Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

How Category:Lists of longest rivers are listed? Aren't they original research?

Copied from Help desk.

I am recently reviewing list of longest rivers of China in Chinese Wikipedia. It was a featured list once, but delisted for original research. Which part, you ask? It's the selection criterion: Rivers included in the article must at least 1000 km. However, a user suggested that the criterion itself is original research if no citations provided, and must provide a reliable source that defined a "longest rivers of China" as "rivers in China that are at least 1000 km".

Of course, the usage of the Chinese word 最 may contributed the issue (Chinese don't use grammatical number, so we can't tell if "最长河流" is "longest river" or "longest rivers", see plural for details), but after reading some longest rivers' lists, such as List of river systems by length, List of longest rivers of the United States, and List of longest rivers of Ukraine, I found that no citations provided to their definition of "longest rivers".

Then why list rivers longer than 800 km instead of 1000 km in the US? Why list rivers longer than 1000 km long in the world, not 800 km? Are there any sources supported their criteria? Why aren't these considered original research? - I am puzzled by these questions, and have no choice but ask in the help desk.

Thanks for reading. Saimmx (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Selection criteria are editorial decisions. Editorial decisions lie beyond OR. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

River Ivel

What sections does the River Ivel need and can you find more sources for the River Ivel please? I want the article to be Good Article or Featured Article. TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

To find sources on a specific topic, one has to hunt. Some places to try are:

• Google search in your web browser at google.com
• Search in Internet Archive at https://archive.org/
• Study the resources available at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library which include:
  • Search through academic sources at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/
  • If you know the name of a particular journal/magazine article, but cannot get access to it (because of a paywall, or other barrier): try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

It looks like River Ivel is a small river in UK. Consider looking in UK-specific locations, such as National Trust web sites, British Library, or perhaps local historical societies near the course of the river.

Some topics simply do not have excellent sources that talk about it. I don't know if River Ivel has excellent of sources or not. There is no minimum # of sources required, instead, the key is how "reliable" they are (see WP:RS). Ideally, you want sources written by academics that are very high-quality. If it turns out you cannot find some excellent, reliable sources, that is okay: it can still be a fantastic Wikipedia article. Getting GA approval has lower requirements than Featured Article. A typical sequence for an article is:

1. Gather as many sources as you can (see list above)
2. Read all the sources
3. Write the article
4. Go through the WP:GA process. If it fails: fix the issues that were identified and try again.
5. Go through one WP:Peer Review -asking reviewer to focus on FA-related criteria (see WP:FACR)
6. Go through the WP:FA process

Some articles stop after the GA process because there are no excellent sources.

Good luck! Noleander (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheAnomynousEditor - I looked at the River Ivel article, and the sources appear to be adequate for WP:GA. So, I suggest that you nominate for WP:GA before you try WP:FA. If you want more confidence that it will pass WP:GA nomination, you can do a Peer Review before the GA nomination. In Peer Review: you can ask other editors to identify issues that might need work before nominating at GA. After the article has passed GA, you can then decide if you want to nominate for FA or not. Noleander (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander Should there be more headings added into the article or not? TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

And also, are historical societies and conservation groups reliable for geography facts? TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

See my reply below. For advice on a specific article, the discussion should be at the article talk page namely Talk:River Ivel; or in a Peer Review page that you create (see below). Also, you can hunt through Wikipedia for excellent articles on UK rivers, and ask the editors that worked on that article for advice. Noleander (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

May I suggest this: Go to WP:Peer Review and create a "PR nomination" there for the River Ivel article. Follow the PR instructions. After the PR is created, notify me on my Talk page, and I will reply in the new Peer Review page you created. And maybe we can find another editor (which is an expert in UK geography) to also provide input. PR is a much better location to get input than here in this River Project page. Noleander (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience @Noleander but here is the peer review thing TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Request for Review

Last week, I submitted the River Ivel in the WP:GAN can someone review the article please if it reaches GA?TheAnomynousEditor (User talk:TheAnomynousEditor) — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

River Ivel

I found good quality sources but how do i word them for the River Ivel article?

https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/WaterBody/GB105033037720?cycle=3

https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/WaterBody/GB105033038170

Many thanks, TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Use the Cite web template available above the edit box. Click on Cite then you will get a drop-down menu on the top left. Choose web and fill in the boxes. HTH Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean from teh website, it says that it has a moderate ecological status on one part of the ivel and good ecological status on the other ivel body how do i word it? TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Per https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/OperationalCatchment/3239 there are 20 water bodies in the Ivel catchment, each with its own assessment. You have linked the pages for just two of them. Clicking "View classifications tables" on the page I linked, it states that 4 of the water bodies have good ecological status and 16 have moderate ecological status. I don't see a rating for the catchment as a whole. You need to explore that website more. Donald Albury 01:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What happened to the article classes?

