Talk:Scioto River

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

Rivers 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pronunciation

I added the a broad phonetic transcription of the local pronunciation in Columbus area with IPA. My experience is that most people in the Columbus area seem not to make the last vowel a schwa, but I have heard the schwa version from one person. Does anyone know what the best IPA representation of the unstressed, non-schwa [oʊ] in American English is?

Does it make sense to retain the non-IPA phonetics for those unfamiliar with IPA? WilliamDParker

Categorization

Is it reasonable to have the river in the categories of all of the counties it flows through? The Mississippi River article, for example, isn't in all of the categories for the states it flows through. WilliamDParker 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should answer your question—how would Mississippi River look if it had a category for every county and municipality it passed through? Let the scale of the river determine what is important to that river, rather than categorizing it by every topic to which the river is important. I think by county may be reasonable if the river is primarily in only one or two counties (or categorizing by state if in only one or two states), because its connection to that locality is going to be especially strong. But otherwise, that highly localized information is better handled another way, such as by describing in each applicable county article that a particular river flows through it. Category tags shouldn't be treated as a shortcut to establishing that information in the articles to which it is relevant. Postdlf 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]