Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Archive 7

Chronological listing of coastal cities (brainstorming for Manual of Style proposal)
Greetings, Requesting brainstorming for Manual of Style proposal suggesting chronological listing (in sequence as they would occur on a map) of coastal cities (instead of alphabetical) on water-bodies namely rivers, lakes and oceans.

Usual trend is to list is alphabetical order, but reader friendliness point of view and their utility point of view listings of human Settlement (Villages/townships) one after other chronological listing (in sequence as they would occur on a map)  will be beneficial besides it will be helpful in creation and presentation of maps.

For example I wish to have clockwise map of townships @ Black Sea trade and economy

Convincing every individual user to help out listing in chronological order becomes difficult so I am suggesting Wikipedians to adopt a common Manual of Style for chronological listing of coastal human settlements for articles under  WP:WikiProject Rivers, (& also WP:WikiProject Highways) and clockwise chronological  listing of coastal human settlements of coastal human settlements for articles under WP:WikiProject Lakes & WP:WikiProject Oceans.

Please feel free to curate this proposal for spelling and grammar and conciseness. Looking forward to inputs.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What advantage is there in having them in chronological order? How do you define that order? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Alphabetical order does not have any special advantage to the reader other than being alphabetical.
 * No doubt those who know chronological routs will be less concerned.
 * But every reader will not be expert and knowledgeable of every rout across coasts or highways.
 * Chronologically which place comes after which place has utility value making understanding simpler, whether it is planning of trade/ travel simpler.
 * I do good amount of historical reading but many times not aware of chronology end up confused unless do some back and forth research confusion continues.
 * So Chronological order may save readers time of back and forth research and help avoid confused state of mind.
 * Last but not least, I already cited example of Black Sea trade and economy, personally I do not know chronological order of townships and still wish to request and display a map with every coastal township on the map. Map maker will help only after we provide chronological order.
 * Which Chronology to be applied?
 * It is open to suggestions and discussion but my prefered suggestion is
 * In case of Lakes and oceans it be clockwise starting from most southern well known point like Istanbul in case of Black Sea
 * In case of rivers form source of river to end / delta of the river.
 * In case of highways North to south or Left to right (West to east)

That is how I look at it

Thanks and regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The advantage of an alphabetical list is that if the reader knows the name of the town they can easily find it in the list. Few casual readers will have any real idea of the chronology of the area unless they are already quite expert on the history. Do you actually mean chronolgical order or do you mean sequential? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On most devices you are easily able to search on the page, right? And otherwise if the table is sortable you can also just sort by name. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * By chronological listing, I mean ' in the sequence as they would occur on a map ' Is there any better word for this, whether word 'sequential' would fit better?
 * For most comp users searching with Ctrl + F search is easily possible if they are looking for specific city name. Additionally as user says, providing sortable  alphabetical option will address that issue. But to most users whether  in the sequence as they would occur on a map as default listing won't be better?

Thanks for responses, I hope more Wikipedians will express their opinions too in coming days. Regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not chronological order, that's spacial or sequential order. And does that order go north to south, or south to north? East to west, or west to east? From the coast inward, or outward towards the coast? Upstream or downstream on rivers? And how do all of those directions interact? Seems much more confusing. Stick with alphabetical. --Khajidha (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pl. do see the description clock image now added.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm looking at a map of an area that I am unfamiliar with it would seem more logical to me to start from the coast and work inward, regardless of whether that was left to right or right to left on the map. I would also find the sequence going up an unfamiliar river more useful than that going down it. So what you describe as "natural" habits do not seem to be such to me. --Khajidha (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Chronological means in order of date. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, chronological refers to time, like calling a watch a chronometer. Determining the relative age of cities would be very difficult for most readers. Locational sequencing has similar difficulties including deciding what was the starting location around a lake, or how to order twin cities on opposite sides of a river. I suggest alphabetical listing is more convenient than either, although difficulties persist for cities which have been renamed, or have different spellings. Thewellman (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the arrangement in the "By drainage basin" section of List of rivers in Florida what you have in mind? Note that the next section in that article is an alphabetical list. - Donald Albury 20:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * List of rivers of Florida is a good example. It such sequencing helps me communicating with a map creator and update if any thing is missing, it helps reading along with a map better. The article helps provides both sequences. First in section  Atlantic coast provides "Rivers are listed as they enter the ocean from north to south. Tributaries are listed as they enter their main stem from downstream to upstream." later another section Lake Okeechobee provides Rivers are listed as they enter Lake Okeechobee from west to east. Tributaries are listed as they enter their main stem from downstream to upstream. then next section Gulf coast Rivers are listed as they enter the gulf from south to north, then west. Tributaries are listed as they enter their main stem from downstream to upstream.
 * The later section provide alphabetical option too. User:Jochem van Hees suggests option of sortable table and that is okay with me. IMHO Singularly alphabetical lists create information gap for readers who want to study details along with the map.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding GEONet Names Server (GNS) at RSN
See here. Site is used as a source in about 43,000 articles related to various geographical locations world-wide, including rivers and streams. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Category overload
I find that French rivers are being put not just into departmental categories like Category:Rivers of Ain but also in regional categories like Category:Rivers of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, which lumps together 12 departments, and into the overall category Category:Rivers of France, which lumps together 100 departments and has 753 rivers. Petscan shows 4,289 rivers in the France in the French wiki, so Category:Rivers of France could become enormous.

