case we should be careful to import the info into the parent river. Bermicourt (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur with focusing efforts on expanding stubs, and suggest early emphasis might be ensuring all tributary streams include an internal link to their discharge point, and that discharge point article includes an internal link to that tributary. It is very difficult to predict when some presently little-known stream may become a focus of attention through future events and circumstances. In the meantime, Wikipedia's internal link structure will enable readers to readily find an article focused on that point of interest. Thewellman (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Rivers".