It looks like all of the river articles have had their class removed, and I can't seem to find any discussion or documentation of why. All of the subcategories under Category:River_articles_by_quality are now empty, and bots are already flagging them for speedy deletion. Has there been a decision to stop using article classes? Did a bot mass-remove them? Is there a bug in a template somewhere?

Weirdly, Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/River_articles_by_quality_statistics still shows articles in the categories, but when you click any of the categories, they seem to be empty... Kieran (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on. All the river articles still have their grade B/C/GA/FA identified inside their Talk page. Some bot that collects that information and generates the hidden categories (such as Category:A-Class River articles) must be broken or disabled. Maybe post a query in WP:Village Pump where category-savvy experts may be hanging out. Noleander (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Apparently it was an edit to the river article template that broke things, and it's now fixed! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liz#h-Weirdness_with_river_article_categories-20260625211100 Kieran (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I was making an attempt to edit the description of a river in my locality but...

I was making an attempt to edit the description of the location of a river in my locality but was confused by the current data. That is, when I tried to edit the summary table it looked like a single item and not text, and I thought maybe it is auto filled by some mechanism using eg a GIS database. I just want it to be correct, and it isn't. Is it autofilled somehow, and can it be safely editted manually without breaking anything? Robintundrabay (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

What WP article is it? What is the specific fact you are trying to change? Can you post here (in this Talk page) the fragment of text that looks like "a single item" that is the source of the problem? Some items are filled from WikiData databases, but that is sort of rare. Noleander (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If it is in article Clyde River (Ontario) at this line:

| mouth_location = [[Tay Valley, Ontario|Tay Valley]]

you should be able to edit that directly in the article. Noleander (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought so too but it seemed linked to something. I'll give it a try when I can find a few minutes. Thx Robintundrabay (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Review request

Can someone review the River Ivel article to see if it reaches GA?

Many thanks, TheAnomynousEditor (talk) TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Mže

Can the Mže river be included in the "Rivers of Germany" template? Only its source is located in Germany; the river then flows through the Czech Republic. However, since it is one of the longest rivers originating in Germany, the template would be incomplete without it. I am facing strong opposition. There is a similar case: the Ohře also originates in Germany but flows within the country for about 50 km. I would like to include all rivers in the template that have a total length of over 100 km and come into contact with Germany in some way. Si9mon (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If anyone has any thoughts, please post them at Template_talk:Rivers_of_Germany so the conversation stays focused in one location. Noleander (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

general structure of river templates

Can I arrange the rivers in the "Rivers of Germany" template by drainage basin and length instead of alphabetically? For example: first comes the sea into which most of the rivers flow—the North Sea, not the Baltic. After the sea, the longest river comes first—the Elbe-Vltava system, not the Eider. Within the Elbe-Vltava system, the Havel-Spree system comes first, not the Aland. This system seems much more logical and better suited to rivers than simply listing everything strictly alphabetically. Si9mon (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Surely the point of the template is to enable readers to locate the relevant article for the river they are interested in. Easier to find alphabetically than by geographical listing, especially when the reader may be unsure about the latter. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

What do I need a template for if I already know the name of the river I want to click on anyway? Si9mon (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

So what do you think a navigation template is for? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I picture it like this: a reader is on the Elbe page, for example, and scrolls down to the "Rivers of Germany" template to see the Elbe's context within that group—such as its tributaries or what other rivers exist in Germany. I consider it unlikely that someone would already have a specific river in mind—intending to visit its page next—yet choose not to enter the name directly; instead, they would open the template, search for the river (listed alphabetically), and click on it—after all, they could simply type the river's name right away. Tell me about a scenario where an alphabetical order within the template would actually be important. Si9mon (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm just going by how I use other nav templates. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question, but the claim by "FromCzech" that rivers in river templates must be arranged alphabetically has long since been refuted anyway, given that templates like "Rivers in China" are not sorted alphabetically at all. Si9mon (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want a template that is helpful for readers, this version (by FromCzech) is far superior to this (by Si9mon). I find the latter to be neearly unusable. older ≠ wiser 14:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Certainly the second one looks far to complicated, as a non-specialist in German rivers I found it difficult to work out where to find what I was interested in. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, the initial version isn't by "FromCzech," and secondly, that version is riddled with errors. As I’ve said a thousand times, the original template I modified was missing a huge number of rivers longer than 100 km, while including about 40 rivers that are significantly shorter than 100 km. Furthermore, the Peenestrom isn't a river, and to top it all off, the Meuse is equated with seas in that template. Also, the reason my revised template is hard to navigate isn't that the rivers are ordered by length rather than alphabetically, but rather that many rivers appear twice because I represented each river system based on its maximum length (including the longest headwaters). Si9mon (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

