Talk:River/Archive 1

Archive 1

Define 'river basin'

I suggest write the definition of river basin : the territory that receives originally the river water. Mac 18:24 10 March 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject Ecoregions

Ecoregions WikiProject. Yes, rivers are significant features of ecoregions, but I don't see how Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions makes any recommendations on the formatting or content of either the river entry or the entries for particular rivers. Jimbreed 14:57, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Rivers in fiction?

This list seems unnecessary to me, as there seems to be no algorithm which would allow for anyone to figure out which rivers, and in what fiction, would be acceptable for inclusion. Could we also include the Thames that was shown in that James Bond movie? Hopefully not (it's in there three times already...). I'm sure there are thousands of real rivers mentioned in fiction, or shown in movies (also fiction), and this information isn't truly germane to the topic (nor will many readers of the article find it very interesting/informative). I do however, believe that the Mythological Rivers entry is important, but a line must be drawn, as I wouldn't consider the canon of Zelda to be yet at the stage of mythology. The Greek rivers are necessary for the topic, though. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.25.141.158 (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

SECONDED. Other users? Should we remove some from the list? Chris b shanks 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do most rivers flow north?

I recently got asked a question "why do most rivers flow north" and couldn't find an answer in Wikipedia. But there are some on the Web. Looks like it's a common misconception out there. Maybe include some passages about this based on this: on tinyurl dot com: zudto and njh3k (or just search google for "why do rivers flow north"

How bizarre. I googled for that, half expecting to find some convoluted explanation to do with Coriolis effect or something, but no, this is actually just people being stupid. hehehe.

Amazingly 'worldatlas.com' (up there in the google results) states "The vast percentage of rivers on the planet flow in a southerly direction" What? w.. w... why?? It goes on to explain that in fact sometimes rivers do flow North because northwards can be downhill too. Wow! Really? ...and Southwards is more commonly downhill is it? ...Stupid. I'll email them. -- Nojer2 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not uncommon for people to think of north as map-up and south as map-down and then jump to mistaken conclusions without thinking about it very hard, relating north and up. Maybe it is mainly a mistake made by schoolkids and the reminder that north can be downhill is intended for kids. As for "the vast percentage of rivers on the planet" flowing south, that is also a common misconception. Most rivers do not flow directly south, north, east, or west, but wander around over their length. Some flow vaguely in one of the four cardinal directions, which raises the question, how directly south must a river flow to count as "flowing south". Depending on how you define "flows south" your percentage of rivers flowing south will change tremendously. In other words, these kind of stats and claims are rather arbitrary. Also, there are a great many rivers that flow generally north. Thousands and probably tens of thousands. Finally, there is another arbitrary aspect to these kind of claims. The term "river" doesn't have a strict definition. There are hundreds of rivers in England, for example, that flow generally north, but which would probably be called creeks in the United States. Thus the whole basis of "most rivers flow in X direction" falls apart for a whole range of reasons.

On the other hand, it may be that fewer major rivers in the North America flow north than they do east, west, and south. There coriolis effect seems highly unlikely to be involved. I'd put my money on the particular shape of the continent, wide in the north and narrow in the south, with large gulfs like the Gulf of Mexico lying to the south of broad plains bound by mountains to the east and west clear to the arctic. In contrast, if you look at Europe and especially Russia, you'll find an awful lot of rivers flowing north for the same reason - ocean in the north, mountains in the south, land extending wide east and west.

Sorry to go on, pet peeve! One of my wikipedia missions is to remove from river articles claims like "..River X is one of the only rivers in the world that flows north.." There are a surprising number of such claims on wikipedia. Pfly 03:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is becoming a pet peeve of mine too. I emailed worldatlas.com eight months ago, and again about a month ago. No response. They still have a page saying "The vast percentage of rivers on the planet flow in a southerly direction". It ranks so highly in google. I'm imagining all the school kids reading it and learning from it *sigh* -- Harry Wood 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

longest river

The River article says that the Nile is the longest, but the Nile article says that the Amazon is the longest.

The Nile article now explains this better (could be longer than the Amazon. Depends how you measure it). I've fixed this article accordingly. The small list of top ten longest rivers shows the Amazon being longer, just because that's how the numerical estimates seem to pan out. But I've added a little more explanation -- Nojer2 23:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. The River article now says that the Amazon is the longest, but the Nile article still says that the Nile is considered the longest, while the Amazon River article agrees that the Nile is the longest...

