Talk:List of rivers of Brazil

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.

Brazil: Geography High‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geography of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance).

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hidden content?[edit]

Why is the entire content of this article hidden??Sbalfour (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piping of same names[edit]

I'm wondering why all article names of rivers that share the same name are piped, such that the links are visually indistinguishable. What I mean is, for example,

instead of

This is certainly counterproductive for the readers, so I'm wondering if this was done with any other particular reason in mind. Lennart97 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a contributor to geography articles, but I see your point. Using the full name of the river's article in a list of rivers carries more information than the piped link. It could be that sticklers for uniformity prefer the naked name of the river, minus the disambiguator, which may be a country, state, synonym, other entity, or nothing at all. If all the disambiguators were ~~countries~~ the same type of disambiguator, it would be a simple matter. Personally, I'd want to see a sample of what the list would look like under your regime, before I'd state a preference.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reconsideration, having found the 11 Rio Brancos, I feel this list needs what you suggest, and perhaps a tabular format, with various data such as length, volume ranking, "empties into", etc.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqalis: Thanks for your reply! I'll get to work on unpiping. I agree that a tabular format with additional information would be great, but I'll gladly leave that to someone else. Lennart97 (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]