Talk:List of rivers of Europe

Call me crazy, but this is not a list ... I should be able to find something on a list. I doubt anyone will ever care, but I guess I'm just pissed at the name ... I was like, "Wow, a list of rivers in Europe, that's exactly what I need!" but then, I get here, but IT IS SORTED BY OCEAN AND THEN BY COUNTRY, LIKE WHAT? That was real helpful when I came here to find what it's exact name was, which country it was in, and which body of water it flowed into ... If I knew it was in France, I would go to a list of rivers in France for heaven's sake. There'd be no reason for me to come here. I mean, if this isn't supposed to be a list, fine, but change the name. It's false advertising. Otherwise, WHY NOT JUST GO ALPHABETICALLY LIKE ANY LOGICAL PERSON WOULD DO??? If it looks like I'm shouting, that's because I am. RedNitrogen 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I refuse to call you crazy: Also, I agree that it should be an option to sort by 1. human population lives within a days walk of the river 2. GDP by this human population 3. river biodiversity (#of species)

This I feel like are good measures, that fit within the encyclopedia mindset. Also, it would looks something like the first ones that come to mind that go first.

Major russian1 Rhine Danube major russian2 Themes Tiber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.93.142 (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

For now it's mainly a list of .., thus the rename. Obviously it's good to know it will be part of a larger project. You might want to include the table below the Aar article Docu

The article says The more to the top a river's name is, the more close the river is to the sea.

Surely the order should be established according to some more deterministic and obvious method? Rivers can meander a lot, so closeness of a river to the sea can be a pretty relative thing... I'd sort the rivers that flow into other rivers by the order of their points of confluence, and the primary ones (those that flow directly into the sea) alphabetically or something like that. --Shallot 17:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is using a really terrible way of saying that what you say should be the case, is the case. Morwen 18:08, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to start a discussion on what the lists of rivers of Europe and of European countries should look like. First the structure of the articles:

Right now the rivers flowing into sea are grouped by sea or ocean (possibly also lakes without outlets), and then sorted alphabetically. At Rivers of Great Britain and Rivers of Russia they are also grouped by sea/ocean, but then sorted geographically, along the coast of that sea (for instance the Channel coast west to east from Lands End to Ramsgate). I think I like that better than alphabetic order, because it also gives an idea of which other rivers are in the vicinity.

The rivers flowing into other rivers are given in orographic order, starting from the mouth of the main river. Rivers flowing into those tributaries are given directly under their distributary. For instance:

• Rhône
  • Durance
    • Verdon
  • Isère
  • Saône

River deltas can be quite complicated. Rivers that split into several branches can be treated like this:

• Dziwna
  • branch of Oder
• Oder (main branch Swina)
  • Warta
  • Neisse
• Peene
  • Tollense
  • branch of Oder
• Swina
  • branch of Oder

The location of the point of confluence of the rivers (or where the river flows into sea) should be indicated with a city or town. Rather a further off city than a nearby small town that no one will ever write an article about. The standard form now on the list is between brackets, e.g. Neva (in Saint-Petersburg).

At the end of the list there should be an alphabetical list of rivers. This makes it easier for editors to refer to a river, and to see if there's already an article about a certain river. I can imagine that it would be a huge list for all European rivers, so maybe we should only do that for country lists of rivers.

That brings me to another point: how complete do we want the list of rivers of Europe to be? It's getting pretty big, so maybe we should mention the rivers with only local significance (for example some tributaries to the Danube and Elbe, such as Zusam, Schnauder, Lockwitz) only on the list of rivers of the related country. And there are tons of articles about English and Scottish rivers, adding them would nearly double the length of the article. Markussep 21:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: only rivers longer than 100 km (or very significant in another way) in this list, show shorter rivers only in the lists by country. Markussep 17:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In this article we can find a list with the title: "longest rivers of Europe", which is incomplete because there are listed rivers like Po, with more or less 650 Km lenght, but not Ebro/Ebre, in Iberian Peninsula, with more than 900 km lenght though it's discharge is not very big. Martí

The following rivers have been removed because they were not significant enough (<100 km). Links to their articles (if existing) are available at Rivers of France, Rivers of Belgium, Rivers of Poland, Rivers of Germany, Rivers of Great Britain etc.

