Talk:Oxbow lake

Lakes Top‑importance

	Lakes portal Oxbow lake is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Oxbow lake is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture

Can anyone get a picture of one of these, especially an overhead picture? I think it'd really help. Derrick Coetzee 23:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The picture is of an oxbow. Not "an oxbow in the making." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.68.34 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Rather, the picture most likely shows several oxbows. I will edit the picture text to reflect this. Joeldaalv (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

The wording of this article is terribly confusing. I had to do a search for another explanation, and found one which did so simply and clearly. A brief diagram could quickly explain the matter to people not familiar with geographical terminology. The link below is what I used:

http://mbgnet.mobot.org/fresh/lakes/oxbow.htm

Jackmont, Feb 9, 2006

Rincon

Is this the same as a rincon, linked from meander? --NE2 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I have tried to disambig; see Meander. --Una Smith (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reelfoot Lake not an oxbow

Reelfoot Lake is not widely considered an oxbow lake. It's a poor example on other grounds, too.173.101.236.43 (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more confusing

Is the center section - "formation" - and its 7 long paragraphs full of explanations really just three different attempts to say what seems should only require a few short paragraphs? This needs some serious editing for legibility and to reduce confusion. I may tackle it later when I have a few hours to spare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.56.194 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information

While this article does cover the basic information on oxbows lakes, I feel that there is still information needing to be covered. Now I know how oxbow lakes are formed when their river's meander becomes too wibbly weebly wobbly to maintain the course it's on, and that the main flow of the stream then diverts itself accordingly leaving the oxbow lake behind. But here's my question, son: What on earth is an oxbow? Are our bovine friends fashoning weaponry? Someone should inform me, do I need to buy a shield? Oxen are not well known for their dexterous abilities.

Also, should we include a section on the dangers at hand? One needs to carefully watch one's self around them, or they might end up losing an eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.116.8 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Meander cutoff

Shouldn't this be merged with Meander cutoff? To me it seems as both articles describe the same under a different title. noclador (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you don't always get a lake after the cutoff. Also a dry creek bed, or a billabong. --Dave Rave (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. Per Dave Rave and also it's useful to have separate articles for specific geographical terms that can be expanded with e.g. processes and examples. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bow, not the bow pin

The shape is similar to the bow of an oxbow, that is, the U-shaped wooden portion that goes around the draft animal's neck. The bow pin is the device that holds the bow in place. The oxbow article is a little confusing on this point. If there are no objections, I'll update both articles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oxbow lake. 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/20070312145458/http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect17/Sect17_4.html to http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect17/Sect17_4.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) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billabong and Resaca (channel)

NO MERGE OF BILLABONG

The discussion became one on merging Billabong into this article and there was a strong consensus against doing that. There was no substantial discussion on merging Resaca (channel) so that question could be discussed separately in the future. North8000 (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If Billabong and Resaca (channel) are just alternate terms for this, why do they need separate articles? FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Now, to argue against myself, sometimes there can be articles on terms. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but terms for the same natural phenomena? FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Billabong looks like a flat-out synonym and probably shouldn't have an article. Resaca (channel) raises some questions. This Oxbow Lake article talks about Oxbow lake as as semi-permanent item. Resaca (channel) purports to talk about something a little different which includes seasonal ones. Either the laws of physics are different in Texas or one of the articles needs to be revised. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in the case of Billabong of the grounds of the independently notable cultural roles of the Billabong in both aboriginal culture and Australia folklore. The description also suggest seasonality, and the reference indicating equivalence doesn't appear to be reliable (archived, unreferenced page aimed at schoolchildren). Klbrain (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse that Oppose. Though it isn't reflected well in the article, the name billabong is often used in the Top End of the Northern Territory to refer to mostly permanent areas of water left behind after the wet season. During The Wet, they are part of the wider river itself. They don't exist because the river changes its course, but just because of seasonal changes of water level. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Klbrain. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Klbrain.Fleet Lists (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Klbrain North8000 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: On a geological time scale, billabongs are ephemeral. Meandering rivers move back and forth across their floodplains, leaving scrolls, swales and cut-off meanders. In southern Australia the latter are specifically termed billabongs, although elsewhere on the continent the term applies to a wide range of standing waters[1]. This notes that it is described as an oxbow lake for international audiences but: After the 'flood' the evidence remains: a 'drift' is deposit of sand and gravel left by floodwaters; a 'billabong', 'blind creek' or 'anabranch' is formed by the greatly varying water levels and volumes of most Ausatralian watercourses. An increased volume of water will form a braided pattern of stream; when the volume is reduced, water is left in a hydrological cul de sac. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: as per Klbrain, HiLo48 & Hydronium Hydroxide. Many rivers in Australia are seasonal - when the flow stops & the river dries up, it separates into billabongs, or pools of standing water. They are not ox-bow lakes as when the rains come, the river will flow through those channels once again. --Find bruce (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not the same geological feature. There can be oxbows in Australia, and probably would be referred to as billabongs too, but most billabongs are not oxbows. (Can see why the merge has been suggested, the current billabong article is a mess.) Aoziwe (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I complete oppose merging these articles for an entirely different reason. Billabongs are not just a geological feature in Australia. They are a culturally significant term and used in some foundational Australian literature. In no way should the article be merged. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Chris' (and others) arguments above. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.