Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rivers (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon 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.

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges etc[edit]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Category:Rivers_of_the_Boundary_Ranges on the Categories for discussion page.

Romanian river stub articles[edit]

Out of a total of the 24,500 or so WP rivers pages, about half (12,700) are stub articles that have an unknown importance. The majority of these (about 8,000) are Romania river articles. Having looked at a number, they are all very similar short stubs usually of one sentence saying that the Foo river is a tributary of the Bar river in Romania - see Adona River as an example.

I am considering asking if these stubs can all be marked up with a Rivers importance of Low via a Bot request. I have reviewed the articles in the List of longest rivers of Romania, and the top 75 scoring rivers in this selection and made changes where required to make sure they are all still stubs and of low importance.

The Bot runners usually ask if the involved project has given approval for such changes, so I thought I would see if there is any support, or otherwise for getting this done. I have also asked user @Afil:, who created the articles for his views. The WP: Romania template can also be changed from unknown to Low importance at the same time. Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this idea in general, but I would suggest that you consider requesting Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks help rather than 'bot runner help.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the support, AWB was Plan B, there may also be issues with the template as they only have {{river|class=stub}} which may cause problems, I also didn't fancy clicking through 8,000 articles if a 'bot could do it instead.Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to have a bot do that. Kmusser (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
two cents here from me. The list of affected talk pages is available here Warning - large page. Please direct any queries about this to WP:BOTREQ#Romanian river stub articles. I have already coded this, so if there are no objections, I will submit a BRFA in the next few days. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mdann52: Thanks for the update, and for submitting the BRFA. I have randomly checked through more of these articles, and could find no issues...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The 'bot User:Mdann52 bot completed a successful trial, and is now working its way at about six articles per minute through the remainder of the 8,000 articles, so may take 24 hours to complete the task...Jokulhlaup (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. However, I am unable to run it non-stop (I can't run AWB on toolserver), so it will take a few days to run through the task. My results inducate I am making around 6 edits/min during quieter times, dropping to 4 edits/min in peak times. Unfortunately, I can not run it any quicker than this. I am shutting the task down now, but plan to restart tomorrow morning. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know, all looking good so far...Jokulhlaup (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Task complete[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes check.svg task complete. Please let me know if I can help in future - as I have the code, I can easily adjust it for future use. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the time in on setting this up and overseeing the run, it has made a significant dent in the unknown importance articles for both the Rivers and Romanian projects. Big success all round...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

List of main tributes to the Sambre[edit]

Thanks to help given at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Piéton a tributary of the Sambre, I have now created an article called Piéton, I was furnished with enough information to add a list of main tributes to the Sambre, it turns out that there were a couple of other streams that already had articles. Please could someone look them all over and add any missing details such as the correct stub and an information box similar to the ones in the sister language articles to Piéton. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a Geobox to the only tributary with an article which was the Hanzinne, the Ligne (river) was only a redirect back to the Sambre...Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. If you have time could you please could you add the Geobox to the Piéton article? -- PBS (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Added as requested...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope of Rivers Project[edit]

Whilst looking through and assessing articles that contain the Rivers Template, I’ve noticed there are some articles that could be viewed as being outside of the scope of the project. Examples include;

My view is that most of the above article types and their examples have been tagged for WP:Rivers with the best intentions, but would be better placed under other wiki projects, such as Waterfalls, Dams, Bridges and Islands etc. Not sure about the Floods and River Morphology articles though, they are related, but not really covered by our guidelines and assessments which are based on writing articles describing individual natural watercourses (of various sizes).

Does anyone else hold a similar view, or have a better oversight of what should or should not be included...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if I should take the silence as a weak consensus on this, or as a sign that everyone has taken a Wikibreak for the summer...Jokulhlaup (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Waterfalls, dams, bridges, mills, floods and islands have their own projects so that's fine; they don't need to be here. I think it definitely makes sense that river morphology and processes are part of this project and probably river islands. Canals and aqueducts don't have their own project, but I'm not sure they're right to be parked here. Water law and organizations - no unless they're specifically river-only related. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, sounds reasonable to me. Having had a look around, Canals seems to be covered by WP Transport, and water supply aqueducts by WP Water, although those projects don't seem to be vary very active...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The clarification seems very sensible to me, too. I have added talk pages for many rivers, and contributed articles on rivers in England and Kazakhstan. I correct or add to talk pages regardless whetHer the project is active or not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
If we reach a consensus, we could include this in our guidelines, although it may be worth leaving some flexibility for editors to agree to include certain other river-related articles on a case-by-case basis. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)D

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Category:Crossings of the Susquehanna River is the category placing the Safe Harbor Dam in a river subcategory. There are probably thousands of dams, bridges and tunnels in this category, with individual articles and lists. I have taken pictures of the Safe Harbor Dam on 4 July 2013, so that caught my eye immediately. Are we agreed that these categories are properly in the overall Rivers category?--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, the reason I included Safe Harbor Dam, was that it has the Rivers Template banner and appeared when I compared the Rivers and Dams article lists . Looking at that Susquehanna Category, Safe Harbour seems to be the only article that has the template, so it seems to be a one-off. Your post does raise a good point though, about List of Crossings articles and the matching Categories being included within Rivers. If none of the articles in the listing or the category fall into the Rivers project, then I would think that both the list and the category should not be included within the project or tagged as such...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I took away the Rivers template on the Talk:Safe Harbor Dam that I put there four years ago by mistake.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
DThomsen8, not sure you should class it as a mistake, as we have only got round to discussing this now, four years on. I have followed your lead and removed the other WP Dam related articles...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boeme[edit]

Dear river experts: Since this is an article about a river, it will eventually be accepted into the encyclopedia. What should the name of the article be? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

French Wikipedia calls it the Boëme. As we seem to like foreign accents on Wikipedia, we should probably go with that. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
So not Boëme River or Boëme (river)? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I think it's a US practice to call their rivers "Foo River", just like the Brits call theirs "River Foo". Nothing wrong with that, but for European rivers at least we tend to use the name only unless it needs dabbing in which case we use "Foo (river)". In this case there is no clash, so it'd just be Boëme. See Category:Rivers of France and Category:Rivers of Germany. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay - it's in mainspace now, thanks to Jokulhlaup's improvement. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion possibly of interest[edit]

A discussion about a proposed merger of separate articles about tributaries into the article about the stream into which the tributaries flow, here: Talk:Forked Deer River#Proposed merge with Middle Fork of the Forked Deer River. --Malepheasant (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive4[edit]

Please comment on the FAC for Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River). Thanks. --Jakob (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)