No offense intended, but the attributions are for the last edit of the linked versions. Regardless of errors in the former, usability is absolutely terrible in the latter by comparison. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

There is far to much editorial around the links is the problem. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m going to revise the version so that each river appears only once, though I’ll keep the sorting by length. We’ll see then if it still looks cluttered. Si9mon (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not just clutter, it is about intelligibility. One should not have to spend more than a minute or two to understand the organization. I've been looking at that template for much longer than that now, and I still have no clue what much of it signifies and locating any individual stream in the listing is much more difficult than it should be. older ≠ wiser 14:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Here you go. The template is now organized in a completely logical way. All rivers are arranged by length. If a river, combined with one of its tributaries, has a greater total length than the river on its own, the tributary is appended with a plus sign. Rivers that do not flow through Germany are marked with square brackets. The template is now more logical than the Chinese one, where no one really knows how the ordering works. Si9mon (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I may be missing something but surely a river plus tributary is, by definition, longer than just the main river? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

No, the Main—including its tributaries—is longer overall than the distance from its own source to its mouth, whereas the Ems, for example, has its longest flow path from the Ems source to its mouth. Si9mon (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but that really doesn't help much. Arranged by length? What ordinary person knows anything about the length a river and how does organizing a template in that manner help them find a particular river? And the second column is mystifying. And WTF do the various types of brackets signify? The abbreviations for the mouth location is cause for a long pause to decipher. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it one step at a time: what is mystifying about the second column? Si9mon (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve already solved the mouth-location problem. Sorry to ask, but do you actually have any involvement with river templates? Every river template consists largely of parentheses, and every river template is organized to some extent by tributaries—since there are first-, second-, and third-order rivers, and so on—so the standard parentheses always appear. And the rivers that don't flow through Germany are listed in square brackets; I mentioned that earlier, and surely that can be indicated somehow in the template as a footnote. Si9mon (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

While you mentioned the square brackets in discussion, it is not obvious to the casual viewer of the actual template. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Surely there is a way to specify what that means somewhere in the template. A question for you, too: Do ​​you actually have any connection to rivers? I ask only because of your earlier question about tributaries. I assumed I was likely dealing with river enthusiasts here. Would you prefer the template if it were structured like the "Major rivers of China" template? Could you explain to me how the rivers are organized there? Si9mon (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Never seen and have no interest in the rivers of China, see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. I can confess to having perpetrated Template:Hydrology of Surrey. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, okay—since you seem interested in the German template, how would you arrange the rivers? Si9mon (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd abandon the listing in order of length for a start. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

And how should first-, second-, and third-order rivers be handled? Si9mon (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by those categories. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

