Category talk:Rivers of Norway

Paskikelva redirection

Hei!

Intrigued that you chose to redirect Paskikelva without discussion.

The naming conventions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway would suggest the more commonly used form be the accepted one for the Wikipedia. Since Veiatlas Norge uses Paskikelva, I’d have gone to that form as default based on the guidance. But, this being the Wikipedia, we can change the guideline if we can figure out something that makes more sense.

We've used the Sami (or in this case Finnish) form and the Norwegian form inconsistently. Usually depends on who enters the article first. Makes for a strange pastiche of article titles, which we should figure out how to clean up.

Since you prefer the Sami form, you've almost assuredly given the topic of when to use the Sami form more thought than I have. Can I ask you to propose a guideline for when one uses Sami versus Norwegian? We can discuss here (on your talk page - I'll monitor it). When we get to agreement, we can post our recommendation on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway page & get others with an interest to weigh in.

Tusen takk - Williamborg 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding the redirect. I don't really have a preference for the Sami name to be honest, but the the Paatsjoki one was a bit longer, and contained all the information from Norwegian-named one. I was just being lazy mergeing the two. Since Veiatlas seems to be the guideline, unless there's a English name, I'll make Paatsjoki the redirect. And I'll take a look at the template for you. Thanks for the vigilant eye. --Eivindt@c 00:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it Pasvikelva or Paskikelva. --Eivindt@c 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

After some research it appears that Paatsjoki is 2 years old, a redirect called Pasvikelva is almost a year old, and your article is one day old, this makes me reluctant to just change around the whole thing. Maybe we should try to find out the Russian name for it, and call it a tie-breaker. Eivindt@c 00:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree that we not change the article name too quickly. But I'd prefer a more logical criterion than - someone with a Finnish orientation wrote about it first, so that's the name. So I followed up on your Russian tiebreaker suggestion; this river lies between Russia and Norway, but originates in Finalnd so all three do have claim.

The Russian Wiki on the region (ru:Мурманская область quoted below) is not any help:

Редактирование Мурманская область (секция) (Murmansk Oblast Section)

Географическое положение и климат (Geographical positions and climate)

Область находиться на Кольском полуострове большей частью за Северным полярным кругом. На юге она граничит с республикой Карелия, на западе граничит с Норвегией и Финляндией. Омывается Белым и Баренцевым морями. (The Oblast lies on the northern part of the Kolsk (Kola) penninsula, to the greatest part above the artic circle. On the south it borders with Karelia, on the west by Norway and Finland. On the North it is bounded by the White and Barents seas.

And a further search of the Russian Wiki pages gave no other indication of the river name on the boundary.

So then to my copy of Географический Атлас России or Russian Geographic Atlas, published in Moscow in 1997. Turns out it provides no name for this river on the boundary.

So I'll ask my daughter - a Slavicist & the keeper of my highest resolution Russian language map - whether it appears on that map (or whether she can find other resources to provide the Russian name). More later...

Am putting a copy of this on the Category:Rivers of Norway talk page in hope that others might be able to help.

Cheers - Williamborg 02:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Chech Wikipedia gives the russian name as Паз (Paz) [1], this ofcourse doesn't help us at all. Eivind^t@c 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)" as quoted from my page. So we now have 3 names! Anyone have a suggestion on the principle that should apply?

Cheers - Williamborg 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)