I suggest that WikiProject Rivers be expanded to say something like: Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Every article should have a category. If a river is restricted to one country, list it in Category:rivers of country, e.g. Category:Rivers of Germany. If it runs through several countries, list it in each country category.
 * A country-level category may be subdivided by region, province, department, state etc. (e.g. Category:Rivers of California.)
 * These may in turn be subdivided, e.g. Category:Rivers of Lake County, California
 * When a river is placed in a subdivision category(s) it should not be also placed in the parent category.
 * Rivers may be categorized by other characteristics, e.g.
 * Category:Braided rivers in France
 * Category:Subterranean rivers of the United States
 * Category:Tributaries of the Rhine


 * Currently, all rivers of France are in the, which has been tagged with all included since 2015. To me, it's useful to have all French river articles in one category because it makes it easier for me to do maintenance. There are more countries where all rivers are in the top category, also if they are in subcategories, e.g. , , , and . There may be more arguments in favour of all-included country categories, for instance for looking up a river. In the specific case of France, there are three levels for every river: national, by region and by department. For instance the Bèze is in ,  and in . It may be disputed whether the intermediate level (the regions) shouldn't be turned into diffusing categories. Markussep Talk 14:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're proposing that Category:Rivers of Massachusetts and Category:Rivers of Switzerland should be depopulated of articles, with their contents scattered to county- and canton-level categories. This would mean that the articles would be findable and accessible only at the level of those smaller geographic units. I'm strongly opposed to that. I think this is exactly the kind of situation that non-diffusing subcategories and the "All included" template are for. (Category:Mountains of Switzerland is one of the examples given at WP:ALLINCLUDED.) The country- and state-level categories, even if they are large, are valuable to readers and editors who are not intimately familiar with the names and hierarchy of all the administrative subdivisions of the world, which is most of us. Readers and editors should be able to access and browse a group of related articles at a level in the geographical hierarchy that meets their needs, not just at the smallest level. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A list of all rivers in France can be obtained using this Petscan query listing all rivers in sub-categories of . The rivers in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté can be listed with this scan. Instructions for running a scan could be placed in an infobox in the category header.
 * The danger with allowing rivers to be placed both in sub-categories and parent categories is that they may be placed in one but not the other. An editor may consider that a river that runs through several departments in a region should be placed only in the category for the region, and not in the departmental categories. Another editor may consider that it should only be put in the departmental categories, since these categories are included in the region category.
 * The value to our readers of an alphabetical list of all articles about rivers in France is questionable. A well-organized article like List of rivers of France is more useful, and should be encouraged. One of the main purposes of categories is to support gnomish tasks, making the same improvement to all articles of a given type. If we allow redundancy we make it easy for error to creep in. The Petscan approach finds two rivers in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté that are not in : the Ain (river) in  and the Seine in . Aymatth2 (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Insofar as maintenance concerns are driving your opposition to using the "Allincluded" model, I don't think the maintenance of a worldwide set of list articles will solve them. I think groupings of rivers (and other geographic features) at the level of a country, a U.S. state, etc., are useful, and that it's entirely reasonable to expect that Wikipedia would provide them. And I think the dangers you intend to convey are outweighed by the usefulness of the large number of categories you're proposing be depopulated. (Again, this usefulness is the reason the "Allincluded" template exists, and is widely used. Is Category:Rivers of Switzerland somehow less useful than Category:Mountains of Switzerland?) And I don't think the general readership should be expected to run a Petscan query to gather together Wikipedia's articles about rivers in Massachusetts. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * List of rivers of Massachusetts, which includes redlinks, seems more useful for the general readership and is right at the top of a Google search for rivers in Massachusetts. They would anyway have trouble finding on their phone. And Chapel Brook, Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Boston) and Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Weston) are missing from the category.
