Caschei River

I see quite a few scholarly biological articles refer to the Caschei River, a river in southern Ethiopia (possibly between Lake Turkana and Lake Chew Bahir). Can anyone provide any more details about this river? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 00:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at River

There is a discussion about the proposed content of the River article at the talk page that may be of interest to this project. ForksForks (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for Willamette River?

Anyone interested in creating a helpful navbox (Template:Willamette River) from the entries in Category:Willamette River? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Tonlé Sap#Requested move 10 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tonlé Sap#Requested move 10 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 17:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

River AfD

The notability of two rivers in Italy is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limentra di Sambuca. Your contribution is welcome. Markussep Talk 07:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

River Ock, Surrey

The map in the infobox for River Ock, Surrey incorrectly shows the location of the River Ock in the Vale of White Horse. The co-ordinates in the article seem to be correct, so I have no idea why it is displaying incorrectly. Someone who knows how to fix this, please will you? Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No map was defined in the original infobox, I've done a bodge to, at least, get it in the right place. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can find a discussion about an article on a waterfall. Thanks in advance for your contributions, --Pampuco (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Tana (Norway)#Requested move 28 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tana (Norway)#Requested move 28 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance - Palani Falls

In May 2024, I created an article on a surge waterfall located in Himachal Pradesh, Palani Falls. The article has remained unreviewed ever since, primarily due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources.

While an editor, User:Voorts, pointed out that the article clearly lacked enough reliable sources and questioned its notability, he did not rule out the possibility that the subject might merit an article. He referred me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers for assistance and help.

While I admit some of the sources in the article are questionable, I believe the subject does meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographical features. Other published articles in the same or similar category would be Ninai Falls, Rehala Falls, Hirni Falls or Purwa Falls, to name a few.

In the context of Indian geography, and more specifically the geography and ecology of Himachal Pradesh, I hold that the topic of the article, Palani Falls, is relevant and notable. I request help with referencing on the article. This may be a stretch, but I would also appreciate co-authors, if any.

If this isn't the right place to ask, do give me a heads-up. Regards, Dissoxciate (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question on consistency in naming

I've done a little editing to a couple articles on streams in Erie County, Pennsylvania and I noticed that the disambiguation among them is not exactly consistent. Some are disambiguated by what they are a tributary of while others are disambiguated by being in Pennsylvania. While it seems both follow the WikiProject naming convention, the inconsistency kinda bugs me. Would any moving be warranted? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before changing a disambiguator from (tributary of ) to (Pennsylvania), make sure the other is not also in Pennsylvania! —Tamfang (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen (tributary of ) used precisely as the disambiguator. I've come to prefer the (Parent river tributary) formulation, but there are cases where the same name is used for several tributaries of same parent river, so some other disambiguation is needed. Also note that where the parent river is used by itself in parentheses, for example Beaver Run (County Line Branch), I think in a past discussion there was agreement that Beaver Run (County Line Branch tributary) is preferred, but of course there should be redirects in place either way. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for River Avon, Bristol

River Avon, Bristol has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have separate creek and river categories?

Over the past few days, Volcanoguy has started to split river categories into rivers and creeks. For example:

I'd like to discuss whether editors think we should split these types of categories.

A relevant guideline is the defining characteristic criterion:

Defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.

Is the distinction between a creek and a river a defining characteristic? Volcanoguy appears to have used the fact that a stream was named "creek" to sort into the creek category. Do we wish to categorize based on the name of a stream?

There have been previous discussions that may be relevant. In 2016, editors decided to merge river and stream categories. That discussion considered whether "creek" was a term in a national variety of English. There was also a smaller discussion in 2016 that decided to merge a few "creek" categories back into "river" categories.

If we decide the merge the "creek" categories, the question arises what should we merge back into? We could simply undo the split and merge back into the "rivers" category. Volcanoguy has suggested using "watercourses" as the name in the category, which was also suggested in the 2016 merge discussion. I'm going to make two subsections below to discuss (a) whether we should keep the "creek" categories and (b) what to name the resulting merged categories.

