Talk:List of rivers of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 List of rivers of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Rivers
 This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] earlier items

Why not into state divisions?vcxlor 12:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC) And again why not?vcxlor 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 umvcxlor 01:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
Not to mention many rivers cross state borders (or ARE the state borders!) -- Chuq 22:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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)


[edit] Red Links

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Commenting out in progress - can always be reverted if someone disagrees--Matilda talk 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)