Talk:Paraopeba River

Rivers Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brazil: Geography Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geography of Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Using articles

Using articles like the, le, la, o, de as etc, The main reason wecwrite articles is to have them read. This means that searh engines may readily find them. Using articls in names makes it easy or a lot easier to know the langusge of the article. Also, it is for an Engtlish or Aerican englsh speaking person more natural to use an article: in English: The Thames, The Parana river, the Yangste kiang etc etc.

Spanish: el rio Thames. el rio Paranaetc

Dutch de Thames rivier, de Parana rivier etc

brazilian/port o rio Thames o rio Parana etc

French La fleuve Thames, la fleuve Parana etc

I hope to have made my case and will agree on other ways by force of arguments and the majority Gerard Koenraadt (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, and articles are in the English language. My copyediting includes several links, but all articles are in English.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Length issue

It says both 5465 and 510 km are the length of the river. If anybody knows the real length, please edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danleugers (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Length

I have modified the length to be (consistently) 510 km, since that seems to be the value supported by the one referenced source. I'm not convinced the source is 100% reliable on the subject; if nothing else, my understanding of Portugese is probably not good enough to fully interpret it. For reference, the alternative value previously in the text was 546.5 km (339.6 mi). PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]