Talk:Castlereagh River

	Australia portal Castlereagh River 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Rivers Start‑class Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit]

I propose moving Castlereagh River (New South Wales) back to Castlereagh River on the grounds it is the only such river with an article on Wikipedia, and even if the other were to have an article this one would be clearly primary topic with a hatnote dab to the one which has remained free of having an article. At present there are many links which have not been attended to, so the other available options are to fix all the dabs or to persuade the editor responsible for the moves to clean up.

Herbert River, Macquarie River, Hann River, Ord River, Crawford River, and Boyd River are similarly afflicted. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Castlereagh River (Western Australia) does have an article on the German Wikipedia, and so do the other rivers mentioned here. Therefore, the respecive Geodis do make sense. The respective German articles just have to be translated to English. Please leave the Geodis as they are, as they provide additional information, and eventually, to clean up, fix the according links. Many thanks --MartinHansV (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support Crusoe's proposal. We do not preemptively disambiguate and being the only bluelink makes these articles the clear primary topics. Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all of the moves except Boyd River, which actually does seem to be ambiguous with a River Boyd in the UK which has an article. I suspect this may be a case of different practices on de.wp and en.wp leading to confusion - just because another river of that name could theoretically exist does not mean it must be disambiguated if it is clearly the primary topic for the subject. (Macquarie River is a good example of how this is handled.) Orderinchaos 01:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Castlereagh River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]