Talk:Republican River

Kansas versus Nebraska
Just a note that there's a US$70 million lawsuit pending over the river compact:

http://journalstar.com/articles/2009/06/22/news/nebraska/doc4a40021b77e52461258266.txt --Preceding unsigned comment added by Wainstead (talk • contribs) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: it continues... http://www.omaha.com/article/20090812/NEWS01/708139930 swain (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: progress made on sharing. http://cbs4denver.com/news/Republican.River.basin.2.1847333.html swain (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

North Fork and Arickaree
Looking over GNIS data, it's clear the Republican River is formed by the confluence of the North Fork Republican River and the Arikaree River. Not the North and South Forks. The text has been updated to reflect this. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio re. KS-NE controversy
I've excised a newly-inserted section titled "Controversy", concerning the Kansas-Nebraska dispute over Republican water. The subject definitely needs to be addressed in this article. However, the section that I reverted was a clear copyright violation: three fairly lengthy sentences taken verbatim from this AP article, copyrighted 2011. The order of the sentences has been changed, and a short transition phrase added, but I think that it's nevertheless a clear case of WP:COPYVIO. Ammodramus (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of river sign
I think that the removal of the sign labeling the river at the river crossing of US-81 north of Concordia is appropriate and should not have been removed. While it does not show the river itself, it is related to the river by showing the sign labeling the river and the bridge that goes over it. This helps to express the size of the river and its recognition.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest checking Commons:Category:Republican River; we've got several photos there that show the river itself. Some of the photos in Commons:Category:Bridges over the Republican River show some river as well as the bridges, if it's desirable to have a bridge in the photo for scale.  I don't see any need for the sign: if there were some question about the name of the river, it might be desirable to use such a photo, but to the best of my knowledge there's no such question.  Ammodramus (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, one of the two in Commons:Category:Bridges over the Republican River is the one you removed. Did you not notice?  I think that such a photo would add to the article and not take away.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly noticed that the photo was in the category, since I put it there. The original uploader-- and who could that've been?-- only put it in Category:Kansas, which is rather non-specific.  I put it in several more specific categories, the bridges-over category among them.
 * My objection to the Concordia photo was that it showed lots of sky, lots of pavement, lots of sign, and no river at all.
 * I've modified the illustrations in the article: placing a recent photo of the Rep'n, with water and with a through-truss bridge for scale, in the infobox, as representing the more usual appearance of the river; and moving the 1947 flood photo down to the "Major floods" section, where it seemed more appropriate. Ammodramus (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeh, that was me! I like the one you have though, and the changes you made.  It's not about "using the photo I took"  -- I do think that a photo of one of the river signs would be a nice addition someplace.  Maybe a cropped one or something.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)