Pinging participants in the 2016 discussion: Agathoclea, Antepenultimate, AussieLegend, Aymatth2, Bermicourt, BU_Rob13, Carlossuarez46, Czar, Daniel Case, DanTD, DexDor, Dimadick, Es0884, Ezhiki, First Light, Gjs238, Jemmans, Herostratus, HyperGaruda, Jakec, Jc37, Jokulhlaup, Kerry Raymond, Lankiveil, Laurel Lodged, Lemongirl942, Le Deluge, Marcocapelle, Mark Hurd, Neutrality, Novarupta, Nyttend, Od Mishehu, Pampuco, PanchoS, Peterkingiron, PaulBetteridge, Presidentman, Rathfelder, Renata3, RevelationDirect, RioHondo, Stevietheman, Tevildo, TheCatalyst31, TimK MSI, Vandraedha, YBG

— hike395 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creek is mostly an American term. I dont think it works in a wider context. Rathfelder (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Could we have a brief summary of the status quo (and the effect of the proposed changes) to assist with the discussion? A very quick look at the existing categories would suggest that all watercourses, of any size, are listed under "River" categories, and the proposal is to split off a subset of these into "Creek" categories, but this may be wrong. Tevildo (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tevildo is correct. The state before Volcanoguy started to edit was that watercourses/streams of any size were listed under "River" categories. The proposal is to split those categories: if the watercourse/stream has the name "Creek" in it, it gets put into a "Creek" category. Otherwise it stays in the "River" category. (Volcanoguy to correct me if this is wrong). — hike395 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we create creek categories?

WP:SNOW CLOSE
A clear consensus against creek categories. Thanks to Volcanoguy who has already reverted his edits. — hike395 (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Scioto River near its source
Slippery Rock Creek midway through its course

Yes, although we should reserve the option of using "Bridges over Rivers" categories for both rivers and creeks. -------User:DanTD (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently somebody didn't understand what I was saying. I thought it was fairly clear, but yes I do think there should be separate categories for rivers and creeks, and make more creek categories. But I also think the subcategory "Bridges over rivers in (Foo)" should apply to both, as well as streams, and other waterways when necessary. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No -- as far as I know there is no fundamental natural distinction, and it seems inconvenient, when looking for all the rivers in an area, to have separate categories for rivers and creeks. It also makes categorization more difficult. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No there's no objective cutoff, and we can't just use names as I detailed below. Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Herostratus. Consider the two images I've just placed at the top of this subsection, and ignore the names. If one should be classified as a creek and the other as a river, which is which? Obviously the top is the creek and the bottom is the river, but the names are opposite. There's a significant degree of overlap between the two, since names aren't systematically applied in some grand structure, so the only unambiguous way to distinguish them is relying strictly on the name, and names aren't a good basis for categorisation across Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No , mainly because there isn't an universally accepted threshold of some objective parameter that separates rivers from creeks.--Pampuco (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no objective way to separate rivers from creeks. Kerry (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because the choice of whether to call something a creek, a river, a burn, a stream, or whatever else is contingent on local history, on dialect, and on the relative size of other water features nearby; there is no standard and no objective distinction. Far easier just to class all such things together. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No - there is no consistency in use of word creek world wide hardly ever used in England- in North Island New Zealand English it tended to be used for tidal streams as per Australian and I then found different usage when I lived in South Island. I think volcanoguy's new category Category:Creeks of Dunedin is prime for reversion and example of inapproriate categorisation. One of the creeks is a river and the other a stream by more common NZ naming . ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I think of a creek as a tidal inlet, possibly fed by a rivulet, as opposed to a stream, brook, beck, burn or billabong. Easiest to keep the status quo.
    Aymatth2 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

What shall we name the merged categories?

