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)

any guidance for converting from Infobox River to Geobox|River?[edit]

"The field names are not fully compatible with the earlier Infobox template". I'll say! I went to add source and mouth coordinates to Ipswich River, only to discover that since it used the infobox instead of the geobox, the source_lat_d and mouth_lat_d parameters didn't work. So I thought I'd try converting it from the infobox to the geobox, but it's not trivial! What to do with basin_countries? What to do with progression? Besides converting all the parameter names that have data, should I also convert all the blank ones (since the old infobox names probably won't work with the geobox if someone fills them in later)? Or just delete them? Should I paste in a full, new Geobox skeleton, even though that'll obscure the diffs? I just don't know.

(Not trying to sound peevish, just wondering if there's a right way to do this...) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would you want to? I thought the general consensus was moving away from the unwieldy "one size attempts to fit all but fails" geobox back to separate topographic infoboxes. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
My only incentive was adding source and mouth coordinates, which the geobox has a very explicit way to do.
If there's good a way to do that with the infobox, I'll happily do that instead. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I answered this at Template talk:Geobox/type/river which was basically that I tend to copy a Geobox skeleton into the article above the old infobox, and then copy over the details one by one and then delete the infobox at the end. I'm not sure there is 'a general consensus' on not using them, I don't think anything got agreed when its possible demise was discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_river#Geobox.2C_again. Given the infobox war that did occur later, my understanding was that which one to use was down to discussion etc. see WP:INFOBOXUSE. Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks very much for the pointer to last summer's discussion; I shall be extra careful not to step into that particular minefield! :-)
I don't have any pressing desire to convert all the river infoboxes to geoboxes, but I do have a pressing desire to whittle down Category:Massachusetts articles missing geocoordinate data, and there are a lot of rivers on there. Now, the thing I like about the geobox is that I don't have to agonize over whether to specify the coordinates of the mouth or the source -- I can specify both, and somebody else takes care of deciding which one goes in the title bar.
If there's a well-defined way of specifying source and mouth coordinates in the infobox please let me know! (If not, I may look into modifying the infobox template to add that capability...) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There must be a way of doing it. Infobox River could do worse that imitate the German Wiki equivalent which I still use when translating because it's far faster (no template conversion needed) and more comprehensive. Check out the Aller article for an example of what we could do with Infobox River. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting. I think there's a little bug in this (en.wikipedia) version of Template:Infobox Fluss1, though: notice how the Aller article lists the source coordinates in the title bar, contrary to our policy (as I understand it) to list the mouth coordinates. (Nor does the German version of the template do it that way; at de:Aller, the mouth coordinates are in the title bar.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know the current situation on this? I see the Ipswich River now has mouth and source coords in the infobox, and mouth coords in the title bar, as it should be. But de:Aller seems to still have source coords in the title bar. Is this just an issue with the German template and the English one is working as it should? Pfly (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
At risk of opening a can of worms, my understanding of the infobox/geobox debate was that nothing was decided and people are free to use whichever template they like best. And that both could be improved, and that maybe someday, if one template is clearly superior there might be consensus to try to use just one. I assume this is still the case? I haven't been following Wikipedia as closely as I used to. Personally, I've long preferred geobox, although it is far from ideal in many ways. One thing I like about it is the way it deals with discharge data. But even there it's not perfect. If ever template folks want to hash out exactly what would make a perfect river template, please let me know. I have lots of opinions about it! As for last summer, I understand Andy Mabbett's desire for a single info/geobox, but found myself agreeing more with Ruhrfisch's comments. I think tweaking infobox river and geobox river are unlikely to ever result in one being obviously superior. To do that would take some low-level discussion on what exactly would make an ideal info/geobox for rivers. Whether it is worth the effort is another question. I suspect there aren't enough editors interested in rivers to deal with the work that would likely ensue. Me, I have no problem with there being two options. Pfly (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

coordinates and Infobox river[edit]

For those wanting to add coordinates to articles using Infobox river, I've got mods to that template to support this. See Template talk:Infobox river#new coordinate parameters. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The changes to the {{Infobox river}} template are now live. Everyone can start using the new template parameters. Also, there are something like 6,725 existing river articles (!) which (a) use the Infobox river template and (b) have the coordinates specified some other way than by those new parameters. Ideally all of those articles would have the coordinates merged into the template, although it will obviously be a fair amount of work, and it probably can't be automated, because there are a bunch of different cases, and some hand checking required. I'll discuss this further (and try to figure out a way of providing a list of the 6,725 articles) in a new thread below. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal[edit]

If anyone is here, they might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pennsylvania Streams. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

River disambiguation[edit]

