Talk:The Isis

Comments
It would be good to explain why an English river is named after an Egyptian goddess. Apparently it's linked to Tamesis, but this doesn't exactly explain it.--Jack Upland 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere that it's not to do with Egypt at all. It's simply that the river "Tamesis" of celtic naming became the Thames downstream and the Isis upstream. Oxford is a large enough settlement/body of culture for its use of a different name to survive; it's the largest place on the upper Thames. 161.73.37.81 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the quite near the bottom is best described with the adjective 'humorous'. Perhaps it should be removed? Drcchutch (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

At 1st you think it does seem a little bit strange for a river in England to be named after an Egyptian God. But once I thought about it I remembered a story I had read about on some website that I will not site because at that time I did not know that accuracy of it I was reading for the fun of it fact Quibquab (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

how to pronounce?
Is it called "ice-is", or "ee-sis"? 93.219.150.156 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The former: ice-is. But someone who knows the proper phonetics will have to put it into the article. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Title
I propose moving this to "River Isis" to match River Thames and other river articles. While someone might well refer to just "the Isis", this is no different from talking about the River Thames as "the Thames". Capitalised "The" is not part of the name, and should not be in the article title any more than we would have our article on the Cotswolds at "The Cotswolds". The situation with this river is slightly unusual in that this name is applied to it along a particular stretch by people in a particular city, but if anything that should mean that we merge any coverage of the river and what happens on this stretch of it (e.g. rowing, punting) into a relevant section of the main Thames article, leaving this article only as a discussion of the name and its etymology and usage, although even that would probably be better merged into the Thames article. If we are to have a separate article that covers this stretch of the river as if it were an entirely separate waterway, the title should be consistent with others, at "River Isis". Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's justified, and I think the title has been chosen for a reason. Unlike the Thames and other rivers, no-one ever calls it "the River Isis". It's always referred to as "The Isis". Maybe it's an Oxford thing. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Beorhtwulf over the article title. Once that move is made (or not) then consideration can be given to content as a separate issue. In London, despite the number of rivers in the London, the Thames is usually called "the River" by Londoners, but I suspect that is unusual. If one is speaking colloquially then in most parts of England most people will say "the name" for example "the Avon", "the Stour" (two common names), "the Severn" (as in the "Severn bore" not the "river Severn bore")  the Trent etc. It is probably best if this move is to be discussed further, a WP:RM is initiated; and as WP:AT states that "Avoid definite and indefinite articles [at the start of a title]", also WP:CONSISTENTCY with othe English River article names (the guidence in WP:NCRIVER), it is up to those who whish to keep the article title "The Isis" to show that it is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. This could prove tricky because of natural disambaguation giving false positives (see this example where "the Isis" is used, but so is "the Thames") -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)