Talk:Forked Deer River
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed merge with Middle Fork of the Forked Deer River
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No consensus. Do not merge. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not develop a single complete article first rather than multiple incomplete stubs? None of the stubs even yet have basic information such as length or width of the river. Surely the North, Middle, and South Fork can be covered in a single article, and only split if it grows unwieldy per WP:SIZESPLIT. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agree What is the point of multiple articles for a single river? scope_creep talk 13:13 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Three rivers really aren't one river, no matter what their names are. --Malepheasant (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge, per Animalparty. TinaG (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- """Merge, for the reasons outlined (and I've been on at least two of the forks). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose it on the grounds that the three forks are three separate streams, and each is hydrologically large enough to warrant its own article; each is larger than streams that have their own articles on Wikipedia; and the fact that they share the "Forked Deer River" name is a happenstance of human naming practice in that region at one point in history. They could just as easily been given non-"Forked Deer River"-based names, in which case it would be harder to make a case that they should be combined into one article. Per the National Map, the north and south forks each drain areas of sufficient size as to merit HUC-8 subbasin level treatment by the US Geological Survey. The State of Tennessee handles them separately as well, as seen here.--Malepheasant (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge per original post. — Mr. V (t – c) 00:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, basically per Malepheasant, though I don't agree with the implication that streams have to be "hydrologically large enough" to create articles -- I've created articles on streams with a watershed less than one square mile. --Jakob (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
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.