Jump to content

Talk:List of rivers of Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

earlier items

[edit]

Why not into state divisions?User:SatuSuro 12:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC) And again why not?User:SatuSuro 15:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your responses! In the light of the two responses, maybe we should insist on state identifiers in the title/name, otherwise there will be rivers that the average punter would not know which state they are in on initial search? a bit like we have localities with the state name as a qualifier, as in Perth, Western Australia etc. But as Chuq points out, there is the rather common use of a river as a boundary, then, well umUser:SatuSuro 01:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the only reason is because dividing this way is a fair amount of work and because many links are red and therefore knowing which state for each river would require a bit of googling or research. The other reason might be because we have the categories like Rivers of Tasmania and Rivers of Queensland, etc. - Shiftchange 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention many rivers cross state borders (or ARE the state borders!) -- Chuq 22:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the list be organised as follows:

  • River - State, Additional State
    • Tributary One - State, Additional State
    • Tributary Two - State, Additional State

This is how the list of rivers of the Americas is organised, and I think it works well. Rivers, including tributaries, can then listed alphabetically on the individual states pages. -- KSHuntley 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Anyone agree with removing red links - on a list like this? SatuSuro 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think red links are valid. There is no threshhold for notability for a river so they all may get articles one day :-) --Matilda talk 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm how many active eds on the oz project at the moment - so youre gonna tell me there is not a single hoax among that lot? SatuSuro 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep quite a close watch on this page and revert what I see as obvious vandalism. In general I trust additions by established editors. Perhaps one solution would be to require a reference to suport redlinks but not other links - there aren't so many and the referencing should be easy from www.ga.gov.au--Matilda talk 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - different thought as it is really too tedious to work out which of the several possible Alice Rivers anyone might mean. Let us comment out redlinks. If someone wants to add a redlink (or decomment it) then they need to provide a reference. --Matilda talk 02:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out in progress - can always be reverted if someone disagrees--Matilda talk 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong views either way but why do you, and others see the need to remove red links from lists? I see the need to write a few stubs for uncreated entries but no need to remove them. Am I unaware of some policy or guideline? I thought the page was aiming to present a list of rivers of Australia and feel that decommenting or unlisting them is counter-productive. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is verifiability. Please feel free to uncomment and cite a reliable source - eg from www.ga.gov.au . There were just too many for me to tackle to reference. I may do so slowly; I know I was commenting out many legitimate redlinks. The trouble is I cannot guarantee that all of the links are valid. It is also unlikely that the list will ever be complete - the topic is huge. If you add a redlink, please add a citation. the article has now been set up to manage <ref></ref> in line cites. Blue links of course link to articles that should include references which verify. The issue has arisen because of hoaxes elsewhere. I have from time to time reverted hoaxes / vandalism from this list. The policy being applied is of course WP:V. --Matilda talk 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creeks?

[edit]

Isn't this a list of rivers? Why does the NSW section list so many creeks, especially given that most of them are redlinks. I think these should be removed, and will probably do so myself unless I hear a convincing argument otherwise. --jjron (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some creeks are in river categories and have a river infobox. I think the reason creeks are included is because in many cases rivers could easily be creeks and some creeks be considered rivers. Also I believe official lists (naming registers) of rivers include creeks but I haven't looked into it myself. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically, there is absolutely no difference between a creek and river. If you disagree, then define the term "river" so that it excludes so-called "creeks". Both are simply watercourses and a big creek is commonly larger than a small river. Dividing this list (and related categories) based on what was an arbitrary naming choice 150+ years ago is unencyclopedic in my opinion and I strongly oppose it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Different lengths

[edit]

List_of_rivers_of_Australia#Longest_rivers, and Murray River articles state different lengths for the river? Carlwev (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of rivers of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of rivers of Australia. 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:

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) 21:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same list repeated thrice

[edit]

First off, let me say I don't normally edit Australian articles. I play around mostly in Canada. I came across this list List of rivers of Tasmania while working on Arm River (Saskatchewan) (it was Arm River (Tasmania) that brought me here). Then I noticed the same list here Rivers of Tasmania. And of course, the exact same list is located here at this article. Repeating the same list three times seems like a lot of extra work. I know Wikipedia isn't paper but it just doesn't seem right. Am I wrong to suggest all three articles should have one central list? Just some food for thought. Masterhatch (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_rivers_of_Australia&oldid=1199883983"