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
Forked Deer River is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of
Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] •
[Project Page] •
[Project Talk] •
[Assessment] •
[Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
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.
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)reply
Agree What is the point of multiple articles for a single river?
scope_creeptalk 13:13 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)reply
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)reply
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.