Talk:Burdekin River

	Australia portal Burdekin River is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Rivers C‑class Mid‑importance

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

mentions diverting water from this river to victoria

Expert support for Queensland pipe link 13/03/2009
[1]

gioto (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

No. I think one or two left aligned images is better. It is fairly standard practice to left align a few images when the accumulated vertical length of images is significantly greater than the body text. Without that there is too much white spaces between the See also and References sections. If we are to have two photos showing the effects of floods it would be appropriate to include information about the major floods, related weather events and damage caused within the body text. It would of been better if you had started a discussion about the image layout instead of reverting my edits. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No? The two images with text crammed between looked very odd - you rarely see this in any layout in any books or websites. The length of text was about the same as the length of the images, which is why I only added those images and left the rest on commons. Yes more text could be added on floods, which I'm intending to add later. It would have been better if you had initiated discussion prior to making your changes to... Hughesdarren (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using regular font sizes, standard thumbnail sizes and a common browser? I don't see two images with text crammed between. Where does that appear? Your edit creates too much white space as the second last photo starts at the same point as the see also section. It wasn't me who made the revert so a discussion about my changes wasn't apt. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think so...Internet explorer set at 125% on view window. You shifted an image to the left at top of the tributaries section which wedges the text partly between the infobox and the image on the right (as I view it). As I see the layout now there is no "white space" at all. The first image appears neatly under the infobox. Do I need to change something on my settings somewhere? Hughesdarren (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I changed to 100% and see the white space now...Hughesdarren (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I also still see the text cramming I described before if I revert to your version, do I need to be changing something else? Hughesdarren (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain. It can be a number of things. If you plan on expanding the article it doesn't really matter. If you see text cramming others might too. There is some complication related to the infobox which meant I couldn't just left align one image. I had to move them to the Tributaries section. Its not a big deal so lets just see how much we can improve the article going forward. - Shiftchange (talk)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Burdekin River

Coordinates are listed as North of the equator. Should be south.

—101.172.255.234 (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already

Done by User:Shiftchange. Deor (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130414090616/http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/overview/qld/gmu-burdekin-river-irrigation-area-left-bank.html to http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/overview/qld/gmu-burdekin-river-irrigation-area-left-bank.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]