We could simply list all the rivers in alphabetical order, or we could categorize them by major drainage basins—such as those of the Elbe and the Rhine. However, even within those categories, we would face the same issue, as drainage basins subdivide further; for instance, the Dahme and the Nuthe are tributaries of the Spree, which is a tributary of the Havel—even though the Spree is much longer than the Havel. Si9mon (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean by solved the mouth-location problem. The current version looks just as unintelligible as before. There is no requirement to actually have any involvement with river templates to be able to make observations about issues with usability. What do you mean by [e]very river template consists largely of parentheses? Can you give some examples? I don't see anything similar in, for example, Template:Rivers of France. It is completely opaque as to what the various types of brackets signify in this template. If similar schemas are used in other templates, that perhaps says more about how little attention these templates get rather than presuming there is an archetype to be emulated. Are the parentheticals supposed to be an alternate name? Or perhaps a different name for specific segments of a river? And why does this template also have square brackets? Do these signify something different from the parenthetical brackets? It is completely opaque without a deeper dive (which runs counter to the entire purpose of having a navigational template). older ≠ wiser 16:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue regarding the "mouth" entry has been resolved, as there is no longer any room for misinterpretation: it simply reads "mouth:" followed by the linked country. There is simply no possibility of misunderstanding it now. Furthermore, the following heading has been added: "by drainage basin and total length (main stem + longest tributary)." So, the meaning is perfectly clear here—unlike in the Chinese template, which offers no explanation at all regarding how the rivers are arranged. Parentheses appear automatically when rivers are listed using asterisks—a feature also found in the Chinese template and many others. In reality, there is no ambiguity here either, as these parentheses always signify the same thing: a tributary of the main river follows. The only element that might actually be confusing is the use of square brackets, which indicate that the river does not flow through Germany. The Polish template handles this differently: it makes no distinction between rivers that flow through the country and those that do not (see the entry for the Pregolya). One could either omit the square brackets or add an explanatory note; however, this affects only about ten rivers anyway. As a side note regarding the situation before I intervened: the Meuse was listed without any brackets—even though it does not flow through the country—and was even placed on the same level as the seas, yet no one batted an eye. Si9mon (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for whatever it is you are doing, but as you apparently are only interested in dismissing any concerns about intelligibility and usability, I'll just leave you to it . older ≠ wiser 17:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You mentioned that an entry like "mouth: D" is ambiguous. That’s why I changed it: I replaced "D" with "GER" and added links for all the countries. If you still find it unclear, please explain why, and we can consider making further adjustments. Your second objection concerned the square brackets; I had used them in an attempt to improve the template by marking rivers that do not flow through the country in question. If that makes things too complicated, we can simply remove them. Which approach do you prefer? Your third point was that the meaning of the parentheses isn't clear; as I explained, they appear automatically and always signify the same thing: that a tributary of the main river follows. You’ll find these parentheses in almost every river template. Furthermore, in response to your objections, I added an unambiguous heading that includes links—though, in your view, even that heading doesn't help make the template any easier to understand. Si9mon (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You seemed to be obsessed by the Rivers of China template. Why do you have to categorise rivers by which country the mouth is situated in? That's something the reader can establish from the linked article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

No, the rivers are by no means arranged according to their mouths. That is merely additional information I included. It simply says "mouth" followed by the country. Si9mon (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

My question is why? How does it help the reader navigate the template? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This template provides a quick overview of Germany's river system. Templates like the one for France's rivers are only half as useful. The French template, for instance, is organized by the seas into which the rivers flow and then by major river systems; however, beyond that second level, it abandons the breakdown by river system and simply lists all remaining rivers alphabetically. A 5 km river starting with "A" appears at the same level as a 200 km river starting with "A." An alphabetical list is far less useful than one organized by river systems and lengths, because alphabetical order is only helpful if you already know the name of the river you want to click on. If a reader is on the Weser page, for example, they aren't going to scroll down to the template to look for a river whose name they already know—they could just type that name in directly. Instead, a reader turns to the template to understand the Weser's place within Germany's river system, to see its tributaries, and to grasp how it relates to other German rivers, and then quickly click on them. That is my opinion. Si9mon (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Except, an reader unfamiliar with the topic area can fairly quickly grasp how the template for France is organized. It is a usability problem when readers have to pause and study a template to even begin to understand what is what on it. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem is that you are trying to pack too much extraneous information into a format that is not suitable for communicating the complexities and subtleties as you are attempting. older ≠ wiser 19:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

In reality, everyone just thinks they understand the French template quickly, but it’s a trap. The alphabetical list includes both rivers that flow directly into the main river and those that flow into a tributary first; all these rivers appear at the same level. Furthermore, I still don't see the advantages of an alphabetical list. Please give examples of situations where a reader is on a river's page and it is actually an advantage to have all the rivers listed alphabetically in the template. Si9mon (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that templates are not suited to present heirarchies. I think what you are trying to do works better in a list article, such as List of rivers of Florida, where there is room for explanatory text and for waterways that do not yet have an article. Donald Albury 20:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

There is hardly any country-river-template that isn't organized by tributaries. Please show me templates that are arranged purely alphabetically, and explain the advantages of an alphabetical arrangement. Si9mon (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The one I have worked with is {{Rivers of Florida}}. Of course, it comes nowhere close to listing every river, stream, and creek in Florida, that is what the list does. Donald Albury 21:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice template. Si9mon (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I have created a new version that meets the requirements of WP:NAV. I based it on the original version, which is supplemented with rivers that are 100+ km long in Germany. I created a new version that meets the requirements of WP:NAV. For consistency with similar navigational templates and because there is no consensus for change, I have reverted to the original alphabetical order. I based it on the original version, but it is supplemented with rivers that are 100+ km long in Germany (that was the original extension by Si9mon).

