Talk:Central Sava Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Not moved - (non-admin closure) Discussion has been on-going for a while now. Very little to state a support for move. Wesley☀Mouse 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Sava Valley → Zasavje – Present title "Central Sava Valley" is misleading - Reliable English-language sources actually apply the term to areas significantly downstream from this particular area in between Zagreb and Slavonski Brod (source), much like one may expect from the wording of the term, hence the misleading nature of this particular title. If the present title is used in Slovenia, it should be noted by the article, but not in its title. As far as proposed title is concerned, I see no problem with using of native name - it is after all a geographical term not much unlike Posavina. A similar request is posted at Lower Sava Valley article. Tomobe03 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose - I agree that "Central Sava Valley" is misleading in terms of the entire length of the Sava, but Zasavje is a Slovene construction that is semantically transparent to Slovene speakers and opaque to English speakers (like Podravje 'Drava Valley', Posočje 'Soča Valley' in Slovenia and Podonavje 'Danube Valley', Ponilje 'Nile Valley' outside Slovenia; cf. also Zadrečka dolina 'Dreta Valley' with prefixed za-). A better move (retaining the English name) would be Central Sava Valley → Central Sava Valley (Slovenia). Doremo (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posavina should probably also be renamed to something more English; as the article notes in the intro, it is "a Slavic name for ... the Sava river basin." Otherwise, by the native-name standard we'd be calling the Nile Valley the Wādī an Nīl and the Amazon Basin the Bacia do rio Amazonas. Doremo (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is quote of further discussion between Doremo and me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Posavina as a likely candidate for renaming (rated "start", but probably no better than a "stub" really), and that one could probably be safely merged with Upper/Central/Lower Sava Valley articles (three stubs). A similar thing already happened when "Bosanska Posavina" was merged into "Posavina". This would allow for a comprehensive article on the river valley and avoid all the confusion generated by ambiguous titles and titles incomprehensible to native speakers of English. I am aware that in national contexts Posavje/Posavina mean four different things in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia, but maybe that's precisely the reason a single article should detail all of those in appropriate sections. After all term "Adriatic Coast" in Croatian, Slovene or Italian does not necessarily refer to the same stretch of shore. Should there be sufficient material in any of the hypothetical sections of the merged article on Sava valley to spin off a C-class or better article, the separate article should be there - right now the articles combined would hardly more than a Start class. What do you think about this idea?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just some general thoughts that might help in finding a good solution:
1) The Rhine article incorporates non-English names in italics ("Vorderrhein, or Anterior Rhine", "Hinterrhein, or Posterior Rhine", "Alpenrhein or 'Alpine Rhine'", Alter Rhein "Old Rhine"); that's probably one solution to keep in mind. Perhaps the Rhine article would be a good model for a unified Sava article, with italic non-English names followed by glosses.
2) Slovene Posavje ought to mean the entire length of the Sava, source to mouth (like Povolžje 'Volga Valley'), but in practice the term means only the stretch in Slovenia (and usually only the lower stretch), so the name has undergone some kind of special semantic development.
3) One of the problems with native (non-English) terms is competing languages; for example, the Rába/Raab Valley is called Porabje in Slovene, Rába-völgy in Hungarian, and Raabtal in German. All three languages have a legitimate "native" claim to the name based on ethnicity, but none of these names is really appropriate for an English article (especially without prejudice to the others).
4) Some Slovene terms like Posavje, Porabje, etc. may not really be about the river itself, but more about naming national/ethnic territory. So for Slovenes the Sava Valley is limited to the Slovene Sava Valley in a practical sense. Perhaps a similar perspective is at work in French Alps, Swiss Alps, Bavarian Alps, etc.; it's all just "Alps" if seen from space, but when a Frenchman talks about going dans les Alpes he's probably thinking of Grenoble (and not, say, Berchtesgaden). I don't know if this means we need articles on the "Slovene Sava", "Croatian Sava", "Bosnian Sava", and "Serbian Sava", but that would parallel the Alps articles.
This doesn't really provide any solution, but I think it raises some issues that should be considered. I think point #3 is especially important from the perspective of English WP. Doremo (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

True, for Croats, "Posavina" is normally limited to Croatian banks of the Sava, and then normally downstream from Zagreb, sometimes even downstream of Sisak (although the term may appear to cover whatever's adjacent to the Sava. Literally the same term in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Serbia refers to something else sensu stricto (whatever's adjacent to Sava in a given country). That in itself is puzzling enough for casual readers.
What bothers me the most in terms of Central and Lower Sava Valleys is that use of the terms in article on the Sava River creates confusing sentences where Sava flows from the Lower Sava Valley into the central part of the river's course. In the LSV article there is ample space and opportunity to elaborate on etymology of the name and its geographic location, but if the Sava article goes into such detail on each (micro)region, we'll quickly arrive at unwieldy text that is cumbersome to read. Furthermore, it is really dubious that "Lower Sava Valley" is a term English speakers use to describe Posavje.
I agree that terms like Posavje or Posavina may have little to do with Sava itself, but that's matter for the specific articles to elaborate upon.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I've found a lot of hits for the "Eastern French Alps" (which are western overall, of course) and the "Northern Italian Alps" (which are southern overall, of course). The analogy for the Sava would be the "Lower Slovene Sava Valley" (which is upper overall, of course). "Lower Sava Valley" sounds completely natural to me and Slovene Posavje is synonymous with spodnje Posavje (literally 'Lower Sava Valley'), as noted in the discussion. It's also a good and logical counterpart to "Upper Sava Valley" (Sln. zgornje Posavje). Doremo (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
"Lower Slovene Sava Valley" and similar solutions would definitely improve the situation - remove any confusion and being very intuitive indeed. I'd support such a change.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, it needs to be natural as well. I've found "lower Swiss Rhone Valley" and several hits for the "upper German Rhine Valley", which implies that the construction "Upper/Central/Lower Slovene Sava Valley" would be acceptable from the perspective of naturalness. Doremo (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I agree.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I also have no objection to the change. Perhaps it would be best to link or copy this conversation to the Lower Sava Valley talk page and wait a bit to see if any other contributors would like to comment or offer another solution. Doremo (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it would probably be the best to copy this there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See similar discussion at Talk:Lower Sava Valley#Requested move. No need to disambiguate, and the article lead should and does make it clear what the article is about. If and when there are other articles about other regions by this name, then perhaps disambiguate. No justification for using the Slovenian name. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Sava Valley. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Sava_Valley&oldid=1200740557"