 * The general public would use a structured article like List of rivers of Switzerland, the cat main for . This is much more useful than an alphabetical list of articles, and supports redlinks. Gnomes who want to work through a single large list for all river articles in a given country, state, department etc. would use a Petscan query to build it from the ground up, avoiding errors like those in . A note at the top of the category could link them to the query, as in . Aymatth2 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a (very) part-time Gnome, I'd never heard of a Petscan before and find the existing category system very useful as I am sure the general reader does as well. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Petscan should be in every gnome's toolkit. An powerful and accurate way to browse categories and find specific types of problem. Before depopulating a parent category the corresponding scan can be linked at the top of the category, as in.
 * We are inconsistent here. Nobody is proposing to add all the articles on rivers in the United States into . There are about 11,435 of them. has 25 pages, but this is just a sample. There are about 807 of them, almost as many as in France. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't done so clearly, I'll echo User:Murgatroyd49 and say that I use the existing category scheme regularly, and I find it useful.
 * I am skeptical that "eh, nobody needs alphabetical order anymore" will be a successful consensus-building argument on Wikipedia.
 * Lists vs categories is an argument that has raged since the beginning of Wikipedia, and there is an editing guideline that addresses the conflict. Some highlights: "Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category," and "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system." The fact that categories aren't operable on phones is noted as a known drawback of categories, not as a reason to depopulate them or replace them with lists.
 * You're right that nobody is proposing that be filled with thousands of articles. We're discussing your suggestion that hundreds of longstanding categories should be depopulated of articles, and whether, within Wikipedia's category structure, articles about rivers should be discoverable only at the level of the smallest possible geographic unit (for example, which contains one article).
 * As I've noted, is presented at the Categorization editing guideline as a good example of the usefulness of Template:All included in the category structure. I'll ask again, why are rivers different from mountains? Are you mainly taking issue with the Categorization guideline, and not specifically with the categorization of rivers?
 * Neither the Categorization guideline nor PetScan invites editors to direct readers to PetScan queries as a replacement for "All included" categories. Has a Wikipedia-wide consensus ever been sought in support of the practice? Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also echo those in favor of the current structure. This is good use of WP:ALLINCLUDED, which I prefer in general. Sure it's not the best practice for every situation; just as it wouldn't be best practice to subdivide every country category.
 * I've never heard of PetScan either, but I may use it now that I have:) Thanks! DB1729 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternative approach
I seem to be getting less than wholehearted support for emptying out the parent categories. I propose instead to have the guideline say
 * Every article should have a category. If a river is restricted to one country, list it in Category:rivers of country, e.g. Category:Rivers of Germany. If it runs through several countries, list it in each country category.
 * A country-level category may be subdivided by region, province, department, state etc. (e.g. Category:Rivers of California.)
 * These may in turn be subdivided, e.g. Category:Rivers of Lake County, California
 * When a river is placed in a subdivision category(s) it may or may not be also placed in the parent category. This should be done consistently, so a given parent category is either empty or holds a complete list of rivers.
 * Parent cat may be added to the head of the parent category to provide links to reports that list all rivers in the child category, and that report any discrepancies.
 * Rivers may be categorized by other characteristics, e.g.
 * Category:Braided rivers in France
 * Category:Subterranean rivers of the United States
 * Category:Tributaries of the Rhine

Samples of the Parent cat template follow. Most of the populated parent categories have discrepancies with the child categories, so the canned Petscan queries should be valuable for editors who are trying to keep the parent and children in sync.

. This one badly needs maintenance. There are 163 rivers in the county-level categories. 9 of them are not in the parent category. There are 5 rivers in the parent category that are not in any county-level category.

Out of curiosity, I ran a check for. All the pages in the parent are in one of the children, but even after excluding lists, massifs etc., 10 pages in the child categories do not appear in the parent list.