I did not delete large-but-short river of Peenestrom and those that are 50–100 km long and were already there (second-level tributaries), but I am not against their eventual deletion. I also kept the IJsselmeer as a compromise, based on Si9mon's request. The intention, as with other navigation templates, was not completeness, but a clear overview of the most important rivers, so I set a goal of about 100 largest rivers and in the end there are 117. If we want the more important rivers not to be lost among the less important rivers, I would not recommend further expansion.

I welcome feedback, compared to the previous version of Si9mon, to avoid conflicts. Thank you. FromCzech (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Your changes cannot be accepted in their current form. Firstly, your version of the template does not include all rivers over 100 km in length. Secondly, while the template now includes many shorter rivers, it omits others that are longer than the ones currently listed—which is completely illogical. Furthermore, your template looks like it was slapped together carelessly. It is no secret: your interest in this template strikes me as highly questionable. You make contributions almost exclusively related to the Czech Republic or Czech people. It is easy to surmise that your sole objective regarding this template is to remove rivers flowing through the Czech Republic; the Vltava and the Mže seem to have bothered you the most. One of many proofs that you do not actually care about the template is the fact that you included the Peenestrom; a simple click on the "Peenestrom" article reveals that it is not a river. A user should not be allowed to act destructively simply because they have a higher edit count or seemingly more privileges than others. Moreover, the template now looks inconsistent; all rivers that flow directly into the sea—such as the Danube, etc.—must be listed at the same hierarchical level. You also deleted the Meuse river system, which had always been included. If you are serious and truly care about the template, you need to fix all these errors first. Additionally, add all rivers longer than 100 km, as well as any rivers longer than those previously included in the template. The claim that only second- and third-order rivers may be included also appears to be a rule you invented arbitrarily. Finally, I find it surprising that you aren't surprised to be the only person on all of Wikipedia who is even interested in this template. Si9mon (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

1) If a river is over 100 km long within Germany, we can of course add it there. Everyone makes mistakes and I might have forgotten one. Which one specifically is it?

2) I left some of the shorter second-level rivers there fow now, which I justified above. We can agree to delete them, if it is reasonable and systematic.

3) I left the Peenestrom because the Peene (which is 100+ km long) flows into it and because it was in the original version. I think it looks better this way. But again, maybe there will be agreement to delete it.

4) The template format is such that it is clear. Separating other rivers will make the template larger. The objections you raise (that the Oder is not on the same level as the Danube) make sense in an article, but not in a navigational template, which has different requirements – not the transmission of encyclopedic information, only easy navigation.

5) I did not delete the Meuse river system. Both of its tributaries over 100 km are there. The Meuse is not included because it is not in Germany. It could be italicised, but then an explanation would have to be added as to what italics mean, and this would mean further expansion. Again and again... I do not insist, it is about discussion and agreement.

6) The Studená Vltava (not the Vltava) is only less than 10 km long in Germany. The Mže is less than 4 km long, including the Czech–German border. Both are only indirect tributaries of the Elbe and have only the character of a brook on the state border. Only the Ohře makes at least a little sense (if there was a consensus for its return), but within Germany (including the state border) it is less than 50 km long and on the border its average flow is less than 3 m3/s. Neither of these rivers is among the significant rivers of Germany.

7) Assume good faith please. I wrote it already Template talk:Rivers of Germany and I will repeat it again now: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Read WP:BEHAVE. You defamed me on the Talk page template, then on Teahouse (without pinging me so I could defend myself), and now here. Personal attacks and accusations do not belong on Wikipedia and are not taken lightly.

