Talk:Ronald River

removal of material, source not about the topic of Ronald River

I object to some material put into this article apparently as padding, using sourcing not about Ronald River.

In this edit with edit summary "rm mention about climate general to huge area, suitable for mention in area article Quebec perhaps, and sourcing to "mindat" which has no information about Ronald River at all.", I removed stuff based on a "mindat" source that does not cover Ronald River at all, but rather reports that this general area in Quebec is part of a sub-Arctic climate. Possibly relevant for an article about a big region like Quebec as a whole, but here that is irrelevant IMHO, and has the appearance of padding just for sake of puffing up the article, i suppose.

Anyhow, that's not about Ronald River, and does not belong. It is challenged material. I think User:Aymatth2's edit putting it in was maybe Bold but misguided. Aymatt2 reverted merely with edit summary "restored relevant information" that does not convince me it is relevant. I think by wp:BRD process, the removal is proper, then editors are supposed to discuss, you can't just put contested stuff back in. If no one else participates, then we are at an impasse, and it should be kept out. Aymatt2, could you please discuss here? Really discuss.

Dispute resolution processes available include asking for a third opinion (wp:Third Opinion), or to have a big RFC about this (putting demands on a lot of people). I will pause for potential discussion, and otherwise expect to remove the material again and back that up by other processes. --Doncram (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• When writing about a geographical feature it is normal to mention the region's Köppen climate classification. Temperature ranges and precipitation data would also have been suitable. This information should not have been removed from the article without discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • When writing about a geographical feature it is normal to mention the region's Köppen climate classification. Temperature ranges and precipitation data would also have been suitable. That is just not true. It would be ludicrous to repeat that climate classification in every one of hundreds or thousands of geographic feature articles in Quebec. It is just not done.

Would you put temperature range and precipitation data into every populated place article? That is simply not done, either. I don't profess to understand exactly what the practice is, about editors' decisions for that on populated places, but I think that info is put in for just the very largest cities in a province or state. There is a chart of that in Trois Rivieres article. Oddly, I see no chart of temperature or precipitation in the Montreal or Ottawa or Quebec City articles ... oh hmm, there is a collapsed/hidden box "Climate data" within each of those, and there is mention of Koppen climate class for each of them too. There is none of that in the article about Hull, Quebec, nor in any neighborhood articles of the big cities, nor in most town articles.

NO MENTION OF ANY CLIMATE OR TEMPERATURE OR PRECIPITATION is mentioned in, say, the first four mountains in List of mountains of Quebec. Nor in the four biggest (first four) items in List of lakes in Quebec. My guess is that it is not done in any geo feature articles in Quebec besides the ones you have edited it into. Even if there exist a few exceptions, you are really just incorrect in your belief about what is normally done. Other editors simply don't put in that stuff, which looks like padding, in articles like this one and a number of others you have created.

Perhaps you are thinking that each article about a feature is supposed to be completely free-standing? That stuff could be relevant, like if a child was coming to the encyclopedia to learn everything knowable about that one place so they could write some childish report for grade school, and for some reason they were only allowed to access one article. But articles do not stand alone that way, they link to articles about bigger regions or about biggest town or city nearby, and so on. It is really not necessary or helpful to repeat region-type info in all the articles in a region, which is only one or two clicks away.

I am taking the time to discuss this out with you here, because I think you are a newish editor in this area and I assume good faith on your part in this. Maybe i am being duped here, because I know you have been told this in some of the recent AFDs (someone was saying something like "yeah, every point on the planet has prevailing weather, but that doesn't mean you can create an article about every point and put that in", in one of the AFDs). I hope you get it now and that this does not need to be brought up as an issue with your works again and again. --Doncram (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Following that logic, the article should not mention that the lake is in Canada, since the reader can work that out by following the link to MacDonald River. I have no idea how many links they would have to follow to work out that the river is in a subarctic climate and maybe freezes over sometimes. I prefer to give a bit of context. My knee-jerk reaction is to revert edits that remove relevant sourced content without talk page discussion and consensus. Let's leave it at that. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)