This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
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
I listed this at the project pages. I am trying to figure out why there are two articles for the same river as there is also the article the North Canadian River. I thought Beaver River (Oklahoma) might have been specifically about the river in Oklahoma but that does not appear to be the case. Otr500 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The North Canadian River changes names at the Oklahoma border but it is still the same river and this can be handled by using alternate naming so I don't see the reasoning for two articles. Otr500 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On federal maps (USGS maps and others including the National Map online) since a USBGN decision in 1970, the beginnings of both rivers are defined by confluences of pairs of streams (not simply as name changes that occur on a single stream at borders or other locations). The GNIS entry for the Beaver River explains the federal definition since 1970: The Beaver River is formed in Oklahoma by the confluence of Corrumpa Creek and Seneca Creek, and the Beaver River joins Wolf Creek to form the North Canadian River. Neither that GNIS entry nor the one for the North Canadian River includes any New Mexico counties among the lists of counties through which the rivers flow (and includes no Texas counties for the North Canadian River). The coordinates given in GNIS for the mouth of the Beaver River are identical to the coordinates given for the mouth of Wolf Creek and for the source of the North Canadian River.
I'm in favor of retaining both articles, and using the federal definitions for the purposes of categorization, etc. Regardless, the federal definitions of both rivers need to be stated clearly. Varying definitions (including any that have a river named the North Canadian River beginning in New Mexico) also should be stated clearly and attributed to reliable sources if they aren't already. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: The Missouri River also could be considered "the same river" all the way to its farthest headwater, but we have articles for the various named streams that combine at various confluences to eventually form the river presently named the Missouri River. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion is what brought me to this need for a discussion. From a point when the "various named streams" or tributary waters forming the Missouri River, become known or considered the headwaters of the river proper, are there name changes? The river is still the exact same river, with nothing actually unique to offer under the separate article names. With this thinking we could have a separate article when the river enters Oklahoma City. I am sure there would be many state, regional, and local sources verifying that the city changed the name within the city limits. I would think this would be a main reason we use bold alternate names and an etymology section. I bailed out of improving Philippine hwy articles because of the mass confusion of one main hwy having many separate honorary names and some need to cover that under separate articles. Almost 42 miles of the Ouachita River become known as the Black River after being joined by the Tensas River but we still redirect to the main river name with a relevant section. My questioning is: What purpose does it serve? This especially becomes important if the federal definitions (I didn't look) consider it the same river and not the beginning of a new one at the border. Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following are analogous:
The North Canadian River is formed by the confluence of the Beaver River and Wolf Creek
This kind of thing is a very common occurrence, and I don't think the North Canadian River needs to be an outlier in terms of how such situations have been handled elsewhere on Wikipedia. The "Oklahoma River" thing is a separate matter and is not an analogous "River A and River B join to form River C" situation.
It seems like the main point of confusion is that the North Canadian/Beaver articles do not currently describe the rivers' extents in this manner. I'm happy to help change that! Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with going by the Federal definition which has Beaver River being above the Wolf Creek confluence and North Canadian River being below that. That "North Canadian River" is also a historic name for the Beaver River does add an element of confusion that doesn't exist in most of those examples, but I think that can be explained in the Beaver River article. As for whether the articles are merged - we do often include headwaters or short, differently named sections of river in with the main stem if we don't have very much to say about them. In this case I think the Beaver River is long enough to warrant its own page, but I would revise both pages so that they are only discussing their respective sections and not overlapping. It might help to include the map that is currently on the Canadian River page which does portray the North Canadian and Beaver rivers using the Federal definition. I'd keep the Oklahoma River redirect going to North Canadian as that renaming isn't reflected in Federal sources and it's such a short section I don't think pulling it out would be useful. Kmusser (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following the federal definition would make more sense. Likely my main issue is that the articles currently look more like reflective mirrors. Obviously with some work (maybe a lot) I can see a reasoning two articles would be viable but it would probably be more obvious with a rewite. It seems the discussion has brought some things to light and some future improvements so thanks. Otr500 (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So we could place in the lead something explaining that the use of "Beaver River" would be considered as "beginning at the confluence of Corrumpa Creek and Seneca Creek, and ending where it joins Wolf Creek". I am looking for something to give a defining difference between the use of the two names justifying separate articles.
Feel free to edit! Personally I think identifying one as a tributary of the other sufficiently distinguishes them as distinct entities. Or the "Course" section could simply be moved to the lead. I don't think it's necessary to repeat the same information in two brief and adjacent sections. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think with TimK's edits it is fine, just call it a tributary and leave the detailed explanation to the Course section. I don't think you need to spell out why it's a separate article now that they aren't overlapping, the name definition now has sources describing it as a separate river which should be good enough. But if you want to expand on it I'm not going to argue. Kmusser (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at it when I get a chance. But first---- thanks for the improvements. This is a reason why I prefer attempts at discussions sometimes over some bold move like going straight to a merge discussion or AFD. Straight interchangeability of names indicates a merge should be considered but with the federal designation and article improvements it now seems clear there is justification. As for the lead and redundancy, I don't feel summarizing for clarity is duplicity. Many people may only read the lead. The name "North Canadian River" has sometimes been applied to the Beaver River" and a two sentence lead section means expansion won't do any harm. Google map only shows the one river anyway, so this becomes more important in curbing confusion. Otr500 (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
