 | A fact from Sozh appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 February 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
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: page moved. I should note that the article uses River in some parts, and the template also expanded the old name to include river and that the article appears to have begun at this name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Sozh → Sozh River. Consistent with naming system of Russian rivers which all use "River" disambiguator. GreyHood Talk 17:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support for consistency. It appears that all Russian rivers have "River" in the title, whether disambiguation is required or not. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. If that's the convention - to blindly add "River" to the title regardless of whether the topic is most commonly called that way or not - it's a bad convention, not one we should be perpetuating. Unless there is evidence that the topic is actually more commonly referred to as "Sozh River" in reliable English sources, the current title is preferred since it's more concise. A cursory look at the first few sources listed in the article indicates it is commonly referred to as "the river Sozh", but that supports usage as just "Sozh" as being its name, certainly not "Sozh River". --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support, mostly for consistency. While I'd normally agree with B2C's argument, here the difference between "Sozh River", "River Sozh", and just "Sozh" is superficial at best, with neither variant clearly predominating. Since the majority of our river articles are titled "XYZ River", it is reasonable to assume that's where our readers will look for this one first. I'd argue that consistency in this case is more helpful than conciseness. Also, there is a village in Smolensk Oblast called "Sozh"—it's nowhere near as important as the river, but that makes the title ambiguous all the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 13:23 (UTC)
- If you value consistency, please see Seine, Nile, Rhine. By the way it's "the river Seine" and "the river Sozh", not "the River Seine" and "the River Sozh" - the difference in capitalization is crucial in determining whether "river" is part of the name of the topic. In these cases, it's lowercase and not, so should not be in the title.
It's fine to add "River" to the title for disambiguation when the name has other purposes, but that's not the case here. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Seine, the Nile, and the Rhine, however, are all high-profile cases, whereas the Sozh is not. Nor is the "Seine River" construct, for example, an expectation in the Category:Rivers of France, so there are no consistency concerns there at all (contrast it with Category:Rivers of Russia). All in all, if the decision about the choice of title is made based on a handful of results with one variant being only marginally more common than another, I'd write it off as statistically insignificant and go with consistency instead. For cases which are not high-profile, such approach simply works better and should only be avoided when it creates real problems (such as resulting in an ungrammatical construct).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 17:05 (UTC)
- Oh, my. Why should rivers in Russia be treated differently from rivers in France? Now that I'm alerted to the problem (the gratuitous addition of "River" to the titles of most articles about rivers in Russia), I suggest that this should be the first of many to be fixed, before the problem spreads to other countries. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- England, for example, seems to name its rivers with disambiguators like River or Brook. As for Russia, I do not strongly object to moving all Russian rivers to titles without River, but the present situation with "XYZ River" is good with me as well, and the mass move should be well-reasoned. Many rivers in Russia have settlements situated on them and named by the name of the river, so the dab is useful in many cases. GreyHood Talk 23:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, my. Why should rivers in Russia be treated differently from rivers in France? Now that I'm alerted to the problem (the gratuitous addition of "River" to the titles of most articles about rivers in Russia), I suggest that this should be the first of many to be fixed, before the problem spreads to other countries. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Seine, the Nile, and the Rhine, however, are all high-profile cases, whereas the Sozh is not. Nor is the "Seine River" construct, for example, an expectation in the Category:Rivers of France, so there are no consistency concerns there at all (contrast it with Category:Rivers of Russia). All in all, if the decision about the choice of title is made based on a handful of results with one variant being only marginally more common than another, I'd write it off as statistically insignificant and go with consistency instead. For cases which are not high-profile, such approach simply works better and should only be avoided when it creates real problems (such as resulting in an ungrammatical construct).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 17:05 (UTC)
- If you value consistency, please see Seine, Nile, Rhine. By the way it's "the river Seine" and "the river Sozh", not "the River Seine" and "the River Sozh" - the difference in capitalization is crucial in determining whether "river" is part of the name of the topic. In these cases, it's lowercase and not, so should not be in the title.
- Support for consistency--♫GoP♫TCN 10:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- 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.
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Sozh River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100906143142/http://www.romuva.info:80/Heavenly-Bodies-in-Baltic-Religion.php to http://www.romuva.info/Heavenly-Bodies-in-Baltic-Religion.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed as correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Two rivers? edit
Looking on Google Maps in satellite mode, whilst it is hard to follow its course, it appears that the river in Tver Oblast is the same as the one in Belarus. Can someone with local knowledge confirm that? The we can delete the page at Soz River (disambiguation). Llew Mawr (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)