As it has been stated that people seldom agree due to uncertainty as to where to take measurements from, etc. (and, of course, national pride will always be at stake) why don't we just stick with the old "schoolboy" fact - The Nile is the longest, Amazon second?--JohnO 02:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yenisei

Okay, how come Yenisei did not make the list of the 10 longest rivers on this page? With the length of 5560 (4506) km listed in the Longest_rivers article, it deserves to be here. I have not made the edit, as I don't know what I'm doing, but someone please pay attention to it!

• I really don't know about that top ten. It doesn't make sense that it is so different from the list of longest rivers. I'm going to copy the info from the list to this page. --Apyule 01:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Differences in length

I saw differences in the length of Amazon river in the article "List of River by length", and this one, and perhaps are other differences in other articles about other rivers. Although it is said everywhere that it is difficult to measure the length of a river, I think that there must be an agreement in an encyclopedia and give only one for each river (with the corresponding source), specially in lists.

ranked by volume of flow

This is on my wishlist -- a list of rivers ranked by how much water that flows from them. I think this is probably more useful than a rank by length... Geo Swan 01:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It changes a lot, so it is difficult to get hard data. Encarta says the amazon discharges between 34 million and 121 million litres a year, but you see that is a wide range. Also human activites have greatly changed river volume. Do you mean Before or after the Aswan dam? Zeimusu 02:04, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. I'd still like to see estimates, or a rough ranking... Geo Swan 19:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well known rivers?

Shouldn't there be 1 line of explanation after each river to defend "well-known" status? - maveric149

Only a year late! A couple seemed not to have any one-liner for significance, makes them candidates to drop if no one objects. - Stan Shebs 05:36 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Does the list of well known rivers serve any purpose except as POV flamebait? It should probably be offloaded (or eliminated). - Americasroof 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos of rivers

The two photos of rivers are both from Australia, and both look pretty similar. How about we replace one of them with a completely different kind of river photo. e.g. big mountainous valley with a river. -- Nojer2 23:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. (ok so it's a little mountainous valley) Zeimusu 01:54, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

I would suggest that to be encylopædic, it would be useful to have photos of the main stages of a river (torrential, youthful, middle reaches meandering and estuary/ delta) . I can probably supply at least some of these, but I would welcome comments on the principle of how this article should be illustrated before going ahead. Velela 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good idea. Basically I think we should go for good variety in the photos. At the moment we have some variety, including encyclopedic illustration of some mentioned river features. But a bit lacking in quality I feel. Good well composed photos with high-contrast (sunshine!) make for a better article presentation. This is why I've just swapped in Image:River gambia Niokolokoba National Park.gif at the top there. -- Nojer2 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The photos have become a real mess again with several adding very little to the understanding of a river and no sense of order or significance to the sections within which they occur. At least one, judging from its constant re-instatement, appears to be a vanity item for its creator. I would happily try and restore some more encyclopaedic order as we discussed above in 2006 if there was a consensus. Any thoughts ? Velela (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

River Definition

I thought I heard in grade school that the definition of a river was a stream of water of more than X feet in width. 50 seems like the proper value, but after traveling outside the western U.S., 25 seems more likely. Googling and looking at several references (Merriam-Webster, Britanica, ask.com, etc.) reveal that a river is a "big" stream. Does someone have a more useful definition? EncMstr 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it all depends on your perspective. In the UK a formal definition of a river first(?) arose in The Rivers prevention of pollution Acts 1951 - 1961 where a river is defined as any watercourse which is flowing at any time during the year (not the precise legal definition, but that is what the words mean !). This definition therefore includes seasonal rivers and all streams, becks, rills, bournes, gulleys, nants etc. I guess other countries and outher juristictions may have other views. In reality in the UK, most rivers are a few feet across but some named rivers are small enough to jump over! Velela 08:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here in the USA I have always heard that for it to be a river it must be 100 miles long or more. In recent travels in Europe I found out that isn't the standard there. I would like to see a section in this article to mention that and list for different areas of the world what the definitions are.-Crunchy Numbers 15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are several officially-named U.S. rivers which are less than 100 miles: D River (120 feet), Roe River (201 feet), Hood River (10 to 25 miles) and the Coquille River (35 miles). 100 miles would not seem to be the standard here either.

I've been looking for the definition of a river since a while back. Many web searches seem to confirm there is little in the way of a concrete definition or consensus. —EncMstr 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why usually Freshwater?

According to James Lovelock's Gaia_hypothesis#Lovelock.27s_initial_hypothesis Ocean initially should have been freshwater and it is the saline braught in by the rivers that has braught it to the present day condition but somehow it has reached a plateau.. So then why are rivers by definition freshwater? because it is relatively less saline than the present day sea water? --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Because that is how the word river is used and defined - although there are exceptions - hence usually
2. Because the Gaia hypothesis is just that - an hypothesis.

If the question really is is Are there any non-freshwater rivers? then the answer is yes, although most are either ephemeral or exist in name by convention; i.e the Menai Strait is called in Welsh the Afon Menai translated in English as Menai River. More relevant and more common examples are streams carrying highway run-off from major urban roads which are treated with rock-salt during winter months to reduce icing. Salt concentrations in these streams can exceed the salt concentrations of oceanic sea-water but only for short periods and for short lengths of the stream. It is also possible that in extreme wet weather conditions that coherent rivers may form draining salt-flats or saline lakes and these too would be saline. In wet weather some rivers in area of over-irrigation where salinisation of ground has occurred are also likely to be significantly saline.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A river draining into the ground

How do you call a river which just disappeares into the ground? I can't seem to find a proper English term. --Dijxtra 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on which you mean:

• underground river: a river within the earth
• riverbed: an empty channel or depression where a river flowed—and might again if water returns
• terminus: (english adopted from latin) where the river seems to end, by flowing underground, irrigation draws and/or evaporation

—EncMstr 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Treminus would be it. But, does the term terminus mean "a place where a river goes uderground" or "a river which ends by going uderground"? --Dijxtra 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Terminus is the apparent end of the river as seen by the casual observer. (Like the terminus of a glacier: is the low end where it needs to extended to be advancing or shrink to be receding.) Terminus isn't associated with a specific cause of the river "ending"; just seeming to. Other words which might apply for the point at which it ends, depending on how it happens:

• drain: like in a kitchen sink
• suck hole: forceful suction
• waterfall: like Niagara Falls
• lake: a stagnant body of water

—EncMstr 23:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, just as I thought. Now, is there a term in English which denotes a river that ends in terminus? Is it just "a river that ends in terminus" or is there a single word for it? --Dijxtra 05:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the article and external links for Mojave River. It appears and disappears several times over its course. There isn't really any special word or name for such a thing, but disappearing river will do, even though it's ambiguous. (It could mean over time, like the Aral Sea.) —EncMstr 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In karst areas, a stream that goes underground into a cave system or a sinkhole is termed a disappearing stream. Vsmith 12:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both of you. The thing is that in my language we have a word for such a river, so it was natural for me that English should have it to, that's why I was so puzzled to discover the speciffic term doesn't exist... --Dijxtra

Topography

I cannot quite make sense of the opening sentence of this section (my italics):

A river conducts water by constantly flowing perpendicular to the elevation curve of its bed, thereby converting the potential energy of the water into kinetic energy.

I am tempted to replace ‘perpendicular’ (i.e. ‘normal’) by its antonym (i.e. ‘tangent’): after all, the elevation curve of a nearly-horizontal river-bed would seem to have a nearly vertical perpendicular but (according to common sense) result in a nearly horizontal direction of water-flow. But (geography was probably my worst school subject!) I am aware that it is very possible that I have have hold of the wrong end of the Pooh-stick.

Can anyone edit so as to enlighten geographically challenged readers like me? —Ian Spackman 12:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like this first sentence either. Since you looked at it someone changed it very strangely and then someone else made it even worse. I've tried to put it back but it all sounds like gobbledigook to me and I teach the subject. Perhaps someone could improve it. I also don't like this random list of rivers. SuzanneKn 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Strahler Stream Order

The Strahler Stream Order by definition requires that first order streams be perennial so I took out the added sentence that says it includes ephemral. Americasroof 18:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Topography & Geological Age

I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the information in the ostensible "Topography" section of this article. Besides the fact that it doesn't jive with what I've learned over the years (e.g., the New River has no floodplain at all, yet is one of the oldest rivers in the world), it just seems to be overly simplistic and even plain wrong. I'd like to see some documentation in this section, or at least a better explanation by a real geologist. Unschool 01:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to lead