If we decide to merge. — hike395 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watercourses, to be sufficiently general Mrfoogles (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat my 2016 !vote for watercourses. "Rivers and streams" has the problem that provoked this discussion, namely that given watercourse that isn't a river may be a "stream", a "creek", a "burn", a "beck", or indeed have a name that doesn't include any description (Roaring Meg). "Watercourses" is the most generic term available. Tevildo (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Names don't much matter IMO. As I blathered about below, many similar things that we can group together have different names. "X Tower", "Y Building", "Z Centre" can all be grouped under "Skyscrapers". We just use our best common sense for stuff like that. (Norman's Woe is not grouped with Woes but rather with islands since it is one, etc.) Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rivers and Streams. "Watercourses" is a bit less common and is a bit stiff (we are general publication not an academic one), and my guess is that at lease some ESL readers would not recognize it or know the precise definition quite as quickly. (Also, wouldn't "watercourses" include canals, aqueducts, wadis, large open storm sewers, or whatever?) Herostratus (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watercourses. Yes, it is a bit technical, but the meaning is both broad and clearly delineated. Think "lakes and ponds" (the distinction between which even our pond article admits is not clear, much less anyone at WP:LAKES can agree on) versus "waterbodies". If we want to make the distinction that Herostratus inquires about above, we can say "natural watercourses". Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "natural watercourses" would be better than just "watercourses" I think (not changing my vote tho). That might include wadis, but that would actually be reasonable or we could just decide not to.) Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rivers, per previous discussion. It's more accessible than "watercourse" (anyone with any familiarity with English will understand it), and calling a small flow a "river" seems to be more common than calling a large flow a "stream" or "creek". Backup suggestion is for "streams". 10+ years ago, when most of my Wikipedia writing was related to US geography, I heavily relied on the GNIS database, and they used "stream" to refer to everything from the Mississippi River to little things in someone's back yard. (Maybe they still do, but I've not used their site in years.) If they can do it, it's likely not a bad idea for us to do it. Either one is better than "rivers and streams", both because the latter name is much longer and because readers can easily infer that it contains two separate kinds of objects that ought to be distinguished. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's US-centric and doesn't apply to other parts of the world. Volcanoguy 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my last few years of life in Australia have generally matched my experience in the US. There are plenty of creeks around here — I'll likely cross Kananook Creek on my way to the beach this evening, and this weekend I'll go through Dixons Creek — and of course we have rivers, e.g. the Yarra and the Murray. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rivers is short and widely-understood for flowing water. Let's keep it short and simple. "Watercourse", while technically accurate, is not in everyday use. "Creeks" (but not "streams") is used in Australia but go to the UK and you find "streams" and "brooks" used rather than "creeks", so I think trying to standardise on a term for the smaller rivers isn't going to work. And, due to notability requirements, it is the bigger watercourses that are mostly going to have articles anyway. Even articles about things called creeks, e.g. Cooper Creek have a lede that says "is a river ..." Kerry (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I put forward Rivers and Streams as we have Wikipedia articles on Rivers and Streams. Streams are both used in British and American English, while Australia does use the phrase stream [1]. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One example is hardly evidence! I searched the Queensland PLace Names database and there are over 1000 watercourses called "Something Creek" (the search is limited to the first 1000 results so there are presumably many more) but not a single one named as "Something Stream", which is no surprise as "stream" is not used in everyday speech in Australia (it will likely produce the same blank look as "watercourse", unless you are talking to a geographer). Kerry (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be called streams, as per the article they go by more than one name, but they are in Australian parlance, as per the wording on the visit Melbourne site [2].Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple poll re acceptability

There are a lot of good ideas and discussion, but it seems that we haven't come to a consensus. I've found in past naming discussions that asking editors what would be acceptable rather than best can sometimes reveal consensus on an idea. This is a form of approval voting: I'll list the ideas that we've generated so far, and if you find the naming scheme (for the category tree) to be acceptable to you, sign your name below the idea. You can accept as many alternatives as you wish. You can also add more alternatives, if you wish. Thanks for participating! — hike395 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this poll. I’ve added a bit of explanation to each one with a simple method of adding one’s name. YBG (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might we want to include "streams" as a compromise option? It's the word used in the top-level category description (posted below). Tevildo (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Watercourses

If this option is acceptable to you, click Reply to this message, add four tildes and save. This will add your signature to the bottom of this list. Add any other comments to § Extended wordy discussion below. YBG (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FromCzech (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thewellman (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoguy 22:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rivers

If this option is acceptable to you, click Reply to this message, add four tildes and save. This will add your signature to the bottom of this list. Add any other comments to § Extended wordy discussion below. YBG (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YBG, what do you mean by click Reply to this message? Where is there a clickable "Reply", and why not just add a new line with indent and signature? Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just after my signature and time stamp above you should see a left-pointing arrow and the word Reply. Clicking this avoids having to search for the right place to add your signature. This feature was deployed to desktop in March 2022 and mobile in March 2023. YBG (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
YBG (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kerry (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 16:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thewellman (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PaulBetteridge (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TimK MSI (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rivers and streams

