Talk:List of watershed topics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Geology

	Geology portal Talk:List of watershed topics is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Mid‑importance

	Geography portal This article 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Watershed list[edit]

The accompanying article received, as its initial content, part of the former content of a page now at Watershed. Part of the discussion at formerly at talk:Watershed no longer directly concerns the content of that page, and is more applicable to the accompanying list page. Hence that former section is now the portion of this section that is timestamped 14:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC) or earlier.
--Jerzy•t 06:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I've restored what I think is a bit of a hasty deletion, of a list of watersheds. The summary for the deletion (by User:Avenue) read: "Remove list of watersheds - these should be linked from the corresponding article (water divide or drainage basin), or combined in a list of their own".

I think there is some merit to moving many of these: the links for individual drainage basins. They do crowd this page, and although that is not necessarily reason enough to move them, it would certainly be tidier without them. Also, I suspect that there are a good many more which might get added to the list in the future.

It is not appropriate to link them only from Drainage basin. That's not where people are when they are looking for something called a watershed – they will come here, and then there needs to be a straightforward route from here to where they want to be. Anyway, we'd end up with that article acting as the disambig for the list – if anywhere should be crowded by a disambig list it ought to be a disambig page, not an article, especially not one with a different headword.

I think the second suggestion is better – these links could go on a subsidiary disambig page, linked from here. It could be called List of watersheds – except that currently redirects to List of drainage basins by area. So perhaps something else..?

I don't think two of the deleted items ought to be moved at all: List of drainage basins by area and European Watershed. Neither are part of the list of watersheds discussed above. The list of drainage basins is sensibly linked from here. The other is a list of one, so there is no need to move it – if lots of other drainage-divide watersheds turn up, then fine, treat them as described above for drainage-basin watersheds and make a subsidiary disambig for them. I susupect that's unlikely though, because drainage divides are less likely to need articles.

Finally, whatever we do, I think we need to decide first before deleting anything here – deleting the list now just leaves those pages orphaned altogether. --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my deletion seemed hasty. I'm glad we agree that many of these links (those for individual drainage basins) should be moved. We just need to find them a good home; if they won't fit into List of drainage basins by area, perhaps a new list of watersheds in North America would be useful. This would not be a disambiguation page, however, since these are meant to provide links to essentially different meanings of an ambiguous term.

I'm not convinced that European Watershed belongs here, as it seems analogous to the individual drainage basins, and it is now linked from drainage divide. (See Wikipedia:DAB#Partial_title_matches for the relevant policy.) But as it's only one link I won't fight it.

I have no objection to the List of drainage basins by area remaining, although it might be better placed in a "See also" section. This is what's done at River (disambiguation), for instance. -- Avenue (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richard New Forest that we need to decide how we want things before deleting them. I agree that lists should be consolidated to the extent feasible. I think that a bunch of scattered short lists is not as useful as an organized larger one, even if the larger one represents more variety in meaning. --Bejnar (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree about consolidation of lists generally. But this is not simply a list; it is a disambiguation page, and we have quite specific policies about what should be in such pages. See MOS:DAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created. -- Avenue (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't exactly agree that they should be moved, but that they could be moved. However, I am now persuaded. I think the various named watersheds should go in a single list (and List of watersheds in North America seems a good name). I understand the point about "see also" – however, the links would be a bit lost down there, separated from the explanation of the two meanings. On balance I think the only change needed in this section is to replace the North American drainage basins with a link to their new list. Another possible change would be to split the definitions to act as headers for the subsections.

The principle of all this applies to the list of watershed associations and administrative bodies. These could either be lumped into the List of watersheds in North America, or they could have their own list. The former I think, with the difference between the watersheds and their administration explained – presumably some catchments will have entries for both and it would be confusing to separate them. Ultimately the new page could perhaps include statistics and other information on each, as in the List of drainage basins by area.

It might be a good idea to replace the current redirect at List of watersheds with a disambig to the new page and to the List of drainage basins one. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The regional difference in the meaning of the term "watershed"[edit]

In North America, the word "watershed" is used primarily to mean a drainage basin as, for example, in "Dugway Brook Watershed". Elsewhere in the English-speaking world its primary meaning is a drainage divide, as in "European watershed". This latter sense is its original meaning; the German word from which "watershed" is derived, "Wasserscheide", still means this exclusively.

This is a source of ongoing confusion, because most English speakers are unaware of the regional difference in the word's primary meaning. The result can be seen in this article, which is a mishmash of topics about drainage basins and drainage divides.

The distinction is mentioned briefly as the last item in the "Terms – different uses" section. It should be highlighted as the first item in this section, since a reader won't get far without understanding what a watershed is, and almost all readers are unfamiliar with either one meaning or the other. TypoBoy (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]