Talk:Vuoksi

River Vuoksi vs Vuoksi River
(moved from User_talk:Tobias Conradi)

You changed the title for the page on the river Vuoksi to "Vuoksi River".

This is, however, not only wrong, as Vuoksi is not an entity that has given name to a river, but rather the name of the river itself.

You further suggest that your move should have been "in accordance with WikiProject Rivers". However, a very quick glance there reveals that it says:
 * River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage. (my emph.)

That's why I reversed your change.

In future, you might gain from asking at a page's talk page in advance!

Regards!

--Johan Magnus 16:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * X River is much more common than River X. I thought River X mostly only exists in, e.g. England. That's where I found a lot of River X. Sorry, I do not think I can ask for every change in advance. :-) Wikipedia is Be Bold ;-) Best regards Tobias Conradi 20:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Boldness is good within the field(s) of one's competence! Maybe it would be to your help if you interpret it as "river Spree" instead of "River Spree" &mdash; i.e. "river" is not part of the name, it's eine Bestimmung, needed (or at least helpful) for English speakers. :-)
 * MfG --Johan Magnus 07:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * and you are the owner of competence in this case? Again: X River is not found anywhere outside of UK and one or two examples in Spain. In case of Vuoksi this is even conflicting with naming of rivers in Russia.
 * if Spree needs to be disambiguated it would be called Spree River like the other rivers of Germany. Tobias Conradi 21:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "River" is not a disambiguation here. That's the starting-point of the reasoning. Furthermore, in rivers of Germany there exists one "river Oder", one disambiguation "Pegnitz (river)" but no "X River". --Johan Magnus 10:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * if this is the starting point why did you move it back to "River X"?
 * I like constructive discussions, but do not want to waste time with your nationalist approach towards me. BTW there were a lot more of disambiguations in rivers of Germany. Peignitz (river) is fixed. Tobias Conradi 16:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would be astonished if the very unusual "River Vuoksi" were really the most common in English. Google does show more in that form, but the numbers are so small (several hundred) that they are influenced by the several hundred mirrors of WP, so not very meaningful. We use "X River" worldwide, excepting only England because of their longstanding tradition, and a handful of oddballs, so I think we need to see some definitive evidence for making an exception. (And then fix the article so it's internally consistent, ahem.) Stan 14:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidenally, since "Vuoksi" by itself redirects here and is thus presumably unambiguous, moving to the name alone finesses the argument. This approach works well for lots of German rivers, for instance. Stan 14:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there is also Vuoksa Lake (russian), maybe also a region. Therefore best longterm place is IMHO Vuoksi River. Tobias Conradi 15:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since this problem has arised, I would strongly support moving this article to Vuoksi. But it seems as that can't be done without being an administrator. I guess this ought to be the preferred solution for all rivers that aren't called after something else, like a town or a district or... /Tuomas 16:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * thats clear. I think nobody has a problem with that. And it is written in the guideline. But as said, I found a region called like the river. well, than the region might be named after the river, and the river is not named after anything else. Do we address what is named after what? What was in the beginning X City or X River. - have fun solving this for all rivers and explain this to the users. ;-) Tobias Conradi 18:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I can not explain it for other languages, but in this case it's pretty clear. The Russian Vuoksa is a loanword from the Finnic original, which also the history supports, since Russians came in contact with the area in question first in the 18th century. The Russians have then used the river name to designate a lake-like portion of the river as a lake, and also, obviously, to designate a district, province, or whatever.
 * /Tuomas 13:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)