Latest comment: 1 month ago21 comments3 people in discussion
I don't doubt the good intentions, but the new format violates WP:NAV-WITHIN – it contains additional info that sould not be in navtemplate, it contains duplicate links, it does not follow the established format that other European countries have, and is difficult to navigate. I support the version of the template's creator, which intentionally includes only main stems and first-level tributaries. I don't see any river missing. Until there is a consensus to change the format, this format will remain. FromCzech (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The mere fact that you fail to see that the Meuse is also a river flowing into the North Sea speaks volumes. Furthermore, the Peenestrom is not a river but a strait. And besides, as I already told you, the template includes about 40 rivers shorter than 100 km, while a vast number of rivers exceeding 100 km in length are missing. That makes your statement—"I don't see any river missing"—seem somewhat inappropriate. Si9mon (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wanted to add some rivers you added with a length of 100+ km, but they were second-level tributaries. I could have made a mistake and something is missing. You can add something there that meets the first-level tributary condition, but the existing format must be unchanged. FromCzech (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Which format exactly? I still don't understand: which rivers do you allow to be in the list, and which not, if apparently the length doesn't matter at all. Si9mon (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This logic strikes me as completely inappropriate, as it would legitimize rivers like the Stepenitz or even shorter ones for inclusion in the template (and there are countless other short first-level tributaries), while excluding major rivers such as the Spree (382 km), the Leine (278 km), or the Salzach (225 km). To justify something like that, you would need to cite an official Wikipedia rule stating that such templates may only include first-level tributaries. Otherwise, the template is useless if it omits some of the country's longest rivers. Si9mon (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, these major rivers should probably be there. I thought all existing templates for European countries had it like this, but I was wrong. FromCzech (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
So, will you leave the template unchanged if I add all rivers longer than 100 km—regardless of whether their course lies entirely or only partially within Germany, and regardless of whether they are first-, second-, or third-order tributaries? This would mean that the Ohře (which is already listed) and the Mže would also appear in the template. The template could later be expanded to include all rivers longer than 90 km. Furthermore, there is the option of retaining rivers currently in the template that are shorter than 100 km—such as the Alster, which defines Hamburg's cityscape—and including other rivers of particular political, cultural, or hydrogeographical significance, like the Randow which is the only river in Germany that naturally has its source in the middle of the river and a mouth at each of its ends, and which, moreover, was considered as a potential new border between Germany and Poland after the war. Si9mon (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Mže certainly not, in Germany it is just a short stream. Let's stick with what the existing templates for rivers in European countries look like. The Alster and Randow also don't seem like major rivers that should be included. I'll look into it next week, I don't have time now. Maybe you should finally move the topic to WP:RIVERS and get other people's opinions. FromCzech (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
"The Mže certainly not"—I think that’s the essence of the whole matter here. Your main goal is to prevent the Mže, Berounka, and Vltava from appearing in the template in any way. And that is the only reason you’re willing to deal with German rivers, even though you aren't actually interested in them. You can't prevent it in the case of the Ohře/Eger, since about one-sixth of its course lies in Germany. However, given that the Mže is a 105 km long river—which, annoyingly, originates in Germany—omitting it will always be questionable; after all, the Mže is one of the 50 or 60 longest rivers originating in Germany. A second point is that I haven't generally seen a river template that imposes a length limit; the 100 km idea was mine, but I notice that the French template, for instance, includes far more rivers. If your concern isn't just about keeping the Mže, Berounka, and Vltava out of the German template, shouldn't you really be revising the French template as well? Si9mon (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are putting things into my mouth that I have never said or thought. I am speaking generally about the fact that if a river is of negligible length in Germany, it does not belong in this navigational template. I have not had time to do a detailed investigation, but I do not see anything like that in the template of Russian, Turkish, Polish, etc. rivers. FromCzech (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Your main problem is that the borders separating Bohemia on one side from Saxony, Bavaria, and Austria on the other don't follow the precise hydrogeographical course. The fact that the Cold Vltava originates in Germany essentially implies that a part of Bohemia belongs to Germany—since the Vltava actually rises in Bohemia. Conversely, the Spree and the White Elster, for instance, originate in the Czech Republic—or rather, the Spree flows briefly across Bohemian territory. It would never occur to me not to regard these as Czech rivers; on the contrary, the Spree always had an exotic feel to me precisely because it came from the Czech Republic. Now that you know the French template needs revising too, we’ll see whether you tackle that as well, or just the German one. Si9mon (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’ve created a new version now. Each river is linked only once (as you requested—though whether that’s actually better is debatable), and there are no longer any length figures; nevertheless, the rivers are ordered by length rather than alphabetically, which makes perfect sense. I’ve now included all rivers over 100 km long, while also retaining all the rivers that were in the old template. I’ve based the underlying structure on the French template. I hope you won’t react destructively again this time. Si9mon (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You still have not followed the instructions according to WP:NAV, especially They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value and Unlinked text should be avoided. Since the template is for navigation, abandoning the alphabetical order is also unacceptable. The template is not at all clear and again contains rivers that should not be there and information that does not belong in the template. Honestly, the only similarity I see with the French template is its size. Expect me to completely redesign it next week. FromCzech (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please ensure that you do not delete the following elements when making your changes: the basic structure must be preserved: the major seas into which the rivers flow—note that the Meuse cannot be used as an equivalent to the seas. Additionally, the IJsselmeer must be listed separately. You cannot delete rivers that were already part of the old template without reaching a consensus, given how long this template has been in use. Furthermore, it would be difficult to justify deleting any river longer than 100 km, especially since the template includes much shorter rivers. Regarding rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea, you would need to cite an official Wikipedia rule prohibiting the inclusion of rivers based on a specific minimum length. I would also like to see the Wikipedia rule stating that river templates must be arranged alphabetically; organizing them by length and river system seems more logical. Just because no one else bothered to do the work for other templates, that does not mean the German template must follow suit. I will review your template, and I will not allow a poor-quality river template to exist because of your actions. Si9mon (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
And please don't change the subgroup system either: I’ve organized the rivers that flow directly into the sea (major rivers, as well as smaller ones along the Baltic Sea) as subgroups, just like in the French template. If you change that, you would need to justify it. I’m also curious to see whether you’ll go on to revise the French template as well, or if this is really just about deleting Czech rivers from the German template. Si9mon (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The average user does not know the length of a river, but they know where in the alphabet the letter it begins with is. Alphabetical order and not including short rivers (watercourses that do not even have the character of a river) don't have to be a written rule, they were used in the template before your changes (and in other similar templates), so there is no consensus on these changes. (Oh, the rule is actually vaguely included in WP:NAV: The style of any navigation template depends on its articles, how they are most intuitively presented, and previously established conventions.) I repeatedly urge you to start a discussion on WP:RIVERS if you want to change something on the established format of the river templates, but you have not done so yet and instead are just arguing with me here. Until you get the community on your side, your changes are against established conventions and there is no consensus for them.