I didn't add the edits to glacial meltwater, but I did fix the links to them. It is worthy to mention this as a source, as it has a major impact to the quantity and quality of river flows. Correct, it was precipitation at one point, however that is not the point. Glaciers are reservoirs of precipitation, and can store for 1 to 10000 years. They release meltwater when temperatures fluctuate. (Similarly, groundwater is a reservoir that stores and releases a major quantity of water into rivers). Some of the science in the lead paragraph was also a bit off and misleading (e.g., it is wrong to think that rivers get their source directly from precipitation). +mwtoews 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The original form of wording was created to simplify what had become a very messy and disorganised page a few months ago. The opening paragraph is intended to set the scene and in this context all river water originally starts as precipitation. In Origins of river water just below are set out the various physical sources that river water may have. If we add glacial melt water in the opening paragraph then we should also add mires and bogs ( a very substantial source of river water in Scotland for example), or summer storms (important in Australia) or chalk and limestone aquifers (vital in parts of France, Spain and Mexico for example) and so it could go on. What is an important source of river water depends on where you are and which rivers are perceived to be more important. I guess in Canada glaciers are important. To cut through all of that the original paragraph was conceived as a very simple statement of truth - all river water comes from precipitation. Velela 08:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the edits were a bit disorganized. I've edited the lead once more, and removed the odd-ball ones into a new (but I hope temporary) section. Please add to the lead, or edit what I've added. (Keep in mind that the simplified version is at simple:River—I would hope most people reading this article know what a river is and want to learn something new). The lead is a bit biased towards the physical hydrology side (because that's what I do), but it should probably also mention a few other important things, such as forming geopolitical boarders and the such.+mwtoews 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial picture

The picture at the head of the article isn't currently very clear: it's dark and rocks obscure the actual river. I'd suggest this image of the Amazon or this one of the Thames. The article lacks both a satellite image or map of a river, and one showing bridges and generally how humans react to rivers. I personally prefer the Thames one myself, but I'd like to see what others think. Laïka 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazon the longest?

I reverted an IP editor for changing the Amazon to the longest river, but check these out:

• http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/13412671.html
• http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=55ADA41C-E7F2-99DF-3EA487C1C163F6EC&chanID=sa003

there are several other news stories about the same expedition to be found on Google News.

Seems the geographers aren't yet in perfect agreement. So, should we make the change? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum, seems there's already a discussion about this at Talk:Amazon River#Longest River?—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well-known rivers (in alphabetic order)

As have many editors before me, I have removed some obviously less notable rivers (The Gavenny in Abergavenney is hardley more than a ditch !). I would urge that we stick to the principal river in each country (and perhaps a very few principal rivers for large countries) as judged by their size. I would also entertain major rivers running through capital cities as being notable but not much else. Velela 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mouth

The article defines the mouth of a river as where it flows into the sea. But one of the picture captions speaks of the mouth as where the river emerges from the glacier. Could this photo be recaptioned?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.225.59 (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Boundary between sea and river

To complete the article 'pole of inaccessibility' I need some info on how to define the limit between river and ocean at river mouths. Where does the river end in an estuary? Where does the ocean start? Where to draw the coastline? Any kind of documentation or hints on this would really help, thanks. Post answers at my user page: User_talk:Andres72 or in the article itself. Andres72 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page seems to be getting a lot of vandalism. Anyone have any idea why this might be? Would it be appropriate to lock it for a while? Yes i agree as well. it should be locked because of the amount of vandalism its recieving —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I agree that we must stop all this vandalism untill further notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.234 (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

The Ob River article describes the river as the fourth longest in Russia. However, the River article describes it as the fifth longest in the world. If the four longest in the world are the Nile, Amazon, Yangtze and Mississippi...where do the first three longest rivers in Russia fit? 216.195.199.146 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested section: classification as a "RIVER"

I would be most appreciative if someone with proper knowledge and sources could add a section explaining how a body of water gets classified as a "RIVER" officially instead of, say, a "creek" or a "stream." Thanks in advance. 67.78.224.57 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no simple official way of categorizing some streams as rivers and others as creeks, etc, as far as I know. People just called them by the term that seems right to them. Official naming authorities almost always just affirm the existing usage. Still, something could be said about how the terms tend to be used. I'll see if I can find some decent info on the topic. Pfly (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I made some edits to the opening in hopes of maker this stuff clearer, pointing out that there is no general rule about what can be called a river, even though some sources make claims like "larger than a creek". Also I removed the link to waterway because not all rivers are navigable, and used stream instead. The stream page points out that the term is used as an umbrella term used in the scientific community for all flowing natural waters, regardless of size. Other rewording, like linking to freshwater. I almost just wrote that rivers are freshwater, but perhaps there are some things called "river" that are salt water. I can't think of one offhand though. Also, even though most definitions say that a river flows into the ocean, a lake, or another stream, there are rivers that simply sink into the ground (like Lost River (Cacapon River) and Lost River (Idaho)) or dry up completely (like the Okavango River). I hope these edits help. Pfly (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)T o add to that rivers genrally smell

In my university geology textbook (I am not sure how to properly refrence it) "Earth an introduction to physical geology" 9th edition by edward j tarbuck, frederick k lutgens copyright 2008.2005.2002.1999.1996 pearson education inc.

It states: "the word stream is used to denote channelized flow of any size... it is important to note that although the terms river and stream are sometimes used interchangeably, the term river is often preferred when describing a main stream into which several tributaries flow" page 427 (if this can be incorporated into the article, that would be excellent, as i am new to wiki and do not know how to do it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.240 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly one view and it may (or may not) be appropriate in the USA. I would find it hard to fully support in the UK although as a generality it isn't bad. However, it is always wise to challenge statements made in text books - they are often an author's personal view, they are frequently simplifications and they may be designed to provide anodyne phrases to help students pass exams rather than being encyclopaedic.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   11:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Flooding

(copied/pasted from my talk page - Awickert (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)) Human activities in rivers and floodplains have dramatically increased the risk of flooding in many areas. Straightening rivers allows water to flow more rapidly downstream increasing the risk of flooding places further downstream. Building on flood plains removes flood storage which again exacerbates downstream flooding etc. etc. Building levees (by which I assume you mean flood-banks) only protects the area behind the levees not further downstream. They can also increase flooding upstream because of back-water pressure as the upstream water has to squeeze between the levees.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}  

Yes, I generally agree with you. I just think more clarification was needed. My first edit that you undid was supposed to be the start of a re-vamping. My new edit I'm thinking could be the start of a more detailed section on this. Or you could revert me until we decide on things over here. Either way. I think what you wrote here would be good to include - one of the big deals I think that needed to be made clear was that, though the local effects could be fewer floods, the downstream effects could be increased flooding. By levees, I mean mounds of dirt / walls around the channel, I think it is the same as flood-banks. There should also be something about aggradation within the channel as a result of levees, and what that does in terms of flooding, and perhaps even channel avulsion... just some thoughts. Awickert (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the material to flooding. I was going to add some more, but I'm not sure what you mean by "building on floodplains/storage" - do you mean less water storage during floods due to more rapid runoff, or less water on the natural floodplain because of building-up of the banks of the channel... or am I totally off-base? Awickert (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Rivers - again

We had a discussion in 2007 - 2008 about the mess that the current selection of images present. The images themselves and the order that they are in is very very far from encyclopaedic. Logically we probably should have an exce;llent lead photo then one of a juvenile river, a mature river and then an old river. This would put the Reichenbach falls first and then the Danube (for example) and then the Amazon delta. We should also include some illustrations that match the text - the only apparently relevant ones are the Japanese cherry blossom image and Boating on the Avon. But we also have an image farm in the gallery, many of which add nothing and are presumably there to fan the vanity of the photographers that put them there. The lead image from Australia is especially poor as it conveys very little - to start an article like this it would be good to have a "drop'em dead" photo. Any thoughts ?  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   12:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems like you put a lot of work into the page, I would suggest that you just go for it, and I give you feedback. I like your idea for the organization of photos. I think that an aerial photo would likely be best for the lead photo: it gives more detail and perspective than a satellite image, but enough scale to show the larger form. Awickert (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the HydroSHEDS data might be used for a good picture on rivers. The rivers-map in national geographic magazine, april 2010 was an example of this. The HydroSHEDS data is free to use/publicise (USGS).

91.182.215.173 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are far too many pictures on this page. The article is about any river. Seeing several examples of rivers does not help us understand what a river is. First off, I am removing the gallery, as I think that it is not useful in the way described in this help page. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia is not an image repository.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Classification

At least in geology and physical geography, the terms "youthful" and "old age" rivers are not used, probably as they relate to more out-of-date and potentially misleading concepts of landscape evolution by William Morris Davis, because time and slope do not always directly correlate. In these fields, they are generally simply referred to as "bedrock" or "alluvial" rivers, and further described. Is there a field / major source of study on rivers in which these terms are used? Otherwise, maybe this should be split up into stream classification (incorporating much of the existing material) and stream incision/formation, incorporating some of the existing material and adding new material. Awickert (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this, too. --Germpolice (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Germpolice

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact check - Brahm's law

According to the article "According to Brahm's law (sometimes called Airy's law), the mass of objects that may be flown away by a river is proportional to the sixth power of the river flow speed. Thus, when the speed of flow increases two times, it can transport 64 times larger (i.e., more massive) objects.[4]" A source is given - "Garde, R. J. (1995). History of fluvial hydraulics. New Age Publishers. pp. 19. ISBN 812240815X. OCLC 34628134"

From Google, I can't find any other mentions of "Brahm's law" that don't appear to originate from the Wikipedia article. I've checked the source given, which has one brief mention of Brahm's law as follows:

"It may also be mentioned that criterion [sic] for the beginning of sediment movement in the form u_b~W'^1/6 was independently derived by W. Airy in 1834."

While the source does give some support for the text, it's not ideal. It doesn't give any explanation or background for "Brahm's law" (indeed, it's not clear to me whether "Brahm's law" is a widely used term or one just used in this fairly obscure textbook). However, I can't find any other relevant sources - can anyone help find a better source?

Enchanter (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Classification: river length

"The straight-line distance from the beginning to the end of most rivers is about one third their actual length."

I took this claim out untill it's checked (too late here now..).[1][2] --J. Sketter (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

all sources seem to leed back to Simon singh-see wikipedia article on pi. its actually 1/pi of the distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yairh (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Red lines in references

Do you consider this (red lines) useful? --vacio 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No. They provide no value unless it was in preparation for adding new references to the same books/ publications - but that looks most unlikely. I vote for reversion  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Images (again)

There have been several discussions about the images in this article. There was a time when there was a large unstructured gallery. A consenus developed about restricting images to those that illustrated the appropriate sections and in general running from source to sea. There have been several moves that have changed that but it could be restored. However, looking more widely across the Wikis, the article here seems quite a good one that we could follow. It has a small and relevant gallery after each section and the quality of the images is generally high. Any thoughts?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I recently looked over this article and thought the images were decidedly lacking. Although it is a subjective judgement, I think this related article has more interesting images, and I agree the simple wiki approach also has promise, though it has been somewhat overdone. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the recently added image has been removed. I don't think this was the best image of a river ever, but this article ought to have something as a masthead, just for stylistic reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The question what sort of image should feature in the lead and how should the whole article be enhanced with images? Personally, I would like to see a number of additional relevant images, but in the past it has been a dis-organised and cluttered collection of images with no relevance to the section apparently being illustrated - and a great deal of editors pushing their own favourite images. There are many thousands of images of rivers available, many better than the one that briefly appeared at the mast-head. I personally favour an approach similar to that taken at simple English version albeit with fewer images but my view counts for nothing without consensus.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

more info on river processes, equations etc.

does anyone agree that there should be more about general processes in a river? i cant find anything on wikipedia about river erosion. also i think that there should be more general equations and laws about the river. to me they're the most usefull — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yairh (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. See my comments in the #Brahms's law section, below. Peter Chastain (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Brahms's law

The paragraph on "Brahm's law" (which, notwithstanding the fact that the source cited spells it that way, should probably be called "Brahms's law, after its discoverer, Albert Brahms) misstated it by saying that the mass of an object that can be moved by a flow is proportional to the sixth power of the speed of that flow. I have changed it to reflect what the source actually says, that it is the submerged weight that is proportional to v⁶. (Isn't submerged weight proportional to specific gravity minus one, to reflect buoyancy?) I am not a hydraulic expert, but I am skeptical of this "law", which Brahms published in 1757, based on his observations in an actual river (which probably had a fairly homogeneous set of rocks): (1) It seems to me that a larger object would be moved more easily than a smaller object with the same mass. (2) I would also think that a smooth and round stone would be more difficult to dislodge than something rougher. As Yairh, has pointed out, above, we do not cover the science of rivers very well. I think all this could be better covered in a separate WP article on fluvial dynamics, which, unfortunately, I am completely unqualified to write. Peter Chastain (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the law is right. Empirically we see many small streams blowing fine sand along, but rarely do boulders get rolled. This law also assumes individual, free stones in a large stream, rather than larger stones having pressure increase upon them because they're in a narrow gap that is tending to increase upstream pressure.

