Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Under Article structure: lists, it states that tributaries should be listed starting from the mouth and moving upriver. However, the article on tributaries states that in orography tributaries are ordered from nearest the source to the mouth. If that is the standard in academia, then the guideline should be changed. VerruckteDan 03:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too, am puzzled by this. Has there been any other talk that I have missed? It makes the writing of an article quite difficult as the two cannot be integrated properly in the text.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See /Archive 2#Order of presenting tributaries. Markussep ^Talk 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could set up this project's banner with some additional parameters allowing it to assess for the various national WikiProjects as well, thus reducing the number of banners on several pages and making updating assessments as required easier. Would the members of this project be interested in such an action? If yes, I could draft a sample banner and let you all look over it before implementation. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in seeing a draft banner. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a geographer I should like to question why tributaries should be listed from the mouth and going upstream? Surely that is illogical - the rational idea is that a river grows in stature as it proceeds from source to mouth, and that is simply because of its tributaries? In any case, rivers all flow that way? Peter Shearan (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about that some months ago, see /Archive 2#Order of presenting tributaries. I think the conclusion was that there's logic to both ways, source-to-mouth and mouth-to-source. Markussep ^Talk 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of tributaries of Larrys Creek for peer review here and would appreciate any feedback from knowledgable river editors on its structure, layout and anything else. It is an attempt to list all 42 named tributaries of one creek in a series of tables. The next step after this is WP:FLC, so I would really appreciate some other eyes looking at this before that. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to all the reviewers. It is now at WP:FLC, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw a request for coordinates for the Talk:Pearl River (China). This lead me to look at Yangtze River's and Yellow River's coordinates. It seems weird to me that their coordinates aren't qualified by what location — whether its the source, delta, somewhere else — the coordinates refer to, such as the source coordinates shown by Amazon River. Is it implied that the coordinates mean the river's source's coordinates? Would someone at this project clarify this? Or am I complete off-base about coordinates? If so, please direct me to the appropriate information. Thanks. --Tesscass (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that these are features on a river, shouldn't all such articles be part of this project? I just added WP:Rivers to Waddington Canyon but didnt' to Lava Canyon; ditto Basalt Falls. Thoughtts?Skookum1 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about canyons - some of them may have no river at all. Waterfalls seems ok - if no other project has claimed them yet. Rmhermen (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's customary and useful to pinpoint locations on a river by river mile (distance from the mouth). Since other quantities in Wikipedia are expressed in metric as well as imperial units, should we be expressing river miles as river kilometers (RK)s as well? I've been working recently on Balch Creek and other creek and river articles. It's tempting to go back and add the conversions from RMs to RKs. An example from Balch Creek might look like this: "From its source, the creek runs east on private property before turning briefly south through private land and a short segment of Forest Park, a large municipal park in Portland, at about river mile (RM) 3 or river kilometer (RK) 4.8.... It enters the city and the Portland Audubon Sanctuary simultaneously at about RM 2 (RK 3.2) and then flows northeast, entering the Forest Park subsection known as Macleay Park. Any thoughts about RM to RK conversions and vice versa? Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]