Coming here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. My opinion is that the rivers listed in this template should be limited to rivers that either: (a) have a significant portion of their course, say more than 10%, in Germany; or (b) are subject to significant coverage in German art/culture/history/government. If neither of those fit, the river should probably be left out. I have not looked at the sources about river Mže, but that is the test I'd suggest. (BTW: A different rule would be used for the list List of rivers of Germany for which size is not an issue. NavBox footer templates often are edited to keep them reasonable and readable.). Noleander (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Mže is a 105 km long river that rises in Germany, and the template would be incomplete without it. The fact that its source lies in Germany cannot be changed anyway, regardless of whether or not that fact is suppressed in the template. The next question, then, would be: Why 10%? That threshold is completely arbitrary. Since the Mže is essentially the only river over 100 km in length that rises in Germany but covers hardly any distance within the country, the issue here is not about establishing a rule for multiple rivers, but rather concerns only this one specific river anyway. Si9mon (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I included all rivers longer than 100 km in the new river overview. Unless you have very good reasons for simply deleting it again, I will restore my version. I would also like to point out that you cannot destroy my work, as everything can be restored with a single click. If you do not provide very good reasons explaining why the old list—which was completely incomplete, incorrect, and illogical—should be better than mine, I will restore my version. I also hope that the reason for deleting my version isn't the inclusion of certain Czech rivers! Si9mon (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Si9mon: Hi, I have good reason – as I pointed in the Edit summary, your version is against WP:NAV-WITHIN. The clarity has decreased, there is information that does not belong there (lengths), and I have also seen other potential problems (repeated wikilinks, rivers that do not meet the 100 km condition). So I do not see this as an improvement. If any important rivers are missing, you can add them, but I wouldn't say that a 100 km limit is appropriate for a country like Germany. In case of disagreement, you can move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. FromCzech (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
As we can see from your reverts, you are only interested in Czech rivers, given that you removed my template from all of them. I’m sorry that part of the Vltava happens to originate in Germany—and it’s even one of the two sources featured in the famous Má vlast symphony. Furthermore, including the Vltava results in a much greater total length for the Elbe-Vltava system (technically the Vltava flows into the sea at Hamburg, but never mind that). The Mže also originates in Germany, just like the Ohře—deal with it. Do you really think I’m going to go to all that trouble again? Have you seen the template for rivers in France? It’s much bigger and better. The old template for German rivers is just a random, arbitrary list of assorted rivers—some of which are even shorter than 100 km! Yet that doesn't seem to bother you at all! If the river length figures or the inclusion of rivers under 100 km (which is unavoidable if you want to calculate the total length!) bother you, you could have just changed it instead of simply deleting everything. Besides, listing all rivers over 100 km makes perfect sense; in fact, there are actually several famous rivers shorter than 100 km that ought to be included as well. Si9mon (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I deleted the template from those rivers that I could see at first glance were less than 100 km long in Germany. It makes no sense to inflate the template with them. I did not check the other rivers. Template:Rivers of France has its own problems (e.g. it cannot contain red links per WP:EXISTING). Of the existing templates for European countries, Template:Rivers of Turkey and Template:Rivers of Poland are better examples. The previous German rivers template did not set a limit of 100km, so even if it was incomplete or some rivers were included that should not have been, at least it did not violate WP:NAV-WITHIN. I support your efforts to redesign, but first take a look at the other templates, how they look, don't put river lengths there and exclude rivers that are less than 100 km long in Germany. FromCzech (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Everything you're saying is illogical somehow. You supposedly have to delete all rivers that don't flow through Germany for at least 100 km. So why don't you have to do that with the old template? Or why don't you just change the heading instead of deleting the entire list? Si9mon (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I repeat, I reverted you changes because they were against WP:NAV-WITHIN. There is nothing illogical about it. You inserted the 100 km condition into the template, the presence of shorter rivers did not previously violate any conventions.
I don't see any other templates that contain rivers which have only a small section in a given country; this is not the purpose of these templates. The Vltava's connection to Germany is described on the Vltava page. FromCzech (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
All rivers that do not flow through Germany but still belong to a German river system are marked with square brackets (in CZ: the Berounka). As for the Mže: it is simply a long river that originates in Germany, just like the Ohře. It would be illogical not to list these rivers, especially since their waters eventually flow into the sea at Hamburg anyway. Regarding the Vltava: it is also one of the longest rivers originating in Germany; furthermore, it is one of the two famous clarinet-sources from má vlast which is in Germany. Its waters also reach the sea at Hamburg, and the river there is technically the Vltava anyway, not the Elbe. There are thus three irrefutable reasons to include the Vltava in the template—and it is enclosed in square brackets anyway (even though it actually flows through Germany as well). Deal with it: one of the famous clarinet-sources is in Germany, and the mouth is also in Germany, the Elbe is actually the Vltava. Si9mon (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Precedent from other templates says: no.
The Studená Vltava flows in Germany. But 10 km of secondary source of the Vltava does not make it a river that belongs to the template of German rivers. And even though it is longer than the Elbe at the confluence, it ends in the Elbe and does not flow into Hamburg, like all tributaries of the Elbe.
