Talk:White River (Arkansas–Missouri)

"Act of Congress"
I removed the following text because it was unsourced, unencyclopedic, and POV:
 * "The texture of the lower part of the river has changed since the last of the dams were completed. The water is colder. It is hardly navigable for most of the summer. Gone are the days when you would find the lower river full of recreational users. A series of locks and dams could be built to hold the summer water for navigation and recreational use. This would take an act of Congress because navigation and recreation are not part of the flood control legislation that created the dams in the first place."

If there are some parts which are salvageable, please re-add with sources and encyclopedic tone. Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Still, I'm moving this to White River (Arkansas–Missouri) as it appears to be an option several posters indicated as a compromise, and nobody opposed, and per the North Fork River (Missouri–Arkansas) precedent. No such user (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

White River (Mississippi River) → White River (Arkansas) – this is a procedural nomination arising out of WP:CFD/2017 July 21#Category:White_River_.28Arkansas.29, to stabilise a title which has been moved 3 times this year between White River (Arkansas) and White River (Mississippi River), by Georgia guy & Hmains. I have no preference, and I'm sure that both these well-respected editors have a good reason for their preferred title. Whatever is agreed, the category can be WP:C2D-speedy-renamed to match. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. EvertonFC13 (talk2me) 20:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The river is partially in Missouri, so the title "White River (Arkansas)" makes no sense. The category should be moved. Georgia guy (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Georgia guy: AFAICS from the map at File:White_River_AR.png, >90% of the river is in Arkansas. Might that be why the title was stable at White River (Arkansas) from the article's creation in 2003 until your move in early 2017? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, which is older, the article itself or the image, which is in the file namespace?? For the file, the important thing is for it to be well-written. But the article must be well-titled, and until I moved the article nobody really payed attention to the article title's inaccuracy. Georgia guy (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Georgia guy, my comment was about the fact of the river being overwhelmingly in Arkansas, not about the means by which that fact is communicated. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as the river is at least partially in two states (per the image mentioned above and reality) the name indicating the parent stream (the Mississippi) would be preferable. Seems there was a recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers recently, but stalled as no consensus. Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Is another option something like North Fork River (Missouri–Arkansas)? —  AjaxSmack  02:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How about White River (Mississippi tributary? Arkansas might be appropriate on the basis that the river rises there and is in that state for most of its length.  Unfortunately, defining US boundaries with a ruler produces some odd results.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers did stall, but what was being debated there was whether the recommended title for this type of article should be White River (Mississippi River) or White River (Mississippi River tributary). Kmusser (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move to the former title White River (Arkansas) on the grounds that it fully satisfied the policies on precision, disambiguation, and conciseness in article titles. It is "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." It is sufficiently disambiguated from other entities named "White River," and it "balances brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." The WikiProject Rivers guidance on the matter offers disambiguation using the name of the waterbody into which the river flows as a means by which a river may be "identified uniquely" — not as a prescription we must apply to every river that happens to flow through more than one U.S. state. Some editors have enthusiastically applied this disambiguation method to many such rivers, but I don't think the practice aligns well with the precision/disambiguation/conciseness policies linked above, and I don't think it is necessary here. Thanks-- TimK MSI (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding: That said, I think it's entirely reasonable to think that White River (Arkansas) is insufficiently precise (by its omission of Missouri). And I think that the solution to that problem would be adding Missouri to the title (by whatever means), not switching to a completely different naming scheme that was designed to solve disambiguation problems (not precision problems). So White River (Arkansas and Missouri) or White River (Arkansas-Missouri) or White River (Arkansas—Missouri) would all be preferable to White River (Mississippi River), in my opinion. I think I remember seeing something in the Manual of Style sometime that provided some guidance on which method to use when naming two jurisdictions in a title, but I can't find it now. --TimK MSI (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.