If this option is acceptable to you, click Reply to this message, add four tildes and save. This will add your signature to the bottom of this list. Add any other comments to § Extended wordy discussion below. YBG (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FromCzech (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thewellman (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TimK MSI (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoguy 22:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Natural watercourses

If this option is acceptable to you, click Reply to this message, add four tildes and save. This will add your signature to the bottom of this list. Add any other comments to § Extended wordy discussion below. YBG (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Streams

If this option is acceptable to you, click Reply to this message, add four tildes and save. This will add your signature to the bottom of this list. Add any other comments to § Extended wordy discussion below. YBG (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TimK MSI (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended wordy discussion

(I took the liberty of adding this section... maybe just I will use it, I don't know, but I like to address questions in more detail (or maybe I'm just prolix, you decide), and I think multi-paragraph arguments tend to muddy up the "votes" section.) Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, regarding using the names, that is a straight out. Gut (coastal geography) is a narrow coastal strait subject to strong tides, but South Gut and North Gut at the settlement of South Gut St. Anns, Nova Scotia are just inlets, while Brewery Gut in England and The Gut in Ontario are fast-flowing stretches of river, Jigsaw Rock Gut in Antarctica is a gully, and Gardner's Gut in New Zealand is a cave system. Conversely, some guts are not so named, such as The Rip, a gut in Australia, where the term "gut" is not used. (FWIW, Stream notes that "In hydrography, gut is a small creek... for instance, The Gut in Pennsylvania, Ash Gut in Delaware, and other streams down into the Caribbean (for instance, Guinea Gut, Fish Bay Gut, Cob Gut, Battery Gut and other rivers and streams in the United States Virgin Islands, in Jamaica (Sandy Gut, Bens Gut River, White Gut River), and in many streams and creeks of the Dutch Caribbean". So, some flowing-water bodies are not named stream or creek.

So if we are not using names because they can be misleading, where do we draw the line? We can't. For some entities we will have a source ("Jameson Flow is a stream..."), but that's often enough going to be just some writer's opinion, something she heard somewhere, or the irst word she thought of based on her education/culture, and anyway for some or a lot we don't have anything. Making up our own definition (Stream is X gallons per minute flow at the highest-flow point, creek is less) based on considered research would be OK, or even better would be some official or learned body's definition if there is one (if it is international), but lots of editors are probably not going to know of this standard when they write I suppose. And so some articles probably have "X is a stream..." or "Y is a creek" for similar-sized entities. Which enh, that's not a big deal for the text (they are sufficiently interchangeable to the general public I think), but categorizing on the lede would be kind of random.

TL;DR is that we can't differentiate to the degree useful for categorization, which is kind of a formal naming of the entity. So we have to have to have one category for both, whatever it is named. Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first I was going to indicate that all four options are acceptable, but I have changed my mind. The ancestor super category of all of these categories (category:Rivers) says in its description This category is for subcategories for all types of streams, e.g., branch, brook, beck, burn, creek, "crick", gill (occasionally ghyll), kill, lick, rill, river, syke, bayou, rivulet, streamage, wash, run or runnel. So I am now voting just for Rivers. YBG (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment based on the "natural watercourses" option above. Does this imply that the categories, whatever name we finally decide on, should exclude artificial rivers (such as the Old Bedford River)? Or will this only be the case if "natural watercourses" is selected? The current category description (posted above) does not explicitly exclude or include artificial streams. Tevildo (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of categories that start with "Rivers of", I don't think there's a practical mechanism to exclude artificial streams if we change the names. — hike395 (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Natural watercourses" would raise a problem with potential ambiguity concerning the extent to which natural watercourses have been modified for navigation from merely dredging to increase depth thru major realignment to avoid meanders to actual capture to support a canal lock system. Modifications for drainage and irrigation offer similar ambiguity, although generally on a smaller scale. Thewellman (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that this isn't a pre-existing standard. I've stricken my !vote above accordingly. Tevildo (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Yenisey#Requested move 18 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yenisey#Requested move 18 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 23:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Bar (river)#Requested move 25 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bar (river)#Requested move 25 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RIVERS
No tags for this post.