As I wrote before: if you want to solve or change something, I recommend starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. I don't see the point in repeating the same things over and over again here. FromCzech (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
We all know what this is really about: Czech rivers shouldn't appear in the German template—and certainly not the Vltava. But I don't care about nationalism; when I'm in Hamburg, I want to know the true length of the river I see flowing into the sea, regardless of which country it runs through. I don't want to get into a debate just because of you—just because the goal is to remove Czech rivers from the list. As I said, the Vltava is already in square brackets (meaning it is treated as if it doesn't flow through Germany). However, for the Elbe-Vltava system, mentioning the Vltava is essential, as it adds significant length to the system. And just as an aside: the official stance is that the Vltava has two sources (Smetana saw it that way, too), even though I agree that the "real" source is, of course, the headstream originating in the Czech Republic. But I accounted for exactly that by putting the river in square brackets. Si9mon (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not questioning the river system in any way, but it should be explained on the pages of individual rivers and not in a template that serves only for navigation between pages, not for providing encyclopedic information. There has been a misunderstanding here about what the navigation template is for. Read please Wikipedia:Navigation template. The style of any navigation template depends on its articles, how they are most intuitively presented, and previously established conventions. FromCzech (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you were truly serious about this, you would have deleted only the parts of my template that you found fault with; instead, you simply deleted the entire template I created and replaced it with that completely haphazard, incomplete, and abysmal template—one that is practically begging for improvement. You are using a tactic here: masking your actual objectives with language that sounds highly professional and ostensibly focused solely on the technical aspects. Si9mon (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You can not make me correct other people's mistakes, especially when it takes time that I do not have at the moment. I recommend not making baseless accusations, it is not taken lightly here. You haven't made any changes for the better in the template since I warned you that it was against WP, but I still don't blame you for "using a tactic", to put it in your words. FromCzech (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The same applies to the Warta. At the confluence of the Oder and the Warta, the Warta is much longer than the Oder; consequently, Germany actually has a share in the Warta as well. The Oder flows within Germany from Neißemünde through Frankfurt (Oder) to Küstrin-Kietz, while the Warta flows from Bleyen-Genschmar to Mescherin. Also along the Polish border flows the Randow—a river that is likewise missing from the template, even though it has its source in the middle and a mouth at both ends. Si9mon (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, river lengths only make sense if you consider the total length of the system. The river that flows into the sea at Hamburg is, after all, longer than the Rhine, even if the Elbe's raw river length doesn't reflect that. Is that supposed to be kept quiet just so you’re satisfied and the Vltava isn’t mentioned in connection with Germany? Si9mon (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
By the way: of the roughly 96 rivers in the original list, about 42!!! are shorter than 100 km—often much shorter—and one listed river isn't even a river at all (the Peenestrom). So, there are 42 rivers that are so short they shouldn't even be on the list, in your opinion! And how many rivers over 100 km long do you think are missing from the list? 30? 40? Or 50? But none of that matters to you! Given all these circumstances, your motives appear highly questionable! Si9mon (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, please reply on the river template's talk page when you are online, as the improvement of the template is already dragging on significantly because of you. I can also ask you here: exactly which format do you mean? Which rivers would you allow in the template without objection, and which ones wouldn't you? In your opinion, length doesn't seem to matter, which effectively pushes the number of possible rivers to infinity. Si9mon (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do not force me to answer quickly, it is not polite. I am on vacation and don't feel like doing more demanding things. I think it is perfectly fine if I answer in 24–48 hours. FromCzech (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are cordially invited to take part in the various discussions that arose solely because of you (and because, I believe, it annoyed you to see Czech rivers in the German template—though that is just my guess). Are you familiar with German rivers? Si9mon (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I left a new message on the river page. You can't change geographical facts simply by ignoring them. A source of the Vltava is located in Germany, and the entire river ultimately flows into the sea in Germany as well. Furthermore—and this is thanks to you, because you prompted me to take a closer look—I discovered a fact that hasn't appeared anywhere on Wikipedia until now: the Řasnice also forms the border between the Czech Republic and Germany for a very short stretch, and in German, the river is called "Grasige Moldau" which means "Grassy Vltava". Si9mon (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I’d like to place the IJsselmeer directly below the North Sea, since it used to be part of the North Sea. In the Ukrainian template, the Sea of Azov was also placed directly below the Black Sea. Also, I’d like to expand "Aland" to "Aland-Milde-Biese," if that’s okay with you. Si9mon (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
But none of Leda, Jümme and Soeste has 100+ km, right? And they do not seem like significant rivers for entire Germany. I understand why you want an exception and include them there, but how many more such exceptions will there be? Perhaps it would be enough to mention only Leda. FromCzech (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please let me know first whether I should ask you about every little detail now or just go ahead and revise the template. First i would fix all the errors and add all rivers longer than 80 km (since you suggested that length yourself), and then we can see how the template looks. In my opinion, rivers like the Saalach cannot be excluded (it is over 100 km long, with a third of its course in Germany); consequently, the issue regarding the Mže will persist, because you can't exclude rivers where the upper reaches are affected while including those where the lower reaches are affected. The most logical solution would be to add a note regarding the Mže. One could choose not to insert the template on the page of the Mže, considering how short its course is within Germany—even though that is technically incorrect from a hydrogeographical standpoint, since the river does flow through Germany after all. If a Czech template existed, I would also be in favor of including it on the pages for the White Elster (comparable to the Ohře) and the Spree (comparable to the Mže); however, if the fact that the template bothers you on the Mže page means that rivers like the Saalach cannot be included in the template, then we could just leave it off the Mže page. Regarding the Ohře, it seems illogical to exclude a river over 300 km long, one-sixth of whose course—including its source—lies in Germany. Furthermore, logically speaking, rivers longer than 80 km should not be excluded simply because they bear different names; regardless of what a river is called in various sections, it remains a single, continuous river. For instance, the Aland, Milde, and Biese have three separate articles on the English Wikipedia, whereas the German Wikipedia article is titled "Aland-Milde-Biese," since the name "Aland" refers only to the river's lower reaches. Incidentally, I would also be interested to know what length you attribute to the river that flows into the North Sea at Cuxhaven. Si9mon (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are still confusing the purpose of the standard pages (like List of rivers of Germany) and the navigational template. The list includes all rivers and there is space for notes, explanatory texts and other context. The navigational template is only for quick clicking between rivers. The Mže is hydrologically meaningless for Germany, just like the Spree is for the Czech Republic. Any brook with a length of 10 km and a reasonable average flow rate makes more sense than the Mže. You should quickly accept the fact that you cannot convince me otherwise, so that every post of yours do not repeat the same arguments and we can move on. Just like I did with the Ohře, even though I completely disagree with its inclusion for similar reasons as with the Mže.
Wikipedia does not make up conventions, Wikipedia follows them. If rivers are taken separately, we must also approach them separately. Each Wikipedia operates independently and does not follow the rules and approach of other Wikipedias. Upper courses of rivers often do not have the character of significant rivers anyway, so they certainly do not belong in the template.
Yes, you can rework the template. Ideally, in two steps (in separate edits), first delete the rivers that you propose to delete, and then add what you propose to add. I proposed the 80 km limit as an example and in the same sentence I stated that it also depends on the number of deleted rivers, so it is not possible to blindly stick to it. The most important thing is to maintain the clarity of the template. There are currently 121 rivers in it, so I recommend adding a maximum of 20–30 rivers (plus another for each deleted river) that you consider important for the hydrology of Germany. This gives room to add shorter rivers that have significant flow and/or basin size, such as rivers like the Leda and Saalach.
