Talk:Red River of the North

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Red River of the North → Red River (Lake Winnipeg)
• Red River of the South → Red River (Mississippi River)

– The WP:COMMONNAME of both rivers is simply "Red River." Most locals of both rivers probably don't even know there's another river with the same name. Most maps (if not, all the maps I've looked at) simply use "Red River" when labeling them. The only time these rivers are referred to as such is when there might be confusion, but even then, that's rare. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These rivers have similar names, similar histories, and both have a 'Red River Valley.' There also appears to be some speculation and personal interpretation as to the appropriate history and notoriety that applies to them. Both involve European expansion, traders and bandits, Native Americans, Cowboys, lost loves, etc. The legend, myth, and romanticism of both rivers is often difficult to define, so attempts at providing separate and accurate histories that will satisfy everyone may be difficult, if not impossible. Renaming these articles to anything other than 'Red River of the North' and 'Red River of the South' opens the possibility of further confusion and degradation of respect for both, so it seems that these names do provide the best and most objective descriptions. Though I don't prefer it personally, the only rational caveat that I can see, would be the inclusion of '...-(North America)' on both articles. Curley Wolf (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are 24 officially named "Red River"s in the US. Both the Red River of the North and Red River of the South have Britannica articles under these names. Other RS also use these names. The USGS Geonames database officially names the "Red River of the North" with Red River a variant. No reason to think these titles will confuse anyone. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But in Wikipedia, we use the WP:COMMONNAME, which may not line up with what some people consider the "official" name. The number of rivers in this case is irrelevant (FWIW, Red River lists 18 rivers). What matters is using a disambiguator that is unambiguous (in this case, these are the only rivers that flow into Lake Winnipeg and the Mississippi River respectively). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence for Red River of the North as COMMONNAME

• Red River of the North State Water Trail
• Britannica
• Fishing the Red River of the North
• Red River of the North flood at Fargo, April, 1897.
• Red River of the North NWF
• Red River of the North at Fargo NOAA
• Bridge Hunter,.com
• Red River of the North Watershed Map
• Google Scholar returns 3450 hits for "Red River of the North" in quotes

Additionally, using Red River of the North is unambiguous and requires no disambiguation. However the disambiguation suggest doesn't make much sence as the river is not in Lake Winnipeg but in Minnesota, North Dakota and the province of Manitoba. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although less common, but no less ambiguous than Red River of the North, Red River of the South does have some evidence of COMMONNAME
• 124 Google Scholar hits with "Red River of the South"
• Google Books
• Additionally the suggested disambiguation is incorrect as the Red River of the South is technically not a tributary of the Mississippi River but of the Atchafalaya River which is a distributary river of the Mississippi. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support these moves 73.154.175.89 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for Red River of the North, Support for Red River of the South, deferring largely to USGS. For the northern river both Red River and Red River of the North are common names in wide usage, so I'd lean towards using the USGS name which is the closest we have to an official name. In contrast Red River of the South has never gained as wide of usage, used mainly in academic works that are discussing both rivers. There the USGS name is simply Red River, Red River of the South isn't even listed in the long list of variant names. I'm ok with Red River (Mississippi River) even if Red River (Atchafalaya River) would be more correct, the hydrology at the mouth there is complex and if you wanted to be real technical it should be Red River (Old River Control Structure) but that just get unwieldy and I think using Mississippi River would let users know they have the intended river without confusing them. Kmusser (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your explanation and would like to endorse it. I currently live in Oklahoma, and I've literally never heard of the Red River being referred to as the "Red River of the South." I also just assumed it was the same way for the northern river by doing a cursory search and assuming it was a "both or nothing" deal. After looking over Mike Cline's links, I can see that "Red River of the North" can be considered a common name for that river, but it clearly isn't the case for the Mississippi River tributary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for Red River of the North, Support for Red River of the South per User:Kmusser, i.e. per WP:UCN (use [relatively] common names). —  AjaxSmack  23:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:NATURALDIS favours Second-most-common name over Most-common name (foo) jnestorius^(talk) 13:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the southern river I think we're choosing between Obscure, but unambiguous name and Most-common name (foo). Kmusser (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would argue that "Red River of the South" is far more common than the clearly ambiguous "Red River" which requires uncommon disambiguation.

A number of small, intermittent streams rising on the High Plains section of Texas join to form the Red River of the South, which then flows south and east for 1,300 miles before entering the Mississippi River.

— Durrenberger, R. W. (1998). Red River of the South. The new encyclopedia of the American West. CT: Yale University Press.

The major tributaries are the Arkansas and the Red River of the South, which reach the Mississippi from the west.

— Durrenberger, R. W. (1998). Mississippi River. The new encyclopedia of the American West. CT: Yale University Press.

• JSTOR search returns 40 citations, mostly unique for "Red River of the South" and ZERO citations for "Red River (Mississippi River).--Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name (foo) is a Wikipedia convention, I wouldn't expect to see that in the literature. What you should be comparing is the 40 "Red River of the South" citations to "Red River" Mississippi which has 7,947 - a few false positives in there, but most of them are referring to the southern river, or ever "Red River" Atchafalaya, which has 278. I stand by calling Red River of the South obscure, sure it has been used, but it's very rare outside of the academic press. Kmusser (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a P.S. I also disagree with arguing for using the Geonames database for Red River of the North, and then arguing that we ignore it for the Red River of the South. Kmusser (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Both are common enough to serve as WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. I'm getting 20k hits on Google Books, which suggests it's not so obscure that it should be avoided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike Cline, Jnestorius and Cuchullain. The names used in the scholarly literature and in Britannica (and thus far here on Wikipedia also) provide a natural disambiguation that's more immediately apprehensible than the proposed alternatives. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.