Talk:Sutla

Requested move: Sutla > Sotla

 * 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 no consensus. @harej 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sutla → Sotla &mdash; Per WP:RIVERS. According to Google, the Slovene name Sotla is almost twice as common as the Croatian name Sutla. Also, the largest part of the river basin (81,7 %) belongs to Slovenia. Eleassar my talk 09:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Eleassar my talk 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Object. Your Google searches are done on the Slovenian Google instance, so they favor the Slovenian name. Just change the hl=si parameter into hl=hr and you get different results. Then switch to google.com, and there's another change in results. Then switch to an American IP address and do a clean query, and you get yet another change in results. On the latter, the hr variant has approx. 47,100 and the sl variant has approx 11,000 hits. That's regarding the first naming rule on the listed policy page, while there's also the third naming rule which slightly favors the hr variant. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment per Joy, the Google search is weird. Try these instead: Sutla = 48k ghits - Sotla = 10.5k ghits &mdash; this is a search using Google FRANCE, specifying ENGLISH; it still eliminates wikis. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the river basin? As said, it mainly belongs to Slovenia and almost all the tributaries come from the Slovenian side. --Eleassar my talk 11:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fairly valid to me, too, but you have to pay at least as much attention to the established criteria which is also valid... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted an unofficial request for comment at WP:RIVER. --Eleassar my talk 08:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Be careful using Google searches, the results may not be in English, even if you specify English language. I tried Google Books, with "river" as a filter for English language, and my results are about equal: Sotla 286 vs. Sutla 352. It's safe to say there is no clear preference in English for either name. Since it's a border river for nearly all of its length, that's not decisive either. The third option at WP:RIVERS is the name at its mouth. According to Geopedia, the mouth is (just) in Croatia. I'm not sure that's a strong criterion, the main idea behind those rules is: what name is one most likely to encounter. It looks like a draw to me. Markussep Talk 11:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know, the two names do appear to be equal. English usage is roughly even and the U.S. Board of Geographic Names lists them both as official. The river runs along the border except for the last mile through Croatia before entering the Sava. You could make an argument in favor of Sutla on the basis of that last mile and a strict interpretation of WP:RIVERS guidelines.  I did confirm Eleassar's finding though, the drainage basin area is heavily lopsided in Slovenia's favor which I think is just as good an argument. Sorry to be indecisive.  Kmusser (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The following dialogue is copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers as it is relevant here.
 * Comment Surely the key criterion is what authoritative English language sources call it. After all the Rhein is mostly in Germany, but we still call it the Rhine. If it's too small to get a mention in any English sources, then your argument seems reasonable to me if you mean most of the actual river is in Slovenia (not just its tributaries). --Bermicourt (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The authoritative English language sources use both names about equally (see Talk:Sutla). The river is almost all its length the border river between the countries. --Eleassar my talk 12:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The internet has relatively few authoritative English language sources, in the sense of comprehensive, well-researched, well-documented and sourced information by leading experts. Why? Because that sort of hard-won information is sold in book form and is therefore copyright. There are exceptions: notably what organisations say about themselves or want to promote in their field, but even that is often quite shallow. For English usage about German rivers and other geographical features I have had to resort to university-level English books on the geography of Germany by recognised experts in the field. Just googling to determine English usage is not the way to get an authoritative ruling. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2009 (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.

epilogue
In the meantime we learned about the pws=0 option for googling, and there's a book search too, so more pertinent google queries for the 2009 discussion might be: I also get nowhere by trying to exclude the other term from the searches. It looks like it's largely treated like a synonym by the search engine. :/
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=sutla+river&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 - "About 920 results" - and if you click through to the last page, #34, you get "Page 34 of 337 results"
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=sotla+river&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 - "About 934 results" - and finally then "Page 34 of 338 results"

Also, the latest DZS statistical journal: still has the discrepancy in length and basin numbers, 92/343/582 vs. 89/455/584. It's a mess :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (printed edition; ISSN 1334-0638 for the online edition)

BTW I see now that the aforementioned Slovenian source says:
 *  Celotno porečje meri 583,8 km2, od tega 477 km2 (81,7%) leži v Sloveniji (Visokovodni valovi 2000).
 * Visokovodni valovi – Sotla nad Draganjo in Draganja na izlivu (delovna verzija). Elaborat, Vodnogospodarski inštitut. Ljubljani, 2000.

While the newest Slovenian source says:
 * Površina padavinskega zaledja v Sloveniji
 * Catchment area in Slovenia
 * km2
 * 451
 * Vir: MOP - Hidrometeorološki zavod RS
 * Vir / Source: Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor - Hidrometeorološki zavod Republike Slovenije / Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning - Hydrometheorological Institute of the Republic of Slovenia

And from the URL, that's from 1998, not 2002 as in the reference meta data. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the analogous section in the latest (2011) statistical yearbook. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)