Talk:Spree (river)

Comment
Before you erase the Slavic name please take a look at Vistula. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:47, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Why would anyone delete it, actually, could you define which specific Slavic language it is, Špreva gives me only one hit on google. GeneralPatton 18:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In Ústí nad Labem Region, Czech Republic?
The article's lead implies the Spree flow through the Ústí nad Labem region of the Czech Republic. But looking at my, admittedly quite small scale maps, all I can see is a section where it might be forming the border between Germany and the Czech Republic. Unfortunately I cannot be sure because my maps are not very disciplined at labelling rivers, and I might be looking at a tributary rather than the main branch.

Can anybody clarify, and perhaps provide a cited update to the course section to indicate where the river flows through the Czech Republic. -- Starbois (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the vicinity of the former village of Fukov, near german bordertowns Taubenheim and Oppach, the river doesnt form the border, but runs some meters south of it. Were talking about a section of about 700 metres, but in this place the Spree definitely runs through Czech territory. -- j.budissin (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Map?
Would this article be improved with a map highlighting the River Spree? -- stillnotelf   is invisible  18:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.103.242 (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a map, but I don't know how to link to another wiki's images. http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Karte_des_Flusses_Spree.gif --  stillnotelf   is invisible  05:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. This is basically the situation described at WP:BARTENDER: everyone agrees that the article needs to move somewhere but there's disagreement about which particular title is best. Given the unanimous agreement that the river isn't the primary topic, I'll move its article to Spree (river) as a non-prejudicial supervote. To be clear, there is no consensus about which form of disambiguation is best; feel free to start another RM on that subject at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

– Don't think this is the river is the primary topic in English. The river doesn't even show up in the first five pages of Google hits for me, unlike the other meanings listed at the dab page such as the 2020 film or the candy. Many readers are likely looking for the wiktionary entry. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Spree → Spree (river)
 * Spree (disambiguation) → Spree
 * Support move to Spree River This is a WP:NOPRIMARY situation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the film gets 15,823 views compared with only 2,607 for the river and the candy gets 1,230[]. By PT#2 the river may be primary but the film is primary by usage and the candy isn't that new. Maybe the film should be moved to Spree (2020 film) due to the 1998 The Spree but that article doesn't exist though has 2 other mainspace links so is probably notable.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to Spree River. Cleary no primary topic here, and using WP:natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, such as using the title Mississippi River to disambiguate from Mississippi. I will also note that Encyclopedia Britannica uses the title "Spree River" for their article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this as well.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to Spree River per Rreagan007. BD2412  T 06:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Spree (river), I don't find it "natural" to use 'River' (without brackets) as part of the name. Also why 'Spree River', why not 'River Spree', isn't 'X River' a more American wording, and 'River X' a more European wording? --  AxG /  ✉  00:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a strong preference to use natural disambiguation for article titles over parenthetical disambiguation. And having "River" come after the main name is more helpful in searching and indexing. And a reliable source has already been cited in this discussion that uses "Spree River". Do you have any reliable sources that use "River Spree"? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Britannica may be biased due to it now being American but per Rreagan007 unless "River Spree" is also used by sources I'd generally defer to Britannica unless there is another standard source for naming a specific topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the Google Ngrams for "Spree River" vs "River Spree", there is a definite preference in English-language sources for "Spree River". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC):


 * Support Spree (river) – Consistency is still among the points listed in WP:CRITERIA, and having sampled the vast (appr. 3000 articles) Category:Rivers of Germany, it looks like parenthetical disambiguation is strongly favored – so much so that I was unable to find any "natural" ones. Favonian (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved  Mike Cline (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Spree (river) → Spree River – Per WP:natural disambiguation, as a naturally disambiguated title is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, such as using the title Mississippi River to disambiguate from Mississippi. Encyclopedia Britannica also uses the title "Spree River" for their own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC). — Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral Google Scholar results indicate that both "the Spree" (eg. "Vilna on the Spree: Yiddish in Weimar Berlin") and "the Spree River" are common. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support also per the Ngrams. I have concerns that Britannica may be biased as now being American based but given it doesn't have a requirement unlike us for 1 title to be used only once and we do I think WP:NATURAL is an effective tie breaker.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – repeating my argument from the previous discussion: Consistency is still among the points listed in WP:CRITERIA, and having sampled the vast (appr. 3000 articles) Category:Rivers of Germany, it looks like parenthetical disambiguation is strongly favored – so much so that I was unable to find any "natural" ones. Favonian (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Favonian, and because there's really no problem with the current title even if the guidelines prefer natural disambiguation. Lennart97 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support It is policy that we use WP:NATURAL disambiguation, and no WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should beat that. Red   Slash  18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose For both consistency and and common usage. Unlike the Mississippi, common usage seems to far more regularly describe the subject as just "the Spree." Maybe it's an American thing, but "Mississippi River" or "Hudson River" or Colorado River" all seem to be regularly used, while "Seine River" or "Rhine River" or "Oder River" are not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there evidence of relative usage outside of what Britannica does? BD2412  T 03:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a quick search reveals "Spree River" being used by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Forbes, ABC News, The Mirror, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Deutsche Welle, and Bloomberg. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The argument such as 's common usage seems to far more regularly describe the subject as just "the Spree." is valid on the surface, but it does not withstand scrutiny. For example, a "neutral" news search such as "the Spree" germany shows that most sources routinely use "the Spree (R)river" either in title or on first use (and may later continue with just "the Spree"). And it's a mixture of American, German and British sources (which may also use "River Spree") so I don't see a regional bias. I get similar results for a plain search (judging from the first few resuot pages). The Spree is not quite famous as the Seine or the Rhine, so the authors probably feel the need to unambiguously introduce it. No such user (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Having checked the naming in Category:Rivers of Germany I'm switching to oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY. Not a single German river uses the "X River" disambiguation – all that do use the "X (river)" (or "X (parent-name)"). There is no pressing reason to move this one. No such user (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In the UK we would use River Spree. So per WP:ENGVAR it's best to keep it as it is and not default to the American version. This is the problem with rivers and natural disambiguation. To me (and other British people), Spree River just looks weird as we would consider it to be the wrong way round. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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.