Pinging @Murgatroyd49, Bkonrad, and Donald Albury as previous discussion participants. I would welcome a third opinion regarding the template format (see Template:Rivers of Germany) and perhaps also regarding the inclusion of specific rivers mentioned above, as communication with Si9mon is difficult due to the constant confrontational tone. FromCzech (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The basic layout seems fine, easy to navigate. I couldn't comment on the inclusion (or not) of specific minor rivers. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You are facing a logical problem: as long as any rivers longer than 50 km are included in the template, all other rivers longer than 50 km must also be included. As a side note: the French template even includes rivers shorter than 10 km. Furthermore, you made changes without establishing a consensus—for instance, you removed the Ohře even though it was already listed, and you removed the Meuse as a system even though it was previously included. Moreover, everything you write seems questionable to me; for example, you cited the Polish template as a good example, yet you don't remove the Pregolya from it—even though that river doesn't flow through Poland at all. You accuse me of making changes without prior consensus, yet you do exactly the same thing—only for you, it’s apparently fine. Besides, I still don't understand the logic behind including the Peenestrom, given that it is an arm of the sea. Si9mon (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

And to state this clearly once more: you decided entirely on your own—and without consensus—that 1. all rivers longer than 100 km but with a flow length of less than 100 km within Germany must be excluded from the template. 2. You also introduced the 50 km criterion entirely on your own, and almost unnoticed: rivers not exceeding 50 km in length—even within Germany—are likewise not to be included. You are presenting both of these points here as established facts, even though they were solely your decisions and your changes. If all rivers shorter than 50 km must be removed from this template, then the same must be done for the templates of other countries. Furthermore, I am strictly opposed to excluding long and important rivers here simply because only a very short section of their course lies within Germany. Si9mon (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the template for? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

In my current opinion, to show all rivers that are longer than 50 km and touch German soil in some way. Si9mon (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

And also shorter rivers that are nevertheless very important for some reason, or are very well-known—such as the two headstreams of the Danube, the Breg and the Brigach, or one of the headstreams of the Vltava: the Cold Vltava. Si9mon (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. What is the template for, regardless of which selection of rivers it displays? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Would anyone object to including the following in the template: 1. all rivers longer than 100 km that touch German territory in any way—regardless of the length of their course within Germany—and 2. all German rivers that are at least 50 km long? Si9mon (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, when opening the template, one should get a quick overview of Germany's river system: the longest rivers, their tributaries, and the seas into which they flow. That is why an alphabetical arrangement makes no sense to me. For instance, I just noticed that the Ukrainian template isn't strictly alphabetical either—at least not at the first two levels: it starts with the sea into which most Ukrainian rivers flow, followed by the second, and so on. Within each sea, the rivers at the first level are ordered by length. I would continue this approach at the second level as well. Si9mon (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed that you even deleted the Ohře – very convenient for you to do it all in one go and by your own rules. The Ohře was already listed there before I made my edits. Si9mon (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The actual rivers are. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

What? Si9mon (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to include in the template all rivers that: 1. are longer than 100 km and touch German territory in some way; and 2. flow for at least 50 km within Germany. If anyone objects, they can say so here, explain why, and outline how they would do it instead. Si9mon (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that, what the problem is your insistence on doing it in a non-intuitive way that involves the user having to be a mind-reader to work out the layout. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Si9mon (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Would it also be okay with you if—as in the Ukrainian template—the seas were arranged starting with the sea into which the most rivers flow, and if—again, as in the Ukrainian template—the first-category rivers were ordered by length? Si9mon (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If they are rivers that are 100+ km long and at least 50+ km of the lenght are in Germany (not just touching), we can consider it, there could be only a few of them. It is also important whether their upper or lower course is in Germany – on the upper course they may not yet have the character of a river and overall they may not be significant for Germany, like the previous examples of Czech rivers originating in Germany. Do you know which ones specifically this applies to? If you meant those conditions separately, which would double the number of rivers in the template, then of course I am still against it, and I am not alone.