Comments?
are you ok with the alternative approach described above? It formalizes the status quo, and suggests but does not require a banner box with links to maintenance reports that may help keep the parent categories in sync with the child categories. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with your new version for the categories guideline at WP:RIVERS, describing the status quo. I'm not sure whether the Petscan links should be in all category banners. Petscan is a nice tool, but if its main purpose is maintenance, it's probably better to put it on some wikiproject list. An exception may be made for diffusing categories, like the example, here a Petscan might be useful for readers. BTW since Corsica and Bourgogne-Franche-Comté are both regions of France, shouldn't their river categories both be either diffusing, or non-diffusing, for consistency? Markussep Talk 09:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Petscan queries differ for each category. Most editors will not know how to write them, but the canned queries let them clean up discrepancies between parent and child categories, an ongoing task. The category header is the obvious place to link to them. I would prefer to diffuse all French regional categories, but see no reason to be consistent. with 1,041 articles is diffused,  with 807 articles is sort-of diffused, but  with 1,276 articles is not diffused. We cannot define a rule for when categories should be diffused, but when they are not it should be as easy as possible to maintain them. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As with User:Markussep, I'm okay with the language describing the status quo. Has the practice of directing readers to Petscan queries via the Category namespace been widely used? If not, I'd like to see some indication of a consensus in support of it among a broader base of users, in a more generalized venue than WikiProject Rivers. Thanks-- TimK MSI (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with TimK. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most articles link to external sites in citations, and often link to sister wikis, wikimedia and wikidata in the sidebar. has an interesting link to osm4wiki at toolforge.org. The history of this category links to pageviews at toolforge.org. I can wander from the history to xtools at wmflabs.org. A link to petscan at wmflabs.org does not seem odd to me, if it is useful. Still, I suppose it could be discussed at the village pump. I can start that. Aymatth2 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories with a link directing to the centralized discussion a Village Pump. I think the petscan links are a good idea btw. DB1729 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

See Village pump (proposals)/Archive 186. Not a lot of comments, but there were no objections to linking to a PetScan query, which after all is no different in concept from linking to GeoHack from a coord template. There were suggestions that we should go further, and either automate population of the non-diffused category using a bot, or else build and display the list of articles in the child categories at viewing time, but that seems over-ambitious at this stage. If nobody objects, I propose to implement the proposed wording in this alternative. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Larrys Creek
I have nominated Larrys Creek for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Source for Watershed information?
White Deer Hole Creek is a FA and is being reviewed for meeting FA criteria (Larrys Creek was a FA, and was delisted recently as part of the same review of older FAs). Both articles had watershed information from here, which included information like the watershed's area, population in the previous US census, and area / percentages of the watershed by forest or agriculture, as well as what portion of the county was in the watershed (White Deer Hole Creek drains parts of 3 counties). This information is no longer available from the Chesapeake Bay program website, and the WebArchive links are to "URL not found" pages. Many year ago I emailed the Chesapeake Bay program asking where they got the information. Their reply was basically it was easy to get without giving me a source. My hope is that there is a database somewhere or website that I am not aware of, but someone here knows about. Anyone have any ideas? The two most important pieces of information for now would be 2020 census population of the watersheds, and area in each by forest, agriculture, built up. Thanks! - Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't help with population, but this page has land use percentages and other useful info. You can get these reports for any U.S. stream segment via the EPA's WATERS GeoViewer: For the watershed, select the lowermost stream segment (at the mouth) and click "Watershed report." Just make sure you're looking at the figures for the entire watershed, and not the much smaller catchment for the stream segment alone. Hope this helps —TimK MSI (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much TimK MSI! This is very helpful and much appreciated. The data there (like total basin area) also matches what the article already has. Does anyone else have a source for watershed populations? 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) - Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:List of longest rivers in Eurasia
I recently submitted Draft:List of longest rivers in Eurasia for review, but it was rejected as it "does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own". That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as there already exist List of longest rivers of Asia and List_of_rivers_of_Europe, and Eurasia is bigger than both Asia and Europe. Can anyone advise? Stara Marusya (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * as there are lists of the longest rivers of Europe and Asia already, do we really need a duplication of that information? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I will add that the list of longest rivers in Europe is just part of the quite comprehensive List of rivers of Europe, which has a fair amonnt of explicative text as well as a wealth of details about the rivers and their basins. I would suggest that List of longest rivers of Asia could be merged into List of rivers of Asia, and the latter article could be expanded along the lines of List of rivers of Europe. - Donald Albury 14:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea but that still doesn't require yet another list of the rivers of the combined continents as proposed by Stara Marusya. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was offering an idea for another project to work on instead of the Eurasian one. I find expanding/improving an existing article as satisfying as creating one. Donald Albury 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So the Eurasian and Asian lists would be better merged into their respective articles, like the European one?Stara Marusya (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == URFA/2020 review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek tributary)
 * 2) Riverina
 * 3) White Deer Hole Creek