If you write to me, I apologise in advance if I do not respond immediately after reading it. It is sometimes difficult for me to move away from other things I have started to this topic, and sometimes I prefer to read something in the evening at home, undisturbedly. But I will always try to respond within 24 hours. FromCzech (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Since you are currently the only person responding to or interested in this topic, my main priority is reaching an agreement with you; otherwise, you could block everything I do by just saying "no consensus." Let's set the Mže issue aside for now. It would be terrible for you if the "German rivers" template were to appear on the Mže page. I still maintain that a river's source is one of its defining characteristics. Regarding the Ohře, you didn't exactly agree to a compromise; rather, you had no other choice, as there was no "consensus" to delete the Ohře entry. As a quick aside: I believe the one lone person who commented during our discussion on river lengths spoke of a requirement for 10% of the river's course to lie within Germany, or of the existence of significant German literature concerning the river. I’d bet that the Ohře is mentioned far more frequently in German literature than the Ohre without the caron —but let's leave that be for the moment. What I’d like to know from you is your solution for rivers that exceed 80 km in total length but change their names along their course. I would classify the Aland-Biese-Milde under "A" but link all three rivers: Aland-Biese-Milde. Another option would be Aland+Biese+Milde. Since this river bears these three names along its course, it would—for the sake of a template designed to allow quick navigation between rivers—be better to link all three river sections in sequence; after all, why link only to the article on the lower course and not to the middle or upper sections? However, since it would be nonsensical to sort all three sections alphabetically, I would list all three parts consecutively. And what is your solution regarding this? Also, please tell me the length of the river that flows into the sea at Cuxhaven. Si9mon (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Following this from a link on one of the other pages where this discussion is also occurring. I just want to say that FromCzech very nicely describes most of my own concerns with the template. I've no real interest in banging my head against the wall in what passes for discussion with you, but 'no consensus' would include me as well. older ≠ wiser13:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No consensus on what, exactly? Please express that a bit more clearly. It would be more helpful if, for instance, you shared your opinion on my last question. One thing is certain, at any rate: the two of you would have simply left the template in the wretched, error-ridden state it was in before, because you have absolutely no interest in it. After all, the template exists in its current version—which is at least somewhat better than before—only because I stepped in to begin with. And since you clearly have no interest in improving the template or fixing the errors within it, it looks like I’ll have to take on the task again—because I seem to be the only one of us who actually cares about German rivers. I repeat my last question: How should we handle rivers that change their names along their course? Si9mon (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
For now, I would leave only Aland (per the original version of the template) or nothing at all (it is under 100 km long and it does not look very significant). Since it is hydrologically considered one river (the three sections have the numbering of river kilometres together), you can make a WP:RM to merge the Biese and Milde pages into Aland (basically it is the same on dewiki). And the name of the page would be determined in the discussion, whether it will be only Aland or Milde-Biese-Aland.
Why are you reopening the discussion about river lengths now? We’ll never make any progress that way. I thought 80 km+ was acceptable to you. Besides, you can't say it isn't significant, given that it is indeed longer than 80 km. After all, which rivers—aside from the Rhine, Danube, Elbe, Weser, Main, and Moselle—are truly significant? As long as there are three Wikipedia articles, one really ought to link to all three. If the pages were to be merged, the name would almost inevitably have to be the same as in the German Wikipedia: Milde-Biese-Aland. The river would then be listed under "M," but all three names would still appear. Or what else should the river be called? Unfortunately, I’d rather not handle the merging of the pages myself. No, what I’d like to know from you is the length of the river that flows into the sea at Cuxhaven. What is the total distance the water travels from its source to the point where it empties into the North Sea? Si9mon (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no fixed limit to significance. I am just saying that since we want to keep the template reasonably long, some shorter rivers might deserve more inclusion. But that is just speculation. If the page moves to Milde-Biese-Aland, then it will be ranked under "M" because we do not rank rivers, but Wikipedia pages.
{{Rivers of Russia}} You simply won't bring yourself to admit that the river has exactly the length of the path the water travels from the source of the Warm Vltava to its mouth in Cuxhaven:-) Just as an aside: most river templates include far more rivers. I just discovered the one for Russia. Since it is a law of nature that the smaller a country is, the shorter its major rivers inevitably are, one could argue that every country's river template is allowed to contain the same number of rivers. Since the Aland was already included in the template, I’ll leave it as is for now, but the same issue arises with another river: the Alz+Tiroler Achen river system is approximately 150 km long. How should we handle this? Si9mon (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Extremes are not the standard. Russia is 48 times larger than Germany, yet has only 3 times as many rivers. A specific case incomparable to other countries.
If you think that both of them are among the 100–150 most significant rivers of Germany, just add them there. Add the rivers you suggest adding and I will then look at them collectively. FromCzech (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
1. You simply picked the figure of 100–150 out of thin air. Is there any Wikipedia rule specifying how many rivers a country template should contain?
2. Is it actually true that a river template becomes cluttered the more rivers it lists, provided they are arranged alphabetically?
3. I can see that the Russian template is very long, but it isn't actually cluttered, since it is organized alphabetically.
4. You could just as easily flip the logic that a template has to be longer if the country is larger: if a template's clarity supposedly depends on its length, then every template would have to be limited to 100–150 entries. The Russian template would then reflect the fact that a 400 km river there is just as insignificant as a 40 km river in Germany.
5. And just a quick reminder: when I pointed out to you that the Florida template contains almost as many rivers as the German one—even though Florida is only half the size—you dismissed the very argument you’re using yourself now.
6. The problem, however, is that I don't believe a template becomes more cluttered as it lists more rivers—provided they are in alphabetical order. That is simply an assertion you are making.
7. Perhaps the exact opposite is actually the case: perhaps a template even needs to include as many rivers as possible to fulfill its purpose.
8. Furthermore you are presenting the 100–150 river limit as a settled matter. The truth is that this is your preference because, ideally, you would want the template to contain almost no rivers at all.
9. And here, a fact becomes apparent: once all the rivers are arranged alphabetically, the argument that the template becomes too cluttered as it includes more rivers essentially loses its validity, since any river can be quickly selected when sorted alphabetically.
10. That is why I will say it again: I would prefer to include all rivers that 1) are over 100 km long and touch German territory in some way, and 2) have a flow length of at least 50 km within Germany. I doubt the template would become cluttered.
11. This conversation gave the impression that we had worked out a compromise whereby we would: 1. initially include all rivers with a flow length of over 80 km; and 2. omit entirely any rivers with a total flow length of over 100 km that only marginally touch German territory as a headstream (since the Mže issue is so important to you). If I have misunderstood anything, please explain again which rivers you think the template should include.
12. And you still haven't answered the question of how I should classify rivers that change their names: the Tiroler Achen flows out of the Alps and then, via a beautiful river delta, into Lake Chiemsee, then leaves the lake as Alz. I would classify such river systems as follows: I would list the lower course alphabetically and append the upper course with a "+": Alz + Tiroler Achen. Alternatively, I would suggest "Alz - Tiroler Achen". Si9mon (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You do not understand the situation. Based on the discussion, it was found that there is no consensus on further expanding the template, and that the current size, which includes about 100 of the most important rivers in Germany (plus a few others that have remained there for the time being), is sufficient. And at this point, it does not matter what other templates look like. User older ≠ wiser came to remind you of this.
Although it could have ended at this point and the current version of the template could have been retained as the "final version", I wanted to show good will and agreed that you can expand the template by several rivers. But now, again, in a not-so-friendly tone, you are pushing for an expansion that contradicts the previous discussion. So either leave the template as it is, or take advantage of my offer and suggest rivers that are potentially important for Germany and have been omitted.
