Talk:Selenga

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

Length[edit]

Selenge length from Moron source is 1042 km, av. debit is over 900 qm/s (Geogr.Encycl.Voc. 1986)Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discharge is for Ust-Kyakhta, i.e. where the river leaves Mongolia. You can trust me, it was me who added this in the first place, it was only latebird who moved Ust-Kyakhta to the mouth of the river into lake Baikal. But if you have the data for further down the river, I'm OK with it. Is the length from confluence of Delgermörön, Ider and Bügsey rivers, or is it from the source of one of these rivers? There seem to be a number of different lengths around, besides 992 and 1042 km I have also seen 1024. Yaan (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was no move. Sufficient consensus does not exist to move the page at this time. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Selenge River → Selenga — I think the Russian name is much more common, see for example this vs. this. Page was originally created under the title Selenga, and in 2007 without prior discussion moved to the present title by an apparently Mongolian user. --Yaan (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:58, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see Selenge. Naming should be consistent. Google Book count does not take into account book sales. @Yan, please WP:NPA, it does not matter whether a user is from Mongolia or not. The same way it does not matter that Ezhiki is of Russian origin. TrueColour (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :I am afraid I completely miss your point about consistency. That China has a whole province named Heilongjiang does not mean that the article about the Amur river should be moved for better consistency, or does it? "Google books does not take into account book sales" - so you have evidence that the search results for Selenga are biased towards books that sell worse? Or a better method of determining which name (for the river!) is more common?
I don't think it is an attack to point out someone's possible biases. As a matter of fact, I have nothing against Mongolians (except maybe against some, just don't remember which ones now) and I don't consider it a personal attack to call someone Mongolian. Yaan (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with related place names containing the string "Selenge." WP should use a more professional method than Google Book count. Only because that exists, does not mean it should be used. The GBook links show that both names are used. Providing facts about "features" of a user, is mostly unneeded in discussions. It may be relevant if a user argues by this features, but no evidence of that was shown. How about length of river in Russia vs length in Mongolia? One could also use the m3 of water in Russia vs Mongolia. Since Russia is downstream more Selengae water might be in Russia. Also, "Selenga River" is a more secure name than Selenga alone. TrueColour (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Consistency with related place names containing the string "Selenge." What should that be good for? According to WP:NAME: "In discussing the appropriate name of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of one name for one article require that all related articles use the same name; there is often some reason, such as anachronism, for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both Volgograd and the Battle of Stalingrad." (emph. mine)
"WP should use a more professional method than Google Book count. Only because that exists, does not mean it should be used. The GBook links show that both names are used. " Seems you know a better method for determining what common usage is? Btw., the relevant parts of WP:NAME seem to be "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." and "Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common. When searching, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals.". Two of the three references used so far for the article use "Selenga". news outlets seem to have a certain bias towards Selenga. I did not check major international organizations or scientific journals, feel free to take over that part.
"How about length of river in Russia vs length in Mongolia? One could also use the m3 of water in Russia vs Mongolia. Since Russia is downstream more Selengae water might be in Russia." Why not something more logical, like the number of people who pee into the river. In any case, I think you should demand Danube, Rhine, Rhone, Nile, Vistula all be renamed.
"Also, "Selenga River" is a more secure name than Selenga alone." The relevant part of WP:NAME seems to be "Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred.". Yaan (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible you, collegues, will find some informations in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

in Old Turkic[edit]

Selenga = Selenga(in Old Turkic), I mean: It's an old name! Böri (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Could someone add the Mongolian pronunciation of this Mongolian river? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C1:AF05:5800:D1DC:C86A:BBE:BEC8 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Amkgp (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the Selenga River is the principal source of freshwater in Mongolia?" Source: " in 2009 56.68 million m^3 of water was pumped from the Selenga River for the city of Ulan-Ude alone?"

5x expanded by SakuraGinger (talk). Self-nominated at 03:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Expansion began on November 2. Nomination created on November 8, but 5x expansion was not reached until November 19, and added here only on December 8.
Other issue is the hook itself: it is an informal fallacy. Just because 56.68 million m3 is pumped from the river (according to off-line Ref. 9) doesn't automatically mean it is the principal source of freshwater in Mongolia. Moreover that particular statement in the article has reference 14 (Aquastat), which doesn't state that. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Selenga&oldid=1194821207"