Requested move at Talk:Liberdade River (Xingu River tributary)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Liberdade River (Xingu River tributary) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   06:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research
Please see Village pump (policy). Rschen7754 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC, now at Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Naming of Swedish rivers
(Actually) a while ago a user moved a couple of Swedish rivers from X River to X (river), articles now at Torne (river), Ronneby (river), Byske (river), Åby (river). The Rivers where not disambiguators but translations of their name in Swedish (both Finnish and Swedish in one case), where they are named Village/Settlement/Other geographical element+ån/älven (the V/S/Oge River). Torne is in Encyclopedia Britannica as Torne River, Byske and Åby has English Google hits as Byske River and Åby River. I don't think this was the meaning with the section "Naming" on the project page, can I move them back? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This was discussed a while back. American sources like Britannica frequently used "Foo River" because it follows their national system of naming; likewise British and other national sources often use "River Foo". The outcome of the discussion, however, was to follow the very common English practice of just referring to European rivers as the "Foo" and disambiguating if necessary. Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand for Central European rivers, but in these cases the chosen names are not natural in English (Google gives results from the following two categories), as translated to English (Torne River, Ronneby River, Byske River, Åby River) or in Swedish or other languages spoken where they are (sv:Torne älv, fi:Tornionjoki, sv:Ronnebyån, sv:Byskeälven, sv:Åbyälven) Kaffet i halsen (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly normal and very common English to refer to rivers as "the Thames" or "the Ronneby". Indeed I looked up Ronneby on Ngram Viewer and it was the most common form. Bermicourt (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ronneby is a town that Ronnebyån floats through, so "the Ronneby" gives you plenty of hits for Ronneby the town through the Ronneby bloodbath, Ronneby declaration, and the Ronneby conference. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you have a problem with this. "Foo (river)" is entirely acceptable under the guidelines and overwhelmingly the most common form for European rivers. And two of your examples, Torne (river) and Åby (river), just need to be moved to their redirects, Torne and Åby. "the Byske" is more common that the other forms and "the Byske river" is the most common combination - none of the others register. So I'm not sure why you're pushing for a North American naming system for Swedish rivers when it currently follows the same convention as the rest of Europe. Bermicourt (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not pushing any North American naming system, I just found it strange seeing them differing from other Category:Rivers of Sweden by county and wanted to see why. It is like Ötztaler Ache would be at Öztaler (river) or Öztal (river). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notability
We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox River not showing image in Edit source
I am currently building a tool to check articles without images or with low resolution images (VCAT). But I am having an issue with the Template:Infobox river: why is there no image in the editable version while there is an image inside the infobox in the rendered article? An example is the article Pur (Russia) Right now my tool cannot detect those images. (example of the tool not detecting images at: VCAT - Wikiproject Rivers). I apologize if this is not the right place for this question, if so delete it. MingoBerlingo (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, the infobox displays an image from wikidata, if there is one there, when not specified in the wikitext. Keith D (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Is there a way to get the image name from the Edit source or the raw content (like this) of the article using MediaWiki Action API? MingoBerlingo (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Cannot help with that, may be you could ask at Village Pump. Keith D (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for watershed templates
Myself and User:Alansohn had a discussion about the inclusion criteria for US watershed templates, which sometimes go beyond listing just rivers, lakes, and tributaries, and also include populated places and landmarks, some of which are located nowhere near water:
 * Template:Kennebec River
 * Template:Saco River
 * Template:Androscoggin River
 * Template:Saint John River
 * Template:Raritan River
 * Template:Russian River (lists an airport, highway, rail trail, and transit line)

If "watershed" is a geographic term referring to a drainage basin, would watershed templates be improved if they only included links to rivers, streams, and so forth? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, this is a solution looking for a problem. I don't think anyone has objected to this, and it's not hurting to include too much rather than not enough. We've got more important issues than looking to pick apart river templates! As well, many of these rivers/watersheds are among the most important entities for regional context. Hudson River communities are as united as Mississippi River communities as are ones along the White River in Vermont. Communities and landmarks are definitely important for these topics. ɱ  (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a content dispute at Template:Raritan River, and a discussion where both editors sought input from the community. This should have been clear as a mud-free river. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Tributaries definitely belong, as do lakes. Towns are places in the watershed, where the water runs through, and I'm OK with that. However, landmarks are locations that by sheer coincidence happen to be located in the watershed. I've already removed them from Template:Raritan River and they should be removed from all such templates, as the connection to the river or watershed is far too tenuous. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not involved in the Raritan River discussion because I did not create that template; although I did create the others listed (and several more at the bottom of my user page.) Populated places within a watershed are significant to that watershed as likely sources of pollution, and those watersheds are significant to populated places' water supply and flooding risks.  Extreme precipitation events of short duration produce more serious flooding along tributaries than the main river system, and drought causes earlier water shortages along the tributaries than along the main river fed by additional tributaries.  I suggest these factors indicate the importance of informing readers of the drainage basin when news reports identify rivers, cities, or other landmarks while neglecting to identify tributaries or downstream effects. Thewellman (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your inclusion criteria for populated places? At Template:Russian River, you added Talmage, California, yet no part of Talmage touches the Russian River, and no waterways flow through Talmage into the Russian River. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Talmadge is located in the Ukiah Valley. The Ukiah Valley is a relatively flat alluvial plain surrounded by mountains of the California Coast Ranges.  As such, the community depends on groundwater in the alluvial aquifer recharged by the Russian River, and the community would be subject to flooding in the event of failure of the dam impounding Lake Mendocino or landslides blocking the downstream canyon near Hopland, California. Thewellman (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , I always thought that towns listed in the watershed were those populated places where drops of rainwater that fall ultimately make it through gravity to the title river. Now it includes places where water underneath the place ultimately touches water that passed through the river, went into the ground and entered an underground aquifer? The inclusion criteria are getting even hazier than I had ever thought. Alansohn (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I detect an inference that a watershed ends where we can no longer observe water on the surface of the ground? Would it help if we renamed the templates drainage basins?  I have lived in places like New Jersey where rivers are expected to be visibly wet, but I have also lived in places where river channels remain dry for years and may carry surface flow only for hours after rare precipitation events.  Climate change may make dry channels more common.  Subsurface flow beneath these dry channels is critically important to people living in these watersheds.  Failure to recognize the significance of subsurface flow has been a water pollution problem where toxic materials were spilled or dumped on the ground assuming they would stay there and a water rights problem where historic entitlement to surface flow has been stolen by pumping what has been perceived as unrelated groundwater.  I hope we can agree on a watershed delineation template which works for both humid and arid parts of our planet. Thewellman (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Drainage basins can be complicated. I live where small streams flow to a large wetland, from which some water soaks into the ground, some drains into a sinkhole, and some flows above ground to eventually enter a river system. Orange Creek Basin Donald Albury 19:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Landmarks listed at the Hudson River template are not watershed-area landmarks, they are physical items, navigational landmarks, visible on the Hudson. A boat traveling up or down the river is intended to spot all of these items, and they are primarily elements related to the river - mountains, bridges, natural areas, and canals. There are some exceptions that should be removed, but these physical landmarks are useful to the template. ɱ  (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These templates are about the watershed. So any tributary in the watershed is included. Any lake, pond or accumulation of water in the watershed with an article is included. Any town, township, city, village, hamlet, borough or populated place that the watershed passes through is listed. But landmarks only includes those that are visible from the river? What do landmarks visible from the river have to do with a template about a watershed? How would anyone reading or editing the template know that based on the description at the top of the template? Alansohn (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Hudson River reflects lots of geographic entities which should be summarized in a template at the main and related articles. There's only one Template:Hudson River, perhaps it should say "Hudson River and watershed", or be split into two templates. ɱ  (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me try to summarize the discussion so far in my odyssey to determine what should be included in a watershed template (in addition to rivers, streams, and lakes): pollution, water supply, flooding, subsurface flow, water rights, notable navigational landmarks visible from the water, and populated places that could in some way be impacted by their placement within a watershed. Ok, I get it. What about water towers? Every community has at least one water tower, and they all literally pump water right out of the watershed and store it in a big tank. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of many water tanks notable enough to have a separate Wikipedia article, since most of them are associated with the communities they serve. Did you have some in mind? Thewellman (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Chinese river article needs a course correction
but unsure exactly how. See (and direct replies) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China in a few minutes once I write out the section. — Llywelyn II   02:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)