I have nothing against the proposed ordering of seas, but I would leave the rest as it is now. I also have nothing against deleting the Peenestrom and leaving only the Peene. FromCzech (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You know exactly what I meant: both all rivers longer than 100 km that touch German soil in any way, and all rivers that flow through Germany for at least 50 km. The only rivers you are concerned about are the Ohře (which, by the way, you deleted casually without reaching a consensus), and the Mže. I wish I didn't have to include these rivers in the template so that I wouldn't have to keep arguing with you about it. But unfortunately, the template would be incomplete if two rivers over 100 km long that originate in Germany were left out. After all, these are the only two rivers of that length that have almost no course within Germany. So, it all comes down to just these two rivers. There is simply no changing the fact that these rivers—which are over 100 km long—have a connection to Germany, and both the source and the mouth are two of a river's most important features. Since these rivers exceed 100 km in length and one of their most important features—namely, their source—is located in Germany, I see no benefit in excluding them from the template. And strictly speaking, one of the sources of the Vltava is also located in Germany, though this is not the hydrological source, but rather one regarded as such for cultural and historical reasons. Si9mon (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I made a suggestion for discussion, and I justified why and how it is. You act as if I did something wrong. I have returned the Ohře for now, on the basis that it was in the original version of the template. FromCzech (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If we reduce the template to the rivers you are proposing, hardly any rivers would remain. Perhaps the point of this template isn't to be as brief as possible; maybe it ought to include a certain number of rivers to be of any use at all. Even Florida now has more rivers listed than Germany does. Furthermore, it is illogical to leave out exactly two rivers that are over 100 km long. The question is why it is so important to you that these rivers be excluded. So much of what you do is simply contradictory. While my goal—creating a comprehensive template—is clear, I don't quite understand your intentions. For instance, why don't you remove the Pregolya from the Polish template, given that you previously recommended the Polish template to me as a model? Or rather, why didn't you even notice the error regarding the Pregolya? The Polish template is actually quite modest in scope, so the error stands out immediately. Why isn't there a Czech template? If rivers exceeding a certain length are to be excluded from the German template, then that rule must be applied to all other countries as well, and the corresponding rivers must be removed there too. And that task must be carried out by whoever pushes through the change to the German template. Si9mon (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The Mže River is definitely not the only 100+ km river that has only a smaller part in Germany and is not listed.

Florida's template has c. 103 rivers+creeks+canals, and 27 lakes. Ukraine also has a similar number to Germany in its current form. I think that in terms of size, these are the maximums to keep it easy to navigate, and that is why I do not agree with further expansion. But if we exclude some of the rivers that remain there and are under 100 km, we can increase the threshold for inclusion to, for example, 80+ km. We do not have to stick to those super-rounded numbers 50/100 km.

I gave Poland in the early phase of our discussion as a good example regarding sorting and layout, otherwise I did not examine it in more detail. But it is clear that each template will have its own specifics and it is not possible to create rules for everyone in bulk, e.g. having all Chinese rivers with 100+ km is nonsense. Everyone must follow WP:NAV. FromCzech (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

As long as templates like the one for France include twice or three times as many rivers as the German template, I will not agree to your proposals. This demonstrates one thing: the situation is not as you portray it—namely, that there is a strict limit on the number of rivers allowed in a template. Nor is there any evidence of a maximum length requirement anywhere.

Your next incorrect claim is that the Ohře and the Mže are not the only rivers that originate in Germany, exceed 100 km in length, and have almost no flow distance within German territory. Please list the other rivers that fit this description here.

Your comparison with China is also flawed: the smaller a country is, the shorter its major rivers will inevitably be.

And your comparison with Florida is somewhat pointless, too: Florida’s area is 139,670 km², yet its template lists almost as many rivers as the German one. Furthermore, the fact that streams are allegedly listed there as well (I am not checking again right now) contradicts all your arguments. Therefore, I repeat: exactly two rivers originate in Germany that exceed 100 km in total length but have only a very short flow distance within the country: 1. the Ohře, whose flow distance within Germany is about one-sixth of the total (reportedly 49.8 km), and 2. the Mže, which leaves the country just a few kilometers after its source. A compromise would be to include a note for the Mže indicating that only its source is located in Germany. The course of the Ohře within Germany is so long, however, that such a note would seem almost inappropriate. Incidentally, the version of the template I had already drafted did include this note regarding the Mže.

Furthermore, while you suggested a threshold of over 80 km, the cut-off points for this sort of thing are usually either 100 km or 50 km; 100 km strikes me as too high, as Germany is small enough to justify a threshold of over 50 km. And as a side note: geography doesn't change just because you keep it from people. The Ohře, Mže, and Cold Vltava all originate in Germany; even the Grassy Vltava flows through Germany, as we have recently learned. Moreover, the longest river flowing into the sea within Germany—and the country's second-longest river overall after the Danube—remains the river officially named the Elbe but which is actually the Vltava. Additionally, the water of the Cold Vltava originates in Germany and flows into the sea within Germany via the Vltava, just like the water of the Ohře and Mže. The persistent issue is that the longest river flowing into the sea in Germany is approximately 150 km longer if the Vltava is included in the calculation. Consequently, the Vltava cannot be viewed in isolation from Germany. I am mentioning this again because I believe the main reason you insist on keeping the rivers in alphabetical order is that you know full well: if the rivers were ordered by length, the Vltava would inevitably have to be added to the Elbe, meaning the Elbe and Vltava would appear at the very top of the template. Si9mon (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

France also has too many rivers and the template needs to be made clearer. You can see for yourself how it stands out from the others.

