Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers

Naming & Infobox v Geobox

Estuaries

Scope

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Article_Structure

Route diagrams/maps

UK river name disambiguation

Toponomy

RfC about the examples of local names

Whether to include an English translation bracket in articles with non-English titles

I boldly started the sub page article to form a base line for improvement. As a basis I used the other guidelines on WikiProject:UK geography, WP:RIVERS and the UK Environment Agency CAMS outline for writing about rivers. There is much still to be done on, and to, the page. The formatting needs the "magic touch" of the other guidelines and there is much discussion to be had. My intention is to offer a humble start.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making a start on this page & I agree with your comments in the lead that this will be complex. I have already been involved in discussion relating to River X or X river where X river is the name used locally (& on OS maps) - perhaps UK examples could be used eg River Avon. In the Infobox section can we consider Template:Geobox River see River Parrett as this copes with tributaries etc better (IMHO). Are we including man made watercourses eg River Huntspill & loads of canals etc? Are we going to encourage route maps see Grand Western Canal or Kennet and Avon Canal. In the indexing section should we be pointing editors to List of rivers of the United Kingdom?— Rod ^talk 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,and I've just thought of the Scottish "Water of" and "Water" as in Jed Water and Annandale Water. I think the canal and waterways poeple already have a project. I remember seeing somthing recently. I agree about Template:Geobox River. I'll alter the examples etc.to be more relevant to the UK.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways/How to write about UK Waterways from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways. I think we should be inviting that project to collaborate/comment/combine on this.— Rod ^talk 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the contact. I can see there will be a lot of talk about definitions, but this is no bad thing.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How far is this guideline intended to cover estuaries etc - see River Severn, Severn Estuary & Bristol Channel.— Rod ^talk 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the good old Humber of course! I havn't seen any other that does so, on my travels round Wikipedia, so I think it should.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I reverted an edit. There was an edit conflict and as I had the info pasted I just restored it with a copy.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a "Scope" section to define the coverage of the guidelines?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be much correlation between this and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Article_Structure. For example, the list of elements to be included in the article is in a different order (WP:UKGEO puts the list of tributaries quite high up, whereas WP:RIVERS has them later). I wrote most of the Monks Brook article following the WP:RIVERS guidelines, and it might have turned out quite differently if I had used these WP:UKGEO guidelines. Waggers (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. The order is confusing. It could be taken to mean that the list should appear before the body of the text. I'll move it down to be after the text. It was really just a check list item, no particular order. I tried to make this guide as close as possible to the WP:RIVERS guide, in fact I cut and pasted a lot of it from there. Thanks for your comments. --Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would somthing like this be OK for a route diagram?

Features of the course of River X

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller version showing more possibilities here.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a symbol to indicate limit of tidal zone (where there is one)?— Rod ^talk 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loads here to choose from !

How about ?

Key to river symbols

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Template:River Icons Legend and a link to River Derwent, Yorkshire where I have started experimentally to use the route maps--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd try to test this by doing a map for a local river but it flows both into & out of a reservori - how would this be represented?— Rod ^talk 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key to river symbols

Will this do? Maybe one for each?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present two different disambiguation styles are used for UK rivers (eg. River Avon (Warwickshire) and River Avon, Devon). At least arguably, the WP Rivers project WP:RIVER suggests using the former, whilst the UK geography project suggests the latter.