I know nothing of Brahms' law, as I'm not a geographer or hydrologist. AIUI, he derived it from observation. However Airy's law was derived from its principles (later, but independently). It's still taught todayrecently as an example of dimensional analysis in a general physics or fluid dynamics course. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing section

I was looking for the parts of a river here (their names and definitions and verbs of how the water behaves in each, like it "discharges" at the "river mouth", etc) and finally I found that an excellent such list exists under stream. However, I think that such a list would be a very useful addition to have in this article, as it where people would normally look for it. Hoverfish Talk 16:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Images (again) and GA status

This article really ought to be brought up to GA status in my view. As a starter for that I am proposing to try and get consensus on the images illustrating it. There has been much debate in the past mostly at times when the article has become overwhelmed with a clutter or often poor quality images that just happened to be of rivers. I am proposing that we develop a consensus on what the images should show and, having agreed that, we then look to agree which images satisfy the those criteria. As a starter for ten I am proposing that:

• At the top a superb quality image of a river that will knock'em dead in the aisles.
• a young river just forming, perhaps from a glacier
• meltwater
• a torrential mountain stream
• a meandering river
• a great continental river (Amazon, Nile, Mississippi etc.)
• a river delta
• a river in flood
• a river in drought
• an ephemeral river filling for the first time that season.
• a braided river
• a sink hole
• an underground river (perhaps emerging from a cave)
• a polluted river
• a mill race
• an in-river hydroelectric plant
• a weir
• pleasure boating
• white water kayaking and/or rafting
• commercial shipping on a navigable river
• pleasure fishing
• commercial fishing
• log transport
• water abstraction
• a river bore
• river organisms (plants and animals)

Any additions, comments or suggestions on the process suggested and the list please.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the ideas you set out for images are already implemented in river ecosystem (though I don't favour stripping that article to get good images for this one). The article should be developed with an eye on "river ecosystem" as a companion article. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. Do you have any image files in mind? I might also suggest an artesian spring. This might be handy source of images. Also the angel falls might be good http://www.flickr.com/photos/capiotti/7088669753/sizes/o/in/set-72157627378840726/ Chogg (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

PS Are there still plans to move forward with this article? I'd be keen to be involved, although I need to finish my phd first! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chogg (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Longest River Is The Amazon

After lots of research scientists said Amazon river is THE longest river — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.44.224 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All this needs is a citation and it is good to add to the article! 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Rivercourse

A discussion which may affect this page has been opened at Talk:Rivercourse#Requested move. 117Avenue (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WHat the heck is a river anyway?

The Wiktionary definition for "river" says that a river has to end up flowing into the ocean or an inland sea. The definition in this article says that it can be considered "a river" if it flows into another river.

I've searched a dozen online dictionaries - and there is widespread disagreement on this point.

Seems like this article should at least try to address this definition problem. SteveBaker (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider the Humboldt River, the Sevier River or all the streams of the Great Basin. Are they not rivers? Are the Missouri and Ohio rivers?

Seems wikt:river is unsourced as are most online dictionaries. Vsmith (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose that a "river" should be differentiated from a "stream" based on how old it is. A river channel is a geologic feature and could be considered from a geochronology viewpoint as something that has formed over multiple geologic Epochs. A river could be identified by physical features, originating from previous geologic Epochs, that continue to influence the flow and form of the river. A river channel may have evidence of multiple strata in its deposits and/or physical features that that the river channel superimposes. Streams, therefore, would be identified by limited strata in its channel's depositional record and lack of physical features that the channel predates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.2.137 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge here Stream and Watercourse

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.

---

Both Stream and Watercourse are subsets of this article with no clear differentiation that would enable distinction into separate articles. I suggest therefore that they be carefully and sympathetically merged. Such a merge may indicate the need for one or more sub-articles such as List of name variants for watercourses.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. Makes sense. 86.29.168.181 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. My dictionary says a stream is a small river, and a river is a large stream - so seems logical. May want to include Tidal river as well...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't merge. Whilst there is no hard and fast definition of river vs. stream, having two articles enables them to focus on complementary aspects as they more or less do at present. "River" focusses on river hydrology in general, whereas "stream" covers aspects of smaller waterways such as their many different names and types of stream (which of course are redirects). They may need tidying up and developing, but it's good to have them separate. "Watercourse" is more problematic as it also includes canals and ditches which are man-made and are not part of the proposed merger. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• oppose More pointless make-work from the hat collectors. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"OPPOSE" it is important to have a differentiation for the scientific (and un-scientific) fields that are sprining up around this issue. I propose that a "river" should be differentiated from a "stream" based on how old it is. A river channel is a geologic feature and could be considered from a geochronology viewpoint as something that has formed over multiple geologic Epochs. A river could be identified by physical features, originating from previous geologic Epochs, that continue to influence the flow and form of the river. A river channel may have evidence of multiple strata in its deposits and/or physical features that that the river channel superimposes. Streams, therefore, would be identified by limited strata in its channel's depositional record and lack of physical features that the channel predates. 173.14.2.137 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Jason Carey

• Seems the watercourse stub could be merged with stream, but not convinced that the merge with river is needed. As for ip 173...'s comments: please provide WP:reliable sources to support all the "epochs" and "strata in the channels" stuff. Vsmith (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But please note that a watercourse includes canals and ditches so it is not synonymous with stream or river. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Merging of River and Stream might make some sense, but not Watercourse.In addition, not all watercourses are streams and rivers (See: Acequia).Kehkou (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose — Watercourses include Streams which include Rivers but they are not equivalent and there are no rigid rules separating terminology. An encyclopedia isn't responsible for removing ambiguity and imprecision in the language; only for explaining usage. SBaker43 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have little support and it's been open for a year. Therefor removing the tag from the article. Vsmith (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2015 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chamisa.freeshell.org/flow.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Masthead image?

This needs a masthead image. Something nicely representative of "river". It should be an average river, not an exceptional one. It should show major concepts like flow, the linear nature, banks and maybe human interaction such as fishing or a boat. To make the linear aspect obvious, it shouldn't be a transverse section from a bridge overhead. I'm thinking about something from a nearby hillside, for best perspective.

Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rivers (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

naming

I'm a nerd about such things, so I would enjoy learning about the naming of rivers -- specifically, how US rivers are generally called "Name River," while many in Britain are "the River Name." Now that I think of it, that goes for other natural features as well. My home state of Pennsylvania borders on Lake Erie, but a park closer to home hosts Wildwood Lake. It's usually "Mount Name," but sometimes "Name Mountain" -- while "Creek," "Run," "Pond," etc. always seem to come last. At least in American English. Some of the difference seems linked to size -- Lake Erie vs. Wildwood Lake -- and creeks, runs, and ponds tend to be smaller -- but what the heck do I know? PurpleChez (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it to do with whether they've been clearly named after something else? Although practically all British rivers are indeed "River X", there are quite a few in the highlands and islands of Scotland that are the "X River". Looking at the latter sort, they are nearly all named in a very obvious way after the settlements that they flow through: Tobermory River, Ullapool River, etc*. On the other hand, rivers with ancient names whose meaning is unclear to modern readers are always "River X" in the UK. I wonder if, because of the different history of the USA, USA rivers are more likely than UK rivers to have received their English names as a conscious naming decision, and are thus more often clearly named after something (eg the indigenous name of the river, a person, a clear feature etc), hence "X River".

• (Note that the converse isn't true: there are also many "River X"s named after settlements)

Macboff (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"Lhere" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lhere. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Lhere until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Rivers are shown as a place for waste disposal

Rivers have been shown as a place for waste disposal. This is wrong. This is not what we should be teaching people. River pollution shouldn't be happening. I kindly request you to remove that line 2405:201:F:C858:8870:5C90:4886:D3C1 (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Regrettably rivers are widely used for waste disposal in several parts of the world. Wikipedia records what has been said about subjects, not how we would like them to be.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)