Talk:List of alternative names for European rivers

On the usefulness and purpose of this article

I have posted an extensive Explanation about the usefulness and purpose of this article on Mikkalai's talk page, should anyone be interested. Pasquale 00:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not there now. Pity. —Tamfang (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

An most welcome article. For research purposes alone, so good to know the Dutch name: "Zoom" for the "Somme river", opens up many new paths. Reckon on an 'lost' English exonym suchlike: 'Soom' or 'Soome' too. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.145.164 (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And you couldn't find such paths by looking at the inter-language links from river Somme? —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

I disagree with Dbachmann's statement that "only genuinely different names should be listed, not stuff like "Aar" vs. "Aare", "Danube" vs. "Donau" etc.)". If that were the case, it would be entirely a matter of opinion, and completely subjective. It seems to me that his argument is unsupportable. I recommend a prompt removal of his {{cleanup|date=November 2010}} notice. Pasquale (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am removing Dbachmann's cleanup notice, as the position he takes clearly does not reflect consensus. Pasquale (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that there exists, for most pairs of names, a scholarly consensus on whether they are independent in etymology. It's obvious that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology; what is noteworthy about an example, or a list of examples? (See also List of [language] exonyms ad nauseam.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least assume that the name of a river in a language that was never native to anywhere near that river is not independent? —Tamfang (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of European rivers with alternative names. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511193754/http://www.legia-forum.org/nederlands/legia_nl.html to http://www.legia-forum.org/nederlands/legia_nl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

negative tagging removed

I removed the {{more citations}} tag on the article, which had displayed:

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. / Find sources: "List of European rivers with alternative names" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

because the introduction is entirely non-controversial and requires no sourcing. Statements like "This is a list of rivers" etc. don't need sourcing and indeed can't be attributed to sources outside of Wikipedia. All the names of the individual rivers should be supported in their separate articles; no purpose would be served by copying all the references in those separate articles back into this one. --Doncram (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2020

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 (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

---

List of European rivers with alternative names → European rivers' alternative names – As a matter of basic editing, move article to more natural name. Note that every river in Europe certainly has multiple names, while this list probably does not include every one, contrary to implication of its current title. This is a list of sets, one for each river, of the more commonly used names, indirectly sourced to coverage in the individual rivers' articles. Doncram (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a list article, it's titled accordingly. Gonnym (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. That doesn't seem like an improvement. The apostrophe seems awkward, and using "List of" seems desirable. But I suggest to consider moving this to List of alternative names for European rivers. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. A list should have "list" in the article title. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2020 (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.

Despite failure to get consensus on my direct proposal, it is simply not plausible that there are any rivers not having multiple names, so the existing title is nonsense. No one disagrees. So I'll move it now to other suggestion "List of alternative names for European rivers", which is somewhat better. By the way, there is no requirement that list-articles include "list" in the article title. --Doncram (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal and AFD for List of Latin names of rivers

See ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of rivers, where there is suggestion that List of Latin names of rivers might be merged to here. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)