There is currently a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Correct ambiguity in naming section. For more information, and to comment, please go there. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, this is a mis-spelling, and the correct word should be Toponymy. Many have copied the error from this page. Would it be in order to correct the spelling in this article and in those based on this guidance? Dbfirs 15:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It has been suggested that this discussion does not meet the expected format of a Request for Comment but there is a definite request by the originator for other editors to weigh in on the issue. Whatever the formalities, this is a RfC at least in spirit. The more salient issue is that there has been almost no such weighing in by others. With two minor exceptions, what has taken place is actually a dialogue between two editors. Such discussions are not likely to establish any definitive clarity and unfortunately, this one has now lingered for nearly 3 months with little prospect of producing any further input. Nevertheless, a formal close has been requested and therefore the only way to summarize this is that no consensus has been generated on naming the articles on streams which have both English and Welsh names. In the absence of consensus, the status quo ante generally prevails. The Article Titles policy would suggest that the most common name supported by reliable sources had been the default position for naming streamcourses (including descriptive titles such as brook, afon, etc.) prior to this RfC. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest including three more examples of local names for watercourses (X Brook, Afon X and Nant X). 'Brook' is a common name for a stream in the West Midlands which does appear in Ordnance Survey maps of the area e.g. Rea Brook in Shropshire. As for 'Afon' and 'Nant' they are the Welsh words for 'river' and 'stream' respectively and are also used in OS maps of Wales often without an English equivalent. I decided to start this discussion after noticing some articles about rivers in Wales use the Welsh prefix 'Afon' in their titles particularly for the smaller lesser-known rivers e.g. Afon Rheidol and Afon Dulas although this is the English-language Wikipedia. I am however unsure of the formality, as opposed to colloquialism, of the use of 'afon' in English. The most formal example of the 'Afon' prefix in English I have found is in a video from Natural Resources Wales in the River Dyfi article. I had started discussions on moving the Afon Twymyn and Afon Rheidol articles but both times it was decided not to move those articles and the opponents of the proposals argue that the use of 'Afon X' is normal locally. The article Welsh English describes at least four dialects of English within Wales (North Wales, Cardiff, South Wales Valleys and West Wales). According to the Anglicisation article the preference for Welsh place names over similar-sounding anglicisations is more common in the west of Wales so the same might be true for the 'Afon' prefix. As for 'Nant X' I have seen it used in OS maps and on local signs for streams in Wales e.g. Nant Gwernol, Nant Brân and Nant Ceiswyn without an English name of any kind. Tk420 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tk420 has also been discussing this on my Talk page. Bear in mind Welsh is a language, as is English, not a dialect. There are differing dialects within Welsh, as there are within British English too (I'm unaware of there being multiple words for 'river', other than 'afon', in any Welsh dialect). It doesn't alter the fact that Welsh is not English, and this is the English language Wikipedia. The name of the Rheidol is 'Rheidol' and the Dulas is 'Dulas', much as the Thames is the Thames, the Medway is the Medway and the Trent is the Trent (see Afon Medway and Afon Trent, for example, on Wicipedia Cymraeg). Certainly for the more widely known rivers in Wales I would think it's more appropriate on the English language Wikipedia to call them rivers. As for the smaller tributaries, it's probably not worth working up a sweat changing them, but I don't know at the moment at what point a Welsh river becomes "widely known". The situation is complicated by the fact Welsh is an official language in the UK, so Ordnance Survey will not surprisingly also give the Welsh translation of rivers in Wales. Citing Ordnance Survey as proof that Welsh name/translation is commonly known by monoglot English speakers, is a weak argument in my opinion. Sionk (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for brooks, there are 'brooks' all over England and South Wales, it's definitely not exclusive to the West Midlands. Exactly why some watercourses are brooks and others are streams I've no idea :) Sionk (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English the use of words common to all varieties of English is preferred although there are allowances for local dialects (formal not colloquial) if there are strong national ties to a topic. The word 'river' appears to be common to all varieties of British English and I have seen the 'River' prefix used by the BBC and some local and national newspapers which use Standard English which I am sure is more or less nationwide in England and Wales. However, I have seen the use of 'Afon' by The Guardian, the Cambrian News, North Wales live and Natural Resources Wales though some sources might use both prefixes interchangeably. I am however unable to provide much more sources than OS maps or mainstream media so it might be useful if anyone can provide university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines and journals which are reliable sources according to Wikipedia:SOURCES. I would also like to apologise for any confusion caused by my use of the term 'Welsh English' which refers to the varieties of English spoken in Wales and not to the Welsh language. However, I would like to point out that Welsh English does contain loanwords from the Welsh language and some speakers code switch by using both English and Welsh words in the same sentence although this is colloquial rather than formal. Although more than 50% of respondents in Gwynedd and Ceridigion claimed to be able to speak Welsh in the last census both counties have their share of native English-speakers especially in the coastal resorts where some of the rivers in question meet the sea. Below I have provided the video by Natural Resources Wales with the use of the word 'Afon' about three minutes in.

A short video by Natural Resources Wales on environmental, social and economic considerations of the Dyfi catchment area