An editor has moved a number of articles on UK rivers needing disambiguation from brackets to commas. The following discussion has started at User talk:SilkTork, which I am moving here.--Mhockey (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think your multiple moves of river articles need discussion - I don't think WP:COMMADIS supports these moves. I have commented at Talk:River Yeo (South Somerset). Thanks.--Mhockey (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Other UK rivers are disambiguated the same way, and this does follow WP:COMMADIS. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree. There is a lot of variation in disambiguating rivers (and there is nothing special about UK rivers). Which bit of WP:COMMADIS do you think supports your moves?--Mhockey (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
There were two factors. 1) There were already more UK rivers that used comma disambiguation; 2): "Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses". The two factors appeared to work together in harmony. And that follows all other place names where commas are used in place of brackets. I think that at one time brackets were first choice, but over the years commas have come to be preferred as that makes it easier to link when writing article; for example: "light craft use the River Yeo, Somerset" is easy and natural. And such usage is found elsewhere: [1], "River+Yeo%2C+Somerset"&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=%22River+Yeo%2C+Somerset%22&safe=off&tbm=bks, while "River Yeo (South Somerset)" is only found in Wikipedia mirrors. It is clearly artifical, and is not a natural search term. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
But River Yeo, South Somerset isn't a natural search term either. The natural disambiguation for UK rivers in ordinary writing is usually the name of the largest place on the river, e.g. the Bristol Avon, the Stratford Avon, the Lapford Yeo, the Barnstaple Yeo.
Rivers are not really "places", and Bristol, Stratford, Lapford and Barnstaple are not "higher-level administrative divisions" than the rivers they are on. The present consensus on disambiguating rivers is at WP:NCRIVER, to use brackets. I'll move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers, to see if others want to change the current guidance.--Mhockey (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Any other views?--Mhockey (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The current consensus on UK rivers is to use comma rather than brackets for dab purposes. The dab is usually the county in which the majority of the river lies. Keith D (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Could you support this assertion by pointing us to one or more discussions that arrived at that consensus? --Malepheasant (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
An indication of the consensus for commas, can be taken from the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers still has the following section;
The talk page of which, will lead you to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers/Archive_2#Correct_ambiguity_in_naming_section, which is a five year old discussion that ended with no consensus, and no change to the original 'How to' essay. I support the need for change on this, and the use of the comma dab for UK rivers, as it is similar to how UK places are dabbed.--Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
If the Environment Agency already has a system we should use that. I saw that they were using "Esk (Cumbria)", which suggests a bracketing system, but haven't done any comprehensive research to see if that's their norm. If not, then if the disambiguator is a county, we should use the normal format i.e. "Esk, Cumbria", and if the disambiguator is something else, e.g. parent river or a non-admin unit, we should use brackets. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jokulhlaup for the links. To further illustrate how badly scattered around Wikipedia such guidelines seem to be, I'll note this from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation

With natural features, the tag normally appears in parentheses, as in Eagle River (Colorado). Specific pre-existing national conventions may take precedence though.

The UK section on the same page addresses "localities" and "places" but not natural features (which isn't to say it couldn't.) Personally I like having a distinction in treatment between populated places and natural features. I'm inclined to think that being "similar to how UK places are dabbed" is an argument against disambiguating natural features in an identical way, because the [placename, larger placename] construction is so strongly associated with populated places.--Malepheasant (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:NCRIVER is generally to disambiguate by brackets. Until recent changes (which do not seem to have been discussed), most UK rivers used bracket disambiguation, like rivers elsewhere. Why should UK rivers be disambiguated differently? There is no clear local usage that would support comma disambiguation. The reason for preferring brackets for rivers is presumably that the diambiguator for rivers varies so much - largest place on the river, river to which it is a tributary, political entity containing the largest part of the river's course, and no doubt others. With places, you can almost always say that the place is in the disambiguator, so comma disambiguation seems natural. You cannot say that with many disambiguators of rivers. --Mhockey (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I support bracketed disambiguation. A river name is not a "place name", and WP:COMMADIS applies to place names only. A place exists within a hierarchy of larger places, and in some countries one or more of those larger places is often treated as part of the natural name of the place - "Wilmington, Delaware" etc. Commas work fine for well-defined places such as cities and villages, perhaps also mountains, but a river is a linear entity which may pass through or beside many places at various levels. The bracket disambiguator allows for flexibility (eg to distinguish the 4 Somerset Yeos), and seems altogether more appropriate, as already recognised in the wording of the guidelines of this rivers project. PamD 19:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mhockey, Malepheasant and PamD. There's nothing special about UK rivers (or their treatment in British English) justifying that their articles' titles be formatted differently from those of other articles about rivers (and natural features in general).
As Malepheasant said, "similar to how UK places are dabbed" is an argument against such a practice. The wording "higher-level administrative division" was selected carefully, and I'm baffled as to why it's been deemed applicable to rivers (which, as PamD noted, belong to no such hierarchy).
Many low-level administrative divisions (including the one in which I was raised) have the word "River" in their names (often because they share these names with nearby rivers). To me, "River Yeo, Somerset" comes across as the name of a populated place. There's no valid reason to introduce that sort of confusion. —David Levy 20:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguate rivers with brackets and communities with commas. For example: the river, Black River (New York) vs. the community, Black River, New York. Gjs238 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with several other comments that using commas with rivers confuses the scope of applicability for WP:COMMADIS. Rivers are a geographical feature, not a place name. I have seen no strong evidence that there is a well-established tradition of using commas with river names in British English to warrant a WP:ENGVAR exception. olderwiser 12:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Boundary river naming, help please?[edit]

There are multiple Nagar Rivers, and one of them forms part of the boundary between India and Bangladesh (it's currently a red link as Nagar River (Rangpur)). Could someone please advise me what a page about it should be named? (Actually, I don't have much information about it, just some on the Bangladesh side, but perhaps enough to make a start that I hope other people could add to.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You could have a look at Category:Border rivers which has a few dabbed rivers that cross international boundaries. It would seem that you need to select the smallest political entity that covers the river on each side of the border e.g. Pigeon River (Minnesota–Ontario).--Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Branch[edit]

Hello, I recently created this article, to help disambiguate between the large numbers of articles on streams called Nancy (see Nancy Creek). I can find sources for Nancy Branch, but not reliable sources. Can anyone help? Thank you, Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The USGS GNIS is a good source for U.S. place names. Rmhermen (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2014 (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.