I think one of the main reasons we aren't making progress here is the length of the texts involved. You always use my long messages as an excuse to avoid responding to half of what I’ve said. Furthermore, a key tactic you use when debating me is to accuse me of behaving improperly or being unfriendly. Yet, very often, it seems you simply dislike the truths I state (for example, the fact that the hydrological source of the river flowing into the sea at Cuxhaven is the source of the Warm Vltava—that isn't just my opinion; it’s a fact). Incidentally, you don't exactly come across as friendly yourself; it always sounds as if I should be grateful you’re even debating me at all. I believe that a template whose creation is driven by the desire to exclude specific rivers is not a good template. Of course, you deny that the goal is merely to keep certain rivers out, claiming instead that your main priority is a neat, clear template—yet you show no interest in actually engaging with the individual rivers themselves. Please understand that it makes me uncomfortable to see people with absolutely no interest in German rivers exerting such significant influence over this template. That is why I now limit myself to asking about specific points—so we can make faster progress.
Since you recently remarked that the current version of the template could have been the final one, the first question that arises is: how can the current version be justified as a good, final version, and what is the logic behind it? The version includes several rivers that are much shorter, less well-known, and less significant than many others that aren't included at all. Wouldn't the logical first step be to include all rivers that are longer or more significant than those already in the template? That would be the constructive solution. The destructive solution would be simply to demand: let's just delete even more rivers. What would be your solution to fix this problem? Si9mon (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please write exactly which rivers are much shorter, less well-known, and less significant. I probably won't object to their deletion. Then write which rivers you want to add while maintaining the current size of the template. That is the only possible progress I can imagine. FromCzech (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please tell me first what the maximum number of rivers is that the template may include with your permission: is it a specific number, or are all rivers with a length of 80 km or more allowed? To start with, I would like to include all rivers with a length of more than 80 km within Germany, regardless of whether or not they change their name along their course. I would enter river systems like the Alz in the following format: Alz-Tiroler Achen and Leda-Jümme-Soeste. A river that changes its name remains a single, continuous river from source to mouth. Please let me know in advance whether or not you intend to delete these changes later. Logically, one would first have to delete all rivers shorter than 80 km; however, since I am generally opposed to removing rivers from the template, I am against doing so and would not take that step. Si9mon (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I repeat myself and repeat myself: keep the current size of the template. I feel like you want some promise or commitment from me that would break this rule. Add the missing important rivers. Do not add entire river systems. We have already discussed this in detail. FromCzech (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
We are once again facing a situation where multiple issues are on the table simultaneously; let’s please resolve this one specific point first: I want to include rivers in the template that change their names—such as the Alz-Tiroler Achen—in a way that represents both the lower and upper reaches. Here is why: When the Alz flows into the Inn, a substantial river—over 150 km in length, with more than 80 km of its course in Germany—is entering the Inn. However, the Alz itself is only 63 km long. If only the Alz were included in the template, a discrepancy would arise: it would appear as though a supposedly insignificant river had been included, thereby violating the "80 km+" rule. Conversely, omitting the Alz would mean failing to include a river that is actually 150 km long. Si9mon (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Alz is a potentially significant river based on its flow and basin size, not its length. It does not matter that it is only 63 km long. That is why I left it there. We add rivers (= river pages) there, not river systems. Unlike the Milde-Biese-Aland, the Alz and the Großache are considered two different rivers with separate numbering of river kilometres. FromCzech (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
But that completely defies all logic. What about the Leda-Jümme-Soeste, then? It blurs all the boundaries regarding which rivers should be included in the template and which shouldn't. Furthermore, terms like "Alz-Tiroler Achen" don't represent a river system; a river is a single, continuous watercourse, whereas a river like the Traun is a tributary—and only the inclusion of such a tributary would constitute a river system (in my opinion). Si9mon (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is complicated and some rivers have to be dealt with individually. But there are only a few exceptions. Based on basin size and flow, I would only consider including the Leda. As far as I know, they are also separate rivers with separate numbering of river kilometres, not different names for the same river as is the case with the Großache. FromCzech (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's true. In my opinion, we should upgrade the Ems to a higher level and give it its own subsection (like the Elbe, Rhine and Weser). The reasons are:
1. It is the second-longest river—after the Weser—that both originates and empties into the sea entirely within Germany.
2. The Ems is the longest river in Germany that carries the exact same name from its source all the way to its mouth.
3. The stretch of the river between Papenburg and the Dollart is famous for being used to transport gigantic newly built ships from the Meyer Werft shipyard in Papenburg out to sea, and this shipyard boasts the third-largest shipyard hall and the fifth-largest building in the world in terms of usable space.
4. Consequently, the Ems is the German river that accommodates the largest vessels.
5. The Ems is known for the Ems Barrier between Gandersum and Oldendorp. It is used during the transfer of the new ships from Papenburg to the sea to dam the waters of the Ems and thereby raise the water level required for the transfer.
6. The Ems is also known for the Friesenbrücke in Weener—Europe's largest lifting-swing railway bridge—which was rammed by the ship Emsmoon in 2015; its reconstruction took over ten years, rendering the railway line from Groningen to Oldenburg and Bremen impassable for that entire period.
8. The Ems is the only river in Germany that flows entirely through landscapes shaped by sand. During the last ice age, it transported vast quantities of meltwater and glacial sand, depositing a sandy riverbed up to 30 kilometers wide. The wind sculpted inland dunes from this material—dunes that still line parts of the river today.
9. Unlike all other rivers listed under "others," the Ems has two significant tributaries: the Hase and the Leda.
10. Since there would then be sufficient space in the Ems column, the two upper reaches of the Leda—the Jümme and the Soeste—could easily be added alongside the Leda without compromising the template's clarity; this could be done either as "Leda-Jümme-Soeste" or "Leda (with Jümme and Soeste)." Si9mon (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, the layout has already been approved and increasing the width by another line is unnecessary. Leave only the Leda there. The Jümme is officially a separate river, a tributary of the Leda. FromCzech (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is there actually anything you aren't opposed to? There are 37 rivers longer than 80 km that are missing from the template, and 18 rivers shorter than 80 km that are included in it; that results in a difference of 19 rivers. Please let me know if I have your permission to make this change. Si9mon (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You asked about things that were already closed. You could not expect any other answer.
Add all the rivers that are 80+ km in Germany. I thought there would be a little more of them. If it is taken as the hydrological convention is (i.e. not considering a three-river system as one river, etc.) and not some alternative interpretation, there will be no problem in leaving them there. Some rivers should really be deleted, so there will be no problem with the deletion of shorter rivers either. But if a river is important, even though it is under 80 km, leave it there (e.g. Alz). Please, if you want to discuss any specific exceptions, write them all at once and not one by one.
