Talk:Gelevera

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved, for the following reason: There doesn't seem to be any instance of the construction "Gelevara river", at least not on any page that Google indexes:. Therefore, per our policy of following ordinary English usage, we'll stick with Gelevara Deresi unless someone presents evidence that "Gelevara river" is in use. - GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Gelevara Deresi → Gelevara River — Gelevara is the name. But Dere means River and in en-Wikipedia the English equivalent should be used. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. We don't automatically translate such geographical terms but rather go with English usage, as in Rio Grande. So no case has been made for the move; The reasons given are contrary to policy. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments
See also Talk:Biga Çayı and Talk:Limonlu Çayı. Now, any or all of these three moves might be OK, but not for the reasons given. See WP:NC for how to make a case. See WP:RM for how to use the move template, and WP:RM for an even better way to propose several similar moves. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
I am not sure if Rio Grande is a good example for this case. Gelevara Deresi is not the name of the river. The name is Gelevara and Dere means river with the suffix si which is used for possesive construction. So it is literally the river of Gelevara. Of course the proper nouns are untranslatable. But in Wikipedia like in all other encyclopaedias common nouns are translated (except when they are used in compound proper nouns.) So Gelevara Deresi must be Gelevara River. Besides, for the sake of standardization, compare Gelevara Deresi with Terme River. Both rivers are very close to each other. (Less than two degrees) They are in the same country and flowing to the very same sea with similar flow regimes. Yet the names are constructed with different naming conventions. Shouldn't they follow a standard convention ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read Article titles? This is the official Wikipedia policy. There are some exceptions to this overall policy, where consensus has been reached and in most cases a more detailed convention has then been written on its own page. These other pages are listed on the overall policy page, which links to them.


 * As you might expect, these pages represent a great deal of work and discussion over some years.


 * And it's quite possible that this move, and the similar moves, are already justified in terms of this policy. That's the first thing to check.


 * And if not, then perhaps they are still justified for reasons such as those you've given above, and the policy should be changed to reflect this. But a personal opinion carries little weight, unless it is supported by a thorough knowledge of the existing policy and the discussions which have produced it, otherwise we run the risk of covering old ground and re-discussing arguments long rejected, and wasting everyone's time.


 * If you decide that the existing policy does not support the move but should, have a look at its talk page at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and its many archives to get some idea of what you're up against. Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.