River is not part of the name

Recently, there was a move from Mera (Switzerland) to Mera River (Switzerland). But in my opinion, this is wrong, since River is not part of the name. This is at least true for Italian, German and French (and others) naming conventions of rivers. Could you therefore reverse the move?!? Thx. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ZH8000: AFAIK, the convention is to use "River" in the title in order to make the distinction between rivers and localities. The title "Mera (Switzerland)" suggests that the article is about a city or town or village or commune. This is my own opinion, I don't have the time now to search trough naming convention guides, so I think we need someone more experienced in such things to say how to do it. — Ark25 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon-me, I possibly expressed my statement in a too weak tone. IMHO the situation is quite obvious: In contrast to the naming of lakes (ge: Bodensee; fr: le Lac Léman; it: il Lago Maggiore; en: Lake Michigan), where lake is part of the name, for rivers, however, it is only valid in English (the Colorado River), but not in German, Italian, French and others. The Rhein is not der Rhein~~fluss~~, the Rhône is not le ~~Fleuve~~ Rhône, and the Po is not il ~~Fiume~~ Po. So the type of the named object is not part of its original name! Therefore, you talk and write about the Rhine, the Rhône, the Po and so forth! The (~~educated~~) reader is expected to know what it is, in all of these languages! -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides: If you want to distinguish "Mera" from something else (not necessarily a location), you should name the article "Mera (river, Switzerland)". -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]