I would like to include all rivers with a total length of over 80 km; otherwise, rivers like the Saalach would be excluded. As far as I can see, there is no other case quite like the Mže—and naturally, I won't include the Mže, since it was the very thing that triggered this whole discussion. For all the other rivers, I believe the situation is either that a greater portion of their course lies within Germany compared to the Mže, or that it is the lower reach—rather than the source—that is located in Germany. Please let me know what you think about this. Furthermore, the rivers known in their lower reaches as the Alz or Leda are not shorter than 80 km; the issue seems to be that, for some reason, you want to prevent the inclusion of all the names used along the river's course. I have also identified two specific issues: the Ohře is known as the Eger in Germany, so the German name should appear in the template somehow. Additionally, both names for the Amper need to be listed: for half its course, the river is called the Ammer; it then flows into Lake Ammersee, and only in its lower reach—after leaving the lake—does it take the name Amper. Si9mon (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the layout has been approved.
I don't think that for example Sauer (Rhine), which just barely crossed the 80 km mark, with only 21 km in Germany, belongs there. Think about it.
River names are not an issue. This is clearly stated by the MOS, and applies to all geographical names. This ensures consistency across Wikipedia. We have to use Ohře not Eger, Meuse not Maas, Großache not Tiroler Achen, Amper not Ammer, and for example Elbe not Labe. Dual names are only allowed in exceptional cases, such as Biel/Bienne. You can use whatever you want here in the discussion, but not in the template and articles. If you see somewhere a discrepancy between the page title and the title used in the text, that is a reason to fix it, not an argument that you can do it too. FromCzech (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
However, I believe that both names—Ohře and Eger—actually appeared in the old version, and there was no consensus to remove the German name. Since the article states that the river is also known as the Eger in English, it might even be the case that—within a template covering German rivers and focusing primarily on the German section—it should be referred to simply as the Eger, provided there is a rule stating that only one river name may be used in templates. But where is that rule stated? In my opinion, the designation "Ohře/Eger" or "Eger/Ohře" would be the most appropriate for the German template. Si9mon (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
To state the question again, more clearly and unequivocally: 1. Is it really true that a river template allows for only a single name to be used for a river? And if so, where is that stated? I would like to read up on that. And 2.: There ought to be a distinction between rivers like the Elbe—where the article does not list an additional river name in bold—and rivers where a second name appears in bold in the introduction. Logically, one would assume that in such cases, the Czech name is used in Czech templates (and for Czech towns located on the river), while the German name is used in German templates (and for German towns located on the river). In any case, the name "Eger" is used on the pages for Hohenberg an der Eger and Marktleuthen. Furthermore, I just noticed that the old version of the template used the designation "Eger"; thus, neither the Czech name nor a dual designation was used. Si9mon (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
MOS:GEO (A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article.) and WP:MLN (especially We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion...). FromCzech (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Since the text says "should" and "we recommend" rather than "must," there is surely an exception for cases like cross-border rivers that are so minor they lack an English name. It would seem odd, for instance, to read in an article about Hohenberg an der Eger that the town is situated on a river with a Czech-sounding name. Given that the old template referred to the "Eger," I believe you would first need to establish a consensus regarding the name change. I suggest using "Ohře/Eger." I don't think you can simply impose the Czech name here; as I mentioned, there is a difference between this river and major ones like the Rhine or the Elbe. This river is mentioned so rarely in the English-speaking world that, when discussing a German town, the name "Eger" is the one to be expected. Please rename the river back unless you can provide irrefutable proof that you were authorized to make the change. Si9mon (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
If the title of the article is Ohře, it means that there is a consensus to use this name across Wikipedia and that this name is the most understandable for the average reader. The target audience is not German-speaking users, but English-speaking ones. At least it shows that most of the river is not in Germany. There are no exceptions. FromCzech (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, when I checked what name the river previously had in the template, I happened to notice that you had also simply deleted six other rivers without consensus. Si9mon (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Could you finally complete the template and stop writing to me all the time? This discussion has stopped being productive. I feel like I am answering the same questions over and over again and being tested on Wikipedia rules. This is not my first day here. Until you complete the template, I am not interested in continuing the discussion. FromCzech (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You’re using a trick: while it was agreed that the template should be arranged alphabetically, you know full well that no one noticed your specific, minor, hidden changes regarding the individual rivers. I have no desire to keep working on a template that you then destroy with a single click once I’m finished. That is why I will only make changes that I have discussed with you beforehand and that you have approved. After all, you delete any change—regardless of whether it is objectively good or bad—with the comment "no consensus" if it doesn't suit you. I must point out that you need to revert the name change from "Eger" to "Ohře" unless you can demonstrate that you were 100% authorized to make that change. Furthermore, as far as I know, you also need to restore the six rivers you deleted. And just a quick note: it’s not that I enjoy chatting with you. I’m simply interested in creating an objectively good river template. The numbers speak for themselves: 37 rivers over 80 km long are missing, while 18 much shorter rivers are included. Something isn't right there. Si9mon (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
So add them finally there.
The name change to Ohře was an uncontroversial technical change according to Wikipedia's rules and conventions. You are the only who is looking for controversy in it. This rule is there to prevent similar disputes from arising. Every now and then, there will be a nationalist who vandalises Wikipedia by changing geographical names to suit their preferences or political views. If you disagree with the use of the name Ohře for the English-language Wikipedia, simply start WP:RM and give your arguments why a different name should be used. That is what everyone does in a case like this. FromCzech (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
And here you are using tricks again to cast me in a bad light: You are simply pretending that I want to change the name "Ohře" to "Eger" in all articles across the board. That is not at all the issue here. I believe the river's name is used so rarely in the English-speaking world that it lacks a distinct English name; consequently, the German name is used when discussing a German town or other geographical feature associated with the river within Germany.
Besides, it wasn't me who created the original template, so I wasn't the one who used the name "Eger." As you may have noticed, in my versions of the template, I referred to the river as "Ohře/Eger."
Incidentally, as you know, there is a river in Germany called the Ohre and another called the Eger anyway, so there are alternatives for everything regardless. It basically doesn't matter to me what the river is called; this is simply a matter of logic and objectivity. The second "Eger" is at least as interesting as the Ohře, as the Eger is the river that flows right across the Nördlinger Ries—a massive meteorite crater that is the best-preserved impact crater in Europe. Furthermore, the film *Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory* was produced in Nördlingen, the town situated on the Eger in the middle of the crater.
Please explain the difference between an article like "Elbe"—where, following the bolded Elbe, the text (Czech: Labe) appears in parentheses and italics—and an article like "Ohře"—where, following the bolded Ohře it states that it is also known in English and German as Eger, with "Eger" printed in the same bold type as "Ohře". After all, there must be a difference between the two. Si9mon (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I asked you to first delete the 18 shorter rivers in the first phase, as you mentioned, but that did not happen, so I deleted the 12 that I know about, and please delete the rest, if there is any. I deleted the rivers that are not 80+ km in Germany and were not part of the agreement. FromCzech (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with what you did. Since the template has long since been reset to alphabetical order, your main argument is irrelevant anyway: if all rivers are alphabetically ordered, it makes no sense to include as few rivers as possible in the template, because even with a very large number of rivers, each one can be found quickly if everything is alphabetically ordered.
