Talk:List of rivers of New Zealand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
List of rivers of New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Should the heading also contain "Australia"?
I'd say yes because it contains the Snowy and Yarra (and maybe others). Alternative is to remove the Oz rivers. Moriori 03:59, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
No. It is a list of NZ rivers from linz.govt.nz . The Snowy and Yarra are rivers in NZ. Will chand links to point to an NZ entry. Alan Liefting
[edit] Disambiguation format
I noticed that some of the rivers here are being disambiguated with the form "River Name, New Zealand". I believe the general convention for disambiguation is to use the form "River Name (New Zealand)". The comma convention I believe was introduced for U.S. cities and from there spread to cities in some other countries and occasionally to other types of articles. I just happened to come upon one today, Rocky River, New Zealand, when I noticed the Rocky River disambiguation page was updated. I actually don't care that much if you all decide to do New Zealand rivers differently. But I do strongly encourage you to consider using the parenthetical form--it is MUCH easier to type links with it because you can use the pipe trick with to eliminate the parentheses in the linked text, while with the comma notation you have no choice except to retype the name preceding the comma. older≠wiser 22:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm. That's a bit surprising, but still... There are reasons against it, mind you. With most articles, the parenthesis seems to disambiguate the type of an object rather than its location, so by extension "Rocky River, New Zealand" would mean the Rocky River in New Zealand whereas "Rocky River (New Zealand)" means (and I know this example makes little sense) A New Zealand called Rocky River, in the same way that "Rocky River (band)" would mean a musical group called Rocky River.
- This may seem a quibblingly small point, but it could make a difference. Say there was a type of porcelain called Yangtze River Chinaware. "Yangtze River (China)" would refer to this ceramic, whereas "Yangtze River, China" would mean the river. if there were also a city of that name, it would be "Yangtze River, China (city)".
- In any case, a lot of NZ places - including a considerable number of rivers - are done in this format, and Rocky River is now the only one with parentheses. So unless you feel like adding a couple of hundred redirect pages... Grutness 09:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- No, like I said, I really don't care if you do NZ rivers differently. Though I quite disagree with you about the use of parenthetical disambiguation. I am not aware of any Wikipedia convention that says the parenthesis should indicate type rather than location. Location is commonly used as a disambiguation phrase, and it works very well in the U.S. where there are very often multiple towns with the same name as multiple geographic features. It may not be as applicable in NZ. older≠wiser 13:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- The parentheses disambiguation for rivers in North America is well-established and accepted by the major contributors in this area, having been worked out through long discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers . The primary reason for this is the comma in North American places, at least, is reserved for communities . In many cases, there are communities that are identical in name to rivers, such as Hood River, Oregon which is a town on the Hood River. Thus the format makes it clear as to the type of geographic reference. Just take a look at Grand River for another really good example: simultaneous disambiguation of multiple towns and multiple rivers. Also another advantage of the parentheses is that in many cases with rivers, it is not possible (or perhaps not preferable) to use only a single disambiguting reference, as in the case of rivers which flow along borders. For example, St. Croix River (Maine-New Brunswick) (compare St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota)), would be much clumsier with a comma. Note that rivers in Great Britain and Ireland often have the same name as U.S. and Canadian rivers, but by convention are called River XXXX instead of the XXX River (i.e. compare Thames River with River Thames) and thus no explicit disambiguation is needed, even when the names are otherwise identical. However, disambiguation of rivers within the United Kingdom is done by commas, and I am not going to intervene about that either. Like I said, the convention involving North American rivers was all worked out carefully over time. As to New Zealand, I personally would have preferred for it to follow the convention of North American rivers (parentheses), but I am not an active contributor or editor for those articles. I am not being a North Americanist here, but simply referring to the fact that the large majority of river articles which have been created in Wikipedia up until now have been ones in North America, and conventions, once established are best followed to avoid confusion. I agree with User:Bkonrad in above: I am aware of no policy in Wikipedia stating that parentheses disambiguate by type and not location. -- Decumanus 19:56, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
- No, like I said, I really don't care if you do NZ rivers differently. Though I quite disagree with you about the use of parenthetical disambiguation. I am not aware of any Wikipedia convention that says the parenthesis should indicate type rather than location. Location is commonly used as a disambiguation phrase, and it works very well in the U.S. where there are very often multiple towns with the same name as multiple geographic features. It may not be as applicable in NZ. older≠wiser 13:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
-
- I don't know of a hard-and-fast rule in Wikipedia, either, although I did make an observation based on the articles I'd seen. I do know of one in geographical nomenclature, though, which is the one that has been used for New Zealand places. Personally, I think "St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota)" is considerably clumsier than "St. Croix River, Wisconsin-Minnesota" - it's also a longer name. How would you write the name of the south branch of such a river? "St. Croix River (South branch) (Wisconsin-Minnesota)"? Messy, messy, messy. New Zealand articles are simply named as the places themselves are named, according to recognised geographic standards: "Name, location" and if necessary "Name, location (type)". As to British names, that's nothing to do with Wikipedia - rivers are always known in Britain with the word "River" first. If you wish to carry on doing American places according to your own system, that's perfectly fine, but it's not the system that is normally practiced. Grutness|hello?
06:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know of a hard-and-fast rule in Wikipedia, either, although I did make an observation based on the articles I'd seen. I do know of one in geographical nomenclature, though, which is the one that has been used for New Zealand places. Personally, I think "St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota)" is considerably clumsier than "St. Croix River, Wisconsin-Minnesota" - it's also a longer name. How would you write the name of the south branch of such a river? "St. Croix River (South branch) (Wisconsin-Minnesota)"? Messy, messy, messy. New Zealand articles are simply named as the places themselves are named, according to recognised geographic standards: "Name, location" and if necessary "Name, location (type)". As to British names, that's nothing to do with Wikipedia - rivers are always known in Britain with the word "River" first. If you wish to carry on doing American places according to your own system, that's perfectly fine, but it's not the system that is normally practiced. Grutness|hello?
- To answer your question: the example you cited would be South Branch St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota), according to the conventions used (like this). But I am aware of no such case of a branch of river needing a double-state disambiguation. We will have to agree to disagree on this. -- Decumanus 16:38, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
