Talk:Confluence

sza is good to have the opportunity

Consistent Use of term Tributary in Wikipedia

What is and What is not a tributary of a larger river or body of water? If there is no DIRECT connection between the so-called tributary and its parent water, is it a tributary? What I am looking for here is some consistent application of the term to articles on rivers and lakes within Wikipedia.

I personally believe that unless there is a DIRECT connection between the two named waters at a confluence, the lesser water should not be listed as a tributary of the greater water. For example: I would contend that the Firehole River in Wyoming is not a tributary of the Missouri River, but instead a tributary of the Madison River. If this logic is not applied, then articles about very large or significant waters might literally contain 1000's of tributary references. For example, if I were to include Rocky Creek as tributary of the Mississippi River, I would not be totally incorrect as it does flow into the E. Gallatin River, Gallatin River, Missouri River into the Mississippi.

I have posted this on the Tributary talk page as well. If there is a better place to post, let me know?

--Mike Cline 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dissapointed

this site doesnt give me any thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.88.21 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integer latitudes and longitudes

I have removed the "Integer latitudes and longitudes" section. It has nothing to do with confluences of water and is already covered in the disambiguation page and in Degree Confluence Project. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping list size under control

The number of confluences is vast so I suggest that the list be limited to cases of the following types:

The rivers in question are big ones, or
The confluence was the location of an important historical event, or
The confluence is the location of an important monument, major structure, or natural phenomenon.

To this end I am diffidently moving two entries to this talk page. I wouldn't get mad if they get restored, but it would be nice to give additional information about them to explain why they are important.

Osijek, Croatia, is on the right bank of the river Drava 25 km upstream of its confluence with the Danube.
At Columbus, Ohio, the Olentangy flows into the Scioto.

Opus33 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A problematic item

I'm moving this sentence here:

The River Swat empties into the River Kabul near Attock, in Pakistan.

In truth, the confluence of the Swat and the Kabul rivers is not all that close to Attock, and it is indeed much closer to Peshawar, which is a far bigger city and perhaps also more likely to be familiar to WP readers. Also, there is a confluence quite near Attock involving a much more famous river: the Kabul flows into the Indus. Might the original editor have made some kind of slip?

I'm tempted to include the Kabul-Indus confluence, especially since it is the location of a facility judged worthy of a WP article, Kund Park. But I also feel out of my element re. geography of Pakistan. Suggestions/editing from more knowledgeable people would be welcome. Opus33 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confluence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041017044104/http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pa/qtrlyPN-2-2004.htm to http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pa/qtrlyPN-2-2004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]