The second point would be what percentage of a river's length, in your opinion, must lie within Germany to be included in the template. Since you mentioned that it makes a difference whether the upper or lower course of a river is in Germany, we would need two values: 1. What percentage of the length of a river over 80 km long that originates in Germany must, in your opinion, lie within Germany to be included in the template? And 2. What percentage of the length of a river over 80 km long that has its lower course in Germany must, in your opinion, lie within Germany to be included in the template?
The third point would be the individual discussion of the rivers. I'll start with the Schwarzach (Naab). You deleted it, even though even the English page states that it is 95 km long. You probably deleted it because the German page says that the Schwarzach, excluding the Bohemian Schwarzach, is only 70.5 km long. However, the Bohemian Schwarzach crosses the Czech-German border after only 9.5 km. Furthermore, you inexplicably deleted the Saalach as well. Si9mon (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I know you do not agree with the current size of the template. You do not have to keep repeating it.
These should only be absolute exceptions, rivers of significant hydrological importance. For example, those that have in Germany a basin size of more than 2000 km2 and a flow of more than 10 m3/s. I don't want to commit to any specific parameters – just if you have a specific suggestion for a very important river that is missing from the list, write it down.
Schwarzach (Naab) – you are right, the Czech part of the river is 10.4 km and the German part is 84.5 km. I misread that 70.5 km is the length of the German part of the river. Saalach – I am also sorry, I mistook it for another river.
I’ve now found the perfect solution to all our problems: We change the rule to a minimum length of 70 km and a flow path of at least 10% within Germany (just as another user suggested). This way, 6 of the 8 rivers mentioned above are removed, rivers like the Mže are excluded, there’s no need to discuss each river individually to see if it’s important enough, and most importantly:
The resulting number of rivers ends up being almost exactly what you proposed yourself. After all, as you said during the conversation:
"There are currently 121 rivers in it, so I recommend adding a maximum of 20–30 rivers (plus another for each deleted river) that you consider important for the hydrology of Germany." Si9mon (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The condition was that they had to clearly belong to the hydrologically most important rivers in Germany. Given their short absolute length in Germany, basin size and flow, this cannot be said about them. The Jeetzel is perhaps a relatively large river to be deleted.
The proposal for a 10% limit was at a time when only rivers with 100+ km were considered. Two rivers meet this condition. I added them there. This should be the end. FromCzech (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, let’s recap: when the template included 121 rivers, you proposed adding another 20–30, plus one more for every one deleted. Assuming 20 rivers have been deleted since then, that brings the total to 171. Fundamentally, this means a template with 171 rivers is a size you yourself recommend.
Secondly, your decision to set the limit at 80 km is completely arbitrary. Since you cannot argue that a template with 170 rivers is too cluttered—given that you proposed this number yourself—the only remaining argument is that these rivers are not important for Germany's hydrology. However, since your 80 km cutoff is entirely arbitrary and there is no evidence defining the length at which a river is considered "important," you have no grounds left to oppose the inclusion of all rivers down to 70 km.
Furthermore, your decision to include the Nied, Berkel, and Jeetzel in the template while excluding others is, once again, completely illogical and arbitrary (for instance, the Dinkel flows through Germany for a much greater distance than the Nied, and—unlike the Berkel—it also has its confluence within Germany).
So, unless you have evidence that a 70 km river is insignificant and unworthy of inclusion in the template, I am going to add all of them, seeing as the proposal for around 170 rivers came from you in the first place.
I also need to point out that there are several other problematic cases we still need to discuss individually, as the template remains full of inconsistencies. I am simply not listing these issues one after another right now because, otherwise, we wouldn't make any progress at all.
And just a quick note: all of this only came about because, for some reason, you decided that the "German rivers" template was very important to you. It is not my fault that you now have to constantly deal with it. For me, your interference means a tremendous amount of extra work.
Your latest edit to the template is incorrect yet again—which shows that you are neither interested in German rivers nor willing to engage with the subject matter: the Berkel flows into the IJssel, not the Oude IJssel. Si9mon (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
My statement meant that the maximum (not ideal) is about 140–150 rivers (121 rivers plus 20–30 = 141–151 not 171). Since I had no idea what rivers were missing, it was a rough estimate, and it was conditioned by the significance of the added rivers. After my edit this morning, there were 139 rivers, which roughly corresponds to the estimate.
80km was my concession and a compromise that I did not have to make. It was a gesture of goodwill, even though I considered the 100km limit to be sufficient. There is no fixed limit for the significance of a river, it is a subjective thing. There is only a list of rivers that both sides agree on (= consensus). If you say that we can include rivers with 50+ km and I say that we can include rivers that are 80+ km and that only in Germany, it means that we have reached an agreement (= consensus) for rivers with 80+ km in Germany and a disagreement for all other rivers (= no consensus). Moreover, my vision of the format and size (number of rivers) was supported by a third party.
The inclusion of the Nied and Berkel rivers was the result of your suggestion and referral to a third party. If you find their inclusion unsystematic, we will delete them, just say so. The Jeetzel was my suggestion for including a significant river under 80km, but if you do not want it there, again – we can delete it. I could hypothetically insist that it was already there and there is no consensus to delete it, but I do not care if it is there or not. It just seemed more significant to me than some other rivers that are already there.
Berkel: Instead of simply pointing out the error, you are adding insults. Look at this diff. You put it there like that, I just restored this edit. Sorry I did not check your work. FromCzech (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why is this template so important to someone who isn't interested in German rivers? After all, discussing each river individually is far too tedious for you. It is obvious that you are trying everything to shut down the discussion about the rivers as quickly as possible because you find it a nuisance. If it had been up to you, the template would have remained exactly as it was before I started intervening. Everything you write is riddled with illogic, and you are constantly trying to damage my reputation. Dozens of errors have accumulated throughout your edits of the template, all of which demonstrate that you have not the slightest interest in German rivers. Your most recent statement regarding the number of rivers alone shows that your writing is riddled with false claims and insinuations. To quote you:
"There are currently 121 rivers in it, so I recommend adding a maximum of 20–30 rivers (plus another for each deleted river) that you consider important for the hydrology of Germany."
To figure out what number of rivers you might have meant, one has to do the math: 121 rivers + 20–30 rivers equals 151 rivers. Then there is the "plus another for each deleted river" part. To calculate that, one would need to check how many rivers were still in the template at the time you made that statement and were subsequently deleted. I estimate there are about 20 such rivers. That brings the total to around 171 rivers, not 151 as you erroneously claimed. Furthermore, you keep insisting that everything you do is backed by consensus. If there was any consensus at all, it was merely that the rivers should be listed alphabetically.
To quote you again:
"If you find their inclusion unsystematic, we will delete them, just say so"
"The Jeetzel was my suggestion for including a significant river under 80km, but if you do not want it there, again – we can delete it. I could hypothetically insist that it was already there and there is no consensus to delete it, but I do not care if it is there or not. It just seemed more significant to me than some other rivers that are already there."
Statements like these don't exactly give the impression that you're interested in a good template; instead, they come across as thinly veiled threats to delete even more rivers. I repeat: to make progress here, you would need to be willing to discuss—one by one—all the rivers we disagree on. But since you find that tedious and unpleasant, you keep shifting the discussion back here; this allows you to wriggle out of the situation while knowing full well that no one else here is seriously interested in the matter. However, since you appear to be the person across all of Wikipedia most intent on keeping the "German rivers" template as small and poor as possible, you also need to be prepared to discuss and justify your actions.
Furthermore, as I see it, if I propose a minimum length of 50 km and you propose 80 km, the most obvious compromise would be 65 km.
But here is the saddest part of the whole story: I believe the one, sad reason behind all of this is simply that you care about only one thing—keeping the Ohře and the Mže out of the template. That is the sole, sad reason why I have to go to all this trouble. You engage in all this surrounding chatter just to keep that one overriding goal from becoming obvious. That is my take on the situation, and it is very sad. Sorry for thinking this, but your contributions relate almost exclusively to the Czech Republic; you haven't distinguished yourself when it comes to working on river-related templates either—and certainly not for rivers that don't flow through the Czech Republic. Si9mon (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Si9mon Your commentary is consistently disrespectful, bordering on offensive. You consistently show little regard for the views of ANY of the other editors who have been involved and keep returning to make the same points over and over and over. This is mostly a waste of time for other editors to try to seriously engage with you in discussion. older ≠ wiser20:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
So, what exactly was the consensus everyone agreed on? And please quote the parts of my text that are disrespectful. I feel I am being treated disrespectfully by the other user—and severely so. Si9mon (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
And for anyone genuinely interested in this topic, here is my first suggestion for improvement: I would like to include the "Tiroler Achen" in the template. The reason is that the Alz and the Tiroler Achen are essentially the same river. It is called the Tiroler Achen up to the point where it flows into Lake Chiemsee, and takes the name "Alz" upon leaving the lake. The Alz on its own is only about 63 km long; however, if you combine the Alz and the Tiroler Achen, the total length comes to 150 km. Officially, the Tiroler Achen appears to be classified as a tributary of the Alz. The Alz is already included in the template. Does anyone else support including the Tiroler Achen in the template as a tributary of the Alz, given that only the combination of the two yields a length of 150 km? Si9mon (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here is another compromise proposal: You will likely claim next that you originally intended to allow the inclusion of all rivers in the template that are 1. at least 100 km long and 2. flow within Germany for at least 100 km. I, on the other hand, wanted to include all rivers that are at least 50 km long and touch upon Germany in some way. The middle ground between these positions is 1. a length of 75 km and 2. a flow distance of at least 10% within Germany. This would result in the exclusion of the Mže. If we were to raise the required flow distance within Germany to 20%, the Ohře would also be excluded—but I am not in favor of that. The only rivers that would be affected by such a minimum flow-distance rule at all would be the following few:
Berkel: 115 km, 57% in Germany, incl. the source
Dinkel: 89 km, 53% in Germany, incl. the source and the mouth
Schipbeek: 85 km, 32% in Germany, incl. the source
Sauer (Rhine): 85 km, 25% in Germany, incl. the source
Ohře: 305 km, 16% in Germany, incl. the source
Nied: 114 km, 15% in Germany, incl. the mouth
Mže: 103 km, 3% in Germany, incl. the source
We need an agreement like this as a basic rule first. After that, we can discuss special cases, such as rivers that change their names along their course. As a side note: the template does not get any better simply by containing fewer rivers. Since the template is now organized alphabetically, it seems clear to me that it is more useful the more rivers with a flow distance of over 50 km it includes. It would be interesting to know why you think the template is more useful to users if it contains as few rivers as possible. Please bear in mind that the template is named "Rivers of Germany," not "Germany's longest rivers." And please let me know if you accept this compromise proposal. Si9mon (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
User:FromCzech I would like to elevate the Oder and Ems rivers to the same level as the Elbe, Rhine, Weser, and Danube. These are Germany's longest rivers that flow directly into the sea, and I believe they should be highlighted in the template. It is a matter of maintaining a consistent appearance. All other, smaller rivers that flow directly into the sea are classified as coastal rivers; the Oder and Ems should be distinguished from these. When user FromCzech rearranged the template, there was no consensus to depict the Ems and Oder as smaller than the Danube, Rhine, Elbe, and Weser. It simply makes no sense to depict the Oder at the same small scale as comparatively insignificant tributaries. Furthermore, the Ems is one of the three major North Sea rivers that flow directly into the sea but are not classified as coastal rivers. The argument that the Oder has only one significant tributary is invalid. The clarity of the template does not improve if the Oder and Ems are listed in small print alongside less significant tributaries. The template does not become harder to read simply because it gains two extra lines; on the contrary, in my opinion, it becomes clearer and more logically structured. Furthermore, this map of European river basins shows that the Oder, Ems, Danube, Elbe, Weser, and Rhine (and actually the Meuse as well—though user FromCzech simply deleted it without consensus) are Germany's seven major river basins, and the template should reflect this. Si9mon (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not interested in changing the format or including new rivers. There has been enough discussion; you have heard opinions here, at WP:RIVERS, and at the Teahouse, even though you constantly frame this as a dispute solely between the two of us. Given that you are once again attacking me and spreading lies about me (he has constantly interfered with my attempts to expand it, even though he has neither an interest in nor any knowledge of German rivers), surely you understand my reluctance to continue. FromCzech (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
User:FromCzech In the tea house, I am saying exactly the same thing as I am here: namely, that I don't think you have any interest in German rivers. What makes me say that? You have never engaged with German rivers, nor with other river templates. Furthermore, I get the feeling that one thing is very important to you: ending the discussion here as quickly as possible because you find the whole thing a nuisance (since you aren't actually interested in it) and want to get back to editing articles related to the Czech Republic.
Your latest reply is another prime example of your refusal to engage with the actual subject matter: once again, you are trying to ruin my reputation here instead of addressing the substance of the issue. Moreover, the fact that you place such heavy emphasis on everything I am supposedly doing wrong in my interactions with you suggests that you want to draw me into arguments that will ultimately lead to me being blocked—because then you wouldn't have to deal with the rivers anymore.
You also continue to claim that everything you are doing here is backed by consensus. In my opinion, there is no consensus here on anything other than the fact that the template should be in alphabetical order. Since I do not agree with your draft of the template—yet we are the only two people interested in it, you need to address the substance of my proposals. I have outlined several reasons above for why I want to elevate the Oder and the Ems to the same level as the Danube, Rhine, Elbe, and Weser; now it is your turn to explain why your solution is supposedly better than mine. If the arguments on my side carry more weight, it should be changed, since the classification of the Ems and the Oder—as you have applied it—is not backed by a consensus. Si9mon (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