Regardless of whether some sources use the Welsh, it's still Welsh, not English. Sionk (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are Welsh words used in English-language conversations within Wales described in List of English words of Welsh origin including some which keep their original spelling. However, it does not have 'afon' unchanged so I am unsure of its frequency or formality in English. Tk420 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the Talk:River Dyfi#Requested move 28 July 2019 discussion which succeeded in getting it moved from River Dovey. The nominator User:Railfan23 (renamed User:The Mirror Cracked in August 2019) proposed moving the article to 'Afon Dyfi' although they were open to 'River Dyfi'. Although I did argue in favour of the move to 'River Dyfi' I did ask the admin User:DrKay to provide their reason for their decision to move to 'River' as opposed to 'Afon', in case it helps in this discussion, besides 'River' having more comments in favour considering Wikipedia is not a democracy but DrKay stands by their comment that all the commentators were in favour. This contrasts with User:Cuchullain who provided their reason for not moving Aberdyfi, at the Dyfi estuary, to 'Aberdovey' as 'Both names appear to be in use, but the consensus here is that the sources suggest "Aberdyfi" is the common name in English-language sources' after I asked them. Tk420 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting the above comment User:DrKay has since moved River Dyfi back to River Dovey and reopened the Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019 discussion although I was satisfied with the move to 'River Dyfi' and was merely asking them to provide a reason for the move. Tk420 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since then the River Dovey article has been moved back to River Dyfi by User:Cuchullain stating their reason as 'There is clear consensus that this is the most common form'. In light of this I would suggest using, in an article title, whichever prefix out of 'River' or 'Afon' is more commonly used by reliable English-language sources for that particular watercourse. Tk420 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree, to be honest. If any reliable English language source calls it a River I would argue that it should be called a River on the English language Wikipedia. If there are no English lanuage sources that call it a river, I suspect the water course is too obscure to expend energy on a page move. Sionk (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise the point of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names in case it is useful here in deciding whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in an article title. The guideline includes the preference for just one name in the title of an article but also states 'There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.

Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have.

We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive.'

I think this is the guideline used in the decision to not move Aberdyfi to 'Aberdovey' although some English-language sources use the two names interchangeably. As for the River Dyfi, in which the anglicised 'River Dovey' does not appear to be used as often as the one for the village and community of 'Aberdovey', some users on Talk:River Dyfi thought 'River Dyfi' was a 'horrible' mixture of the English and Welsh languages although it is used by reliable sources and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Tk420 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on Talk:Afon Mawddach#Requested move 24 August 2019 has ended after over a month of debate over whether to move the article to 'River Mawddach' with the closer User:StraussInTheHouse stating 'No consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination.' Tk420 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close (Summoned by bot) – The Rfc header above should be removed. This Rfc is not an Rfc; rather, it is a free-ranging discussion about how to improve a proposed new project subpage recommendation. As such, a discussion about that is just fine, and appropriate. But, that does not make it an Rfc. A "Request for comments" is not an invitation for a free-wheeling discussion about anything, but a specific part of the Dispute resolution process. Put another way, if there's no prior dispute, there is no reason to have an Rfc. To quote WP:RFC: "RfC is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system." Ideally, it's for resolving intractable disputes that can be worded as a yes-no question per WP:RFCBRIEF. To the closer: I don't see how this can even be declared "no consensus", because you'd have to say, "No consensus for what?" Instead, in my opinion, the closer should declare a Nolle prosequi, remove the header, and invite the discussants to carry on discussing any which way they please, about whatever they please. Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started this Rfc in response to confusion over whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in an article about a river in Wales, in recent move discussions I was involved in, in the absence of a guideline I know of. This page seemed the best place to suggest such a guideline. I stand by my decision to start this discussion until it is legitimately closed (preferably by an admin). Tk420 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a message to user:Cuchullain to ask if they can offer any assistance and received the reply 'Honestly I don't see this getting resolved anytime soon as long as there's no consistency in the sources, where some rivers are more commonly called "River X" and others are "Afon X". I don't have much to add, I'm afraid'. I chose Cúchullain as they closed the Aberdyfi and River Dyfi move discussions giving their reason, after I asked them, for keeping and moving the articles as 'There is clear consensus that this is the most common form'. By the sound of it even admins get confused by the inconsistency over the use of 'River' and 'Afon' in sources referring to rivers in Wales. Tk420 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estuary or mouth

Plain course

Buildings alongside plain section

I would also like to raise the issue on whether to include the English translation in articles with the 'Afon' prefix in the title. To include such a bracket seems unnecessary in an English-language article if the introduction says it is a river e.g. the first six words (without the bracket) in the Afon Mawddach article read 'The Afon Mawddach is a river'. I would also like to point out that the Trout Beck article, used in this article as an example of a local name for a watercourse, introduction reads 'The Trout Beck is a fast flowing stream of the Lake District in North West England' without a translation of the local language or dialect. I am however unsure if the use of a prefix should be avoided if it might be controversial. e.g. the introduction could just call the above example 'the Mawddach' or just use 'Afon' in the first instance and avoid it thereafter similar to the style in the Fairbourne Railway's leaflet. Tk420 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note only as an American that we say Rio Grande but also Los Angeles River, using the local terminology for each. I suppose there is a similar usage in other countries with other rivers. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add a suggestion: if a watercourse is known by multiple names among English-speakers the most common name could be used in the article title with other names marked as 'Also known as', following the example in the Aberdyfi article, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names. Tk420 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.