Talk:Sava/Archive 1

Move 2005
Seeing how the vast majority of references to the word "Sava" is to the river, I moved it back here and put in a semi-disambiguation notice instead. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move 2006

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sava -&gt; Sava River &mdash; WikiProject Rivers; lot of other meanings, and for this short word more will come for sure. Avoid Europe bias. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose; most of them appear to be either non-notable or named after the river. (And all but two are European.) Saint Sava is the only real competitor, and that article belongs where it is. Come back when more meanings appear. Sava, like Drava or Danube, is English usage; we should not depart from it without necessity. Septentrionalis 16:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * support. In case of a successful move, "Sava" should still redirect to "Sava River" (as most searches for "Sava" are meant to be about the river). The new article should also include a link for a disambiguation page containing other meanings of "Sava".--Húsönd 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support move. River is useful explanation. Rmhermen 18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support move and Húsönd's suggestion. --Malepheasant 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

ljubljana
Sava flows between Ljubljana-Stožice and Ljubljana Črnuče. Depends what you count as Ljubljana. --Tone 19:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I agree. But, I think it would be better to say that Ljubljana lays on Ljubljanica, and that Sava flows near by. But, if you insist, return Ljubljana... --Dijxtra 20:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will put it flows by Ljubljana. --Tone 20:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ljubljana grew from Ljubljanica to Sava. LalalaB 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is evident that Sava flows through Ljubljana from the map of Ljubljana.. --Eleassar my talk 18:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Savica spring?
This pic of 'savica spring' should not be here. This spring is not one of the two springs of the river Sava, but rather the river Savinja. LalalaB 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Savica is the source of Sava. You may verify that e.g. at geopedia.si --Eleassar my talk 11:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Provo and Klenak
Right meanings of these two places do not seem to be present on the respective disambiguation pages. Somebody with knowledge of Balkan geography probably could want to have a look at these. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Move September 2009
Hi, since there has already been a move discussion a few years ago: I moved this article to "Sava" as a result of a discussion and consensus at WP:RIVERS, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. In brief: "River" is not part of the name of this river, so the preferred title for this article would be "Sava", or "Sava (river)" if disambiguation would be required. There seems to be consensus that the river is the primary topic for "Sava", hence I moved it to "Sava" (over redirect). Please comment here or at WP:RIVERS talk if you think another title would be better. Markussep Talk 11:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reworking the article to GA
Hi! Eleassar and I discussed major rework of this article to meet WP:GA standards and have agreed to post a proposal of what need be done here for discussion first. I have analyzed present article against WikiProject Rivers recommendations and three actual river articles, two of which are Featured Articles and the third one is a Good Article:

On the basis of the above, I propose the following new structure for this article, with additional subsections (see above) as necessary and if warranted by quantity of material, while observing summary style (otherwise we'll end up with a huge article):


 * lead
 * Source
 * Course
 * Settlements


 * Geology
 * Watershed
 * Major tributaries


 * River modifications
 * Natural history
 * History
 * Economy
 * Recreation and sports
 * See also (if needed)

Based on experience with writing GAs, I'd strongly recommend rewriting sections from scratch - that's normally far more efficient. Furthermore, if this is to be a collaborative effort, I'd strongly suggest using a single variety of English - say British English. Any suggestions, comments, other ideas?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking whether it would make sense to add a section about Sava in the arts (e.g. The Baptism at Savica Falls, the Robba fountain and who knows what else). However, for now, this can probably be simply mentioned in the history section, unless enough material is found to split it.


 * I'm not sure what means "to write from scratch". There are good sources and material already included in the article, there's no point in deleting them. Otherwise, I don't see a problem. --Eleassar my talk 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I Good and referenced material already in the article should naturally be kept. If one starts from a blank slate prose normally flows better, and there's usually more comprehensive coverage issues. Naturally, it would be pointless to research well referenced material all over again - I'd rather reuse what's inside the article (especially in terms of references), possibly rephrasing prose to blend with the rest if necessary.


 * I agree there could be a good (sub)section on Sava in arts/culture, or something along those lines.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This would we ok. It's fair and sensible to keep the good material, but it may be rephrased to flow better if necessary. --Eleassar my talk 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed... Lead would be best left until everything else is in - it has to summarize everything else in the article anyway. How about we start with Source/Course/Watershed? I could do some research on those and compare present material with above mentioned FA/GAs so we can get that bit moving... --Tomobe03 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll see how much time will my study permit me. So, if you write a section about the Sava's source and its course, I'll review and complement it. Otherwise, it will take some time for me to slowly write the sections (I'm also chipping in elsewhere). We may start at Source/Course/Watershed though. --Eleassar my talk 18:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Source/Course/Watershed are now in. The lead needs updating, but I'd prefer leaving it as-is until the rest of the article is (hopefully soon) done to avoid repeated rewrites. I removed citation references from the infobox as all information there is fully supported by the article and referenced there. Planned "River modifications" section should probably be left out for now - not that many of those are there, and most (if not all) are already covered by the "Course" section. I avoided hydroelectric powerplant and other similar images for now, because those will be needed in "Economy" section later. I'd like to add "Geology" now, as it sandwiches in between just updated sections, before proceeding to "Economy" and "History" sections.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also trimmed list of tributaries to the most significant ones (by catchment area size). There's no point in listing them all (if at all possible) here, so how about starting List of Sava River tributaries? (the old list is tucked away in my sandbox for later reference if needed)--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of lists, it would also be interesting to compile a list of crossings akin to List of crossings of the Danube.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)