Saalach has 100+ km, flows through Germany and is not included in the template, as a one example to confirm that the Mže is not the only one. I don not have time to deeper analyse which other rivers may be missing, but it does not matter, I disagree with their addition.

It does not matter how many rivers there are in Florida or how big it is. We are talking about the size of the template and the number of items included.

You have already been told by others to stick to generally accepted hydrological conventions and not create your own interpretations. Only the Elbe flows into Germany. The Vltava flows only in the Czech Republic, and the fact that its tributaries originate in Germany is irrelevant to this debate, because they do not reach more than 25 km anyway.

I do not keep anything from other people. I do not in any way hide the fact that some rivers originate in Germany, I fully agree that they should be mentioned in List of rivers of Germany and that this information should be in the articles of individual rivers, but they are irrelevant for the navigational template with the largest rivers of Germany. However, I am leaving the Ohře there because this river was already there, and there is no consensus for the Mže to be added, so I see no reason to discuss it further. FromCzech (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I repeat: I want to include all rivers in the template that are longer than 100 km and touch German soil, as well as all rivers that flow for more than 50 km within Germany. You are creating so many pseudo-problems and points of contention that your actual goal is getting completely lost.

1. You oppose listing the rivers by length because you don't want the Vltava to appear in the template; you reject even using brackets or a note, simply because you do not want the Vltava mentioned in connection with Germany.

2. You oppose including rivers longer than 100 km that touch German soil in any way, so that the Ohře and the Mže do not appear in the template.

3. The template you created is riddled with gaps and errors, demonstrating that you have no genuine interest in German rivers or the template itself—your only aim is to remove the Czech rivers. Otherwise, one would never engage in such an endless debate (which creates the impression that the topic matters to you) only to deliver such a poor result.

What was your reason for deleting the Saalach, and why did you rename the Aland-Milde-Biese system to just Aland? I have no problem discussing every single river with you. Furthermore, I cannot imagine that you have the authority to decide which rivers are included in the template.

Furthermore: No, the Saalach is not an example of a river that originates in Germany but has almost no stretch of its course within the country, since the entire lower reach of the river is located in Germany. Ironically, you yourself cited the argument regarding a river's lower reaches yesterday to underscore its importance to the country in question—how is one supposed to take any of this seriously anymore? Si9mon (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

You are once again violating the principles of polite communication on Wikipedia and are again addressing my person and what do you think I think. Stop.

Different opinions on certain thing are not errors. As well as maintaining a reasonable template size.

The Saalach was not in the original template, so I could not delete it. Because I spent only a minimum of time searching for the river in the morning, I did not notice that it flows from Austria to Germany and not vice versa, sorry, my fault. But even so, it is an example of a 100+ km river that has less than 50 km in Germany.

The Aland page is called Aland, so per MOS:GEO this name is used. It was the same in the original template.

I am not an authority, it is all about discussion and consensus. The Ohře was returned because it was already in the original template. The Mže was not included because it was not in the original template. FromCzech (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

River Purwell Assessment

Can someone assess the River Purwell and give any suggestions to reach it to C or B class if it reaches Start? TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Missouri River

Missouri River has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Orne (Normandy)#Requested move 30 September 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Orne (Normandy)#Requested move 30 September 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-52515-80 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

etymology help

At the article about the river Karašica (Drava) we've now had many months of edits to the article that have made it look more like this is an etymological dictionary, rather than a general encyclopedia. I tried to ask for help about it once before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#etymology help, but didn't get far. Can someone else please review? --Joy (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Lead script formatting discussion

Hello

Input from WikiProject Rivers editors would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Standardizing Cyrillic lead templates on BiH geography articles (matching Tešanj / Čapljina), where we are discussing standardizing the lead-sentence Cyrillic script labels across river articles in Bosnia and Herzegovina (such as Bosna (river), Una (Sava), and Vrbas (river)) per MOS:LEADLANG and MOS:LEADCLUTTER. ~~~~ TopoIndex (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)