User talk:Markussep/ArchiveRivers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

River naming

Moved the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers. I stopped moving articles, let's see what the discussion leads to.

finally someone put his name in the list of naming methods. :-) thank you :-) Tobias Conradi 22:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have just edited a couple of your articles. Please check them and note the changes I made in the use of definite/indefinite articles, prepositional phrases and capitalization. Weiße Elster was one of them. Rmhermen 15:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Mesta River

You were working on a doublet-article resulting from non standarding naming. [1]

I merged you contributions into Mesta River. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. Mesta (river) has been there for ages, with link from Mesta. The person who created the link (User:Valkov) to Mesta (river) created Mesta River a few days later. BTW I'm not so convinced anymore that all parentheses must be eradicated. Markussep 14:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Syr or Syre

Copied from User talk:Bastin8

Hi, you moved the Luxembourgish river Syre to Syr. I'm not completely sure, but I think it should be at Syre (and Roodt-sur-Syr at Roodt-sur-Syre). The Michelin map of Luxembourg has Syre (see for instance http://www.viamichelin.com), and the municipality of Betzdorf (see http://www.betzdorf.lu) has Syre (also for Roodt). Markussep 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure, either. I initially thought that it was 'Syre', hence why I created the article there. However, I have been told that it's 'Syr' by someone from Luxembourg (whom, admittedly, I know only via the Internet). Having now looked at the links that you've provided, and re-Googled it, I can see that it is likely that it is indeed 'Syre'. Perhaps my Luxembourgish source is confusing it with the Lëtzebuergesch name ('Sir'), is unfamiliar with the spelling, or is simply having me on. I will ask whether he has any proof that the spelling is as he says it is. I should have an answer by tomorrow, or maybe Tuesday. Until then, I suggest that we stick with 'Syr', simply for expediency. Thanks for the heads-up, and your continued interest in a subject on which you have contributed so much. Bastin8 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
"Syr" might be the (old?) German name, see for instance de:Syr, but also de:Liste der Flüsse in Luxemburg. Syr and Syre are both used in German and in French texts, but Syre is more frequent in both languages according to Google (I searched for the combination with Mertert). But let's await your source. Markussep 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
He was quite adamant that 'Syr' is correct, but, having directed him to your links and various Google combinations, he 'conceded' that there's probably more than one version and that he might be on the other side of a dialectic divide. He did point out a couple of site that supported his case ([2], [3]), which ought to use the correct English language spelling (being a UK-based tourist office and the EU presidency site respectively). Having said that, the sheer weight of sites demands that 'Syre' be preferred. I suggest moving it back to 'Syre' and noting 'Syr' as a possible alternative spelling. Bastin8 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

French rivers

Sure, it's ok to have a river named "X" rather than "X River", but the trouble is, when you have 100 rivers in France, it makes no sense to have *some* of them be "X" and *some* of them be "X River". There may be a tiny minority where there is an established English tradition (Rhine and Seine would probably be about the only two). For all the others, a standard naming convention of X River seems the best for consistency and clarity. It has the additional benefit of avoiding any possible ambiguity with communes or departments, but that's not the major reason for doing it, if that's what you were wondering.

Does that make sense? Do you agree that there is a benefit to having all (or 99% of) rivers follow the same naming convention? And if some are forced to use X River for disambiguity, then no harm is done by making them all do that? Why your preference for just X? Stevage 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well I'm only arguing for naming all *French* rivers "X River". Is that ok? It's true that "River" is not part of the name of French rivers - but that's just self-evident. In French, you just say "le Sée" or "la Saône" or whatever - but I don't think there is an established tradition in English. But googling "Saone river" comes up with plenty of matches. See [4] for example - it uses a combination of X River, then X for brevity. Stevage 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rivers

Hey Markussep! I was actually referring to the naming section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers, which you had already mentioned at Talk:Soča - Isonzo River. I'm not aware of an "accepted" guideline for rivers specifically at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Sorry for the confusion. Olessi 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an explicit rule against double-naming, but the South Tyrolean localities are the only articles I know of that include double-naming in the title. Olessi 16:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Târnava River

Hi. Do you think it's time to split the page into multiple articles? Khoikhoi 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I see the other language wikis have more info, I'll include that too. Markussep 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Khoikhoi 18:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rivers in Europe

I agree that the corrections made are not final and I intended to continue correcting. However, I have my doubts that the old list is as good as you claim. I am not discussing the order in which the tributaries enter the river. But the general title indicates In Romania. The Iskar is not in Romania, neither is the Yantra and so on. Agreed that the mouth is in Romania (actuallz also in the Ukraine) but the tributaries are in various countries. Indicating the country only according to the mouth of the river is confusing. I also have serious reservations about indicating the order of the rivers from downstream to upstream. In most countries the presentation is done in the direction of the flow of the water, not otherwise. But I have no objection to reverting to the former version for the time being, until these matters are sorted out.Afil 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Serein

You're too quick - I was just getting round to the data from the French page.... :-) FlagSteward 13:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Samber

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Samber, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rivers of Romania

I am still compiling the data on rivers. When I will get all the basic information in place I will sort it out. The figures you indicate cannot be applied identically to all countries or all rivers. The size of the tributaries cannot be the same for the Mississippi and for the Mureş, neither can the localities. There are also other criteria for which rivers might be important, except their discharge. Just give me time to finish. I have not yet worked on the discharge data.Afil (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tisza subbasin

The rivers of Romania are officially grouped in river subbasins. One of those is called the Tisa-Iza-Vişeu subbasin. Merging this with other subbasins, such as the Tisza, practically eliminates this information which is essential. It does not have only geographic but also administrative implications. River basin agencies exist in other countries too, therefore the issue is not related only to Romania. But in each country, just as the adminstrative departments or counties have to be taken into account, the official river basin division have also to be respected. It would be wrong to make rules of our own.Afil (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my comments, but still fail to see your point. The Tisza River category has only a few big tributaries, the same as the Loire. Afil (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)