Atlantic Ocean, Loire basin: Yèvre, Furan River.

Baltic Sea: Reda

Baltic Sea, Oder basin: Tywa, Mysla, Ilanka, Pliszka, Biala Ladecka, Klodnica

Black Sea, Danube basin: Cierny Váh, Biely Váh, Alz, Traun (Alz), Große Vils, Kleine Vils, Glonn, Würm, Chambach, Schwarzer Regen, Weißer Regen, Zusam, Brenz, Mindel, Günz, Blau, Breitach, Trettach, Sillach, Riß, Lauchert, Breg, Brigach, Ilz, Krems 2x, Erlauf, Ager, Alm.

English Channel, north coast: Collybrooke, Burn, Wallabrooke, Lumburn, Walkham, Plym, Avon (Devon), Otter, Axe, Wey, Piddle, Cerne, Lymington, Beaulieu, Hamble, Meon, Wallington, Lavant

North Sea, Elbe basin: Jeetze, Karthane, Jäglitz, Plane, Nuthe, Wipper (Harz), Parthe, Schnauder, Göltzsch, Orla, Schwarza (Saale), Chemnitz River, Jahna, Weißeritz, Prießnitz, Lockwitz, Müglitz, Gottleuba, Kirnitzsch.

North Sea, Weser basin: Böhme, Ihme, Nette (Harz), Grane, Rhume, Söse, Oder (Harz), Sieber, Wietze, Örtze, Haune, Hörsel, Ulster River, Felda, Schmalkalde, Hasel, Schleuse.

North Sea, Rhine basin: Schipbeek, Möhne, Dhünn, Wipper, Agger, Bröl, Nister, Heller River, Ferndorfbach, Elzbach, Alf River, Lieser, Dhron, Salm (Germany), Riveris, Rauruwer, Prims, Blies, Nims, Orne River, Lorraine, Aar (Lahn), Weil, Dill, Wisper, Alsenz, Gersprenz, Aschaff, Fränkische Rezat, Schwäbische Rezat, Weiße Main, Rote Main, Rems, Queich, Sihl, Kleine Emme, Limpach, Ilfis, Landquart.

North Sea, Meuse basin: Geleenbeek, Voer, Berwinne, Warche, Hoyoux, Bocq, Molignée.

North Sea, Scheldt basin: Durme, Schijn, Kleine Nete, Aa, Wamp, Grote Nete, Wimp, Molse Nete, Laak, Maalbeek, Woluwe, Molenbeek, Neerpedebeek, Zuun, Geleytsbeek, Linkebeek, Senette, Hain, Samme, Thines, Velp, Gete, Kleine Gete, Grote Gete, Herk, Voer, IJse, Netten, Laan, Zilverbeek, Thyle, Mandel, Gaverbeek, Zwalm, Rone, Rhosne, Hogneau, Honelle, Aunelle, Grande Honelle, Petite Honelle.

Markussep

I want to make one observation: not the Western Bug is the inflow of Narev river, but on the contrary, Narev - inflow of the Western Bug, but that falls into the Vistula. 194.190.184.254 08:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) from Russia

I'm not an expert on Polish rivers, so I've looked it up in the Polish Wikipedia (I can't read Polish very well, but I understand some Russian). The part of the river between the confluence of Bug and Narew and the outlet into Vistula is called Narew, but often (I suppose czesto means often) referred to as "Bugo-Narew". The funny thing is that this Bugo-Narew is mentioned at pl:Bug (rzeka) but not at pl:Narew (rzeka). There, Narew is simply a tributary of the Vistula, and Bug a tributary of Narew. Markussep 11:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! --194.190.184.254 13:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Torin)

O-ops! http://www.answers.com/topic/western-bug 194.190.184.254 13:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some other sources:

• http://mega.km.ru/bes_98/encyclop.asp?Topic=topic_zap38 contradicts this: *http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9358240&query=bug&ct=
• http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/Narew.html
• http://www.bartleby.com/65/bu/BugPol.html

And German Brockhaus makes it even worse:

Suchergebnis

1. Narew der, rechter Nebenfluss der Weichsel, in Polen, 484 km, entspringt in Weißrussland, mündet nordwestlich ...

2. Narew der, Nebenfluss des Bugs, in Polen, 484 km.

I'm lost here... Markussep 14:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the river Dintel/Mark in the Netherlands. It does not flow into the Rhine, Meuse or Scheldt (although it is historicaly considered to be part of the Meuse bassin), but flows instead into the Volkerak. This used to be a wide delta stream / estuary that split off the Hollands Diep / Haringvliet (both major estuaries of both Rhine and Meuse) and flowed into the Oosterschelde (originaly an estuary of the Scheldt). However, the connection between the Oosterschelde and the Scheldt does no longer exist. During the Delta Works, dams were placed on both ends of the Volkerak, so the connection with the Rhine and Meuse was lost as well. From that moment on, the Volkerak is a fresh water lake surrounded by active estuaries and large sea-inlets. So: what about rivers that flow into the Volkerak? They can no longer be called parts of any larger bassins (such as that of the Scheldt and Meuse). Neither can they be considered tributaries of other rivers. So, should these rivers appear in the list as flowing into the North Sea? DaMatriX (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest that the pictures in the article should be formatted to a uniform size in order to appear less chaotic? After all, it's a list and the pictures serve mainly illustrative purposes, don't they? Any opinions? Yakikaki (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Severn is like totally longer than the Thames Maaaan. Should be on the list of longest rivers along with the Trent and the Ouse and that other one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.90.135 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is at least one error in the chart: the rain that falls on the isle of Texel most certainly does not drain via the Rhine delta! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.114 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Following the be bold guide line I replaced the entire page. The new content is in the style of the Spanish page, but with references and lower cutoffs. I believe all the information that was in the previous versions is retained or is present on the pages with the list of rivers for individual countries. If you find things wanting, let me know. Afasmit (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You have removed many rivers without any explanation. Be so kind to reinsert them or I will revert to a previous version. Kostja (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

At least you could explain why you found it fit to redefine the long standing criteria for inclusion without any consultation. Kostja (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kostja,

Sorry for the slow response. I've taken (had to take) sabbatical from wikipedia since early December. You were the first to respond to the changes (after a whole month) and to my request for "things wanting". Apparently few people have this page tagged.

As I mention above, the explanation for any removal of information is that I found that information to be present at the river lists by country. I initially only wanted to replace the anemic "Longest rivers" list that was on top of the page, but after going a tad overboard on the table, nearly all information that followed was contained in it. We could consider restoring that section, though the page will become big and there will be a lot of duplication. Another thought is to have links to the the country pages following the main table in order of the coastline.

The previous criteria ("100 km minimum length or significant in another way") were too lenient (100 km) and vague (most rivers with wikipedia pages are significant to some extent). When using a 100 km cutoff, one can extrapolate that, on top of the 400 or so rivers over 250 km long, another 425 (assuming a linear trend) to 540 (assuming a logarithmic trend) rivers make the cutoff. The list would become very big, a large proportion of the rivers would be red links, and it would be very difficult to create a complete list; finding and accurately describing all rivers over 250 km was already a tremendous amount of work.

Afasmit (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The page is currently disfigured by a box complaining that there are no sources for the section defining the inclusion criteria for the page.

As this section is obviously original editorial text written for the article to clarify inclusion criteria for readers and other editors, it seems obvious that it cannot and should not have any outside sources.

Would the party responsible for adding this tag, please explain themselves or remove the tagging. 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:FCBE:52CC:2157:85D0 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the overview map in the article focuses on showing drainage basins rather than river locations and names. Maybe a simplistic map showing the listed rivers should be created and added as a visual overview of the subject. 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:FCBE:52CC:2157:85D0 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Surely it's incongruous to have the Thames as 360km length, but when you click on the Thames page it's 346km. I can't help but think they need to match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyondheat (talk • contribs) 11:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is the Shannon not longer than the rivers in the UK which appear? Why is it not shown? 2A02:8084:6220:580:7CA6:424B:C09C:E1A (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply