Talk:River

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the River article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

This level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geography High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:River is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Limnology and Oceanography High‑importance

	Oceans portal This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Top‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Lhere" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lhere. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Lhere until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers are shown as a place for waste disposal

Rivers have been shown as a place for waste disposal. This is wrong. This is not what we should be teaching people. River pollution shouldn't be happening. I kindly request you to remove that line 2405:201:F:C858:8870:5C90:4886:D3C1 (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably rivers are widely used for waste disposal in several parts of the world. Wikipedia records what has been said about subjects, not how we would like them to be. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Common Misconception?

It describes "all rivers flow N-S" as a 'common misconception'. In my half century on this planet, nearly half of which are in education, I have encountered a lot of misconceptions but never heard of this. What is the definition of 'common' being employed here. The sources listed a few blogs; hardly encyclopaedic. 2001:8003:F231:2501:E41C:D857:B016:7B0F (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

@Velella and ForksForks:? Rewrite no good? What wrong? Why not cooperate happily? jp×g 🗯️ 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for context I was asked to find consensus for [1] this version of the article. I am def happy to collab and take criticism on the article… I didn’t realize it would be a controversial since the live version has a lot of unsourced content and is a little barebones. ForksForks (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a deal of debate about the content of this article in the past. We did, at one stage have a reasonable version where the images reflected the text and demonstrated the progression of a river from headwaters through tumuluous stream right down to the vast deltas. Over the years that has been lost somewaht and the article has collected a fair degree of unsourced contant. I would be happy to work with any editors to improve it but a major re-structuring without discussion was not appropriate. In general it is easier to first get general agreement to the shape and then implement that one sentence or section at a time to allow for debate. A massive change is impossible to work with, and few editors have the time to work though such a change to check that all the important points have been included, taht the sources are good and support the article statements, and that it follows a logical encyclopaedic structure. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This link may help to set the context from 12 years ago. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at the talk page archive, but it seemed like the link you're referring to did not attract a lot of work or discussion. I would understand going sentence by sentence if this was a controversial article with a lot of active maintainers, but that is not really what I see. It's an article that has been allowed to gain tons of cruft and unsourced sections over time without anyone bothering to revert it.

An article like this (in my opinion) does require research and also a lot of writing, which is what I've done, and I have been careful to cite everything and read a lot and put a careful, balanced article together. If I were to submit it all individually here for approval I would be very surprised if I could get the same work done, and if anyone would actually show up to debate. My understanding with wp is that we should be bold with such changes so we don't get bogged down like this.

If you have a specific critique of the new version, I get it, but this sounds more like you don't fell comfortable reviewing the whole thing, which is understandable. My plan has been to take this to GAN as well as show it to other editors (see my recent work on Island) to get some experienced eyes on the topic, and I think I was successful with this approach before. ForksForks (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, sure, but please see WP:BRD which deals with just such a sitiation as this. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk}