Talk:Schwalm (Meuse)

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Requested move 25 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Schwalm (Meuse). Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swalm (Maas) → Schwalm (Maas) – 90% of the river and its catchment area lie within Germany (where it is well known as part of the "Schwalm-Nette Nature Reserve"), so it would make sense to prefer the German name rather than the Dutch name for the article title. "(Maas)" is needed to disambiguate it from other rivers called the Schwalm. Bermicourt (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC) --Bermicourt (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What does the "(Maas)" part of the name mean? I wonder whether a different parenthetical disambiguation would be better. Also, the article doesn't explain what it means, which seems to indicate a need for improvement of the article content. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: I think the question of the meaning of the disambiguator should be answered before we move this article, so I'm relisting again. There needs to be clarification in the article at the very least. But the fact that nobody here seems to know what Maas means in this context, so far at least, seems to me to weigh heavily against its use. I've had a look at the DAB at Maas and I can't guess it. Are there any better suggestions for a disambiguator? Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move, but quite unsure as to the best destination. I have posted heads-ups at the two relevant WikiProjects. [1] [2] Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify, Maas is the Dutch and German name for Meuse (river). Assuming Meuse is the more common name for English Wikipedia purposes, it would probably make more sense to disambig with (Meuse). But I am not entirely sure in this case~~, so no vote from me~~.(voted below) GermanJoe (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering about that... but if that's what is meant, Maas is a completely inappropriate disambiguator in English Wikipedia, is it not? Meuse would be an improvement. Can we do better? Andrewa (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems that the river is a tributary of the Meuse. How about "(Meuse tributary)" rather than just "(Meuse)"? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree now we should use "Meuse" as the disambiguator as that is the English name. But we don't usually add "tributary" when disambiguating rivers in this way. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original move target, Support alternate suggestion Schwalm (Meuse) GermanJoe (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a tricky issue. The name is identical - except for the spelling. It is also clear that there is no English spelling for such a minor flow.
- Argument 1 Proportion in each country: The origin of the river is in Germany, and only 12 of its 46 km length is in the Netherlands (interesting maths by the OP by the way 34/46=90%). It ends in the Meuse river in the Netherlands and likely achieves its largest discharge within the Netherlands. From the proportion in each country I could favour either origin over the other (most length (Germany), most discharge, termination in Meuse (Dutch)).
- Argument 2 Namesakes. It is part of a natural reserve named after the river; but this is not helping to decide this, as the park is an international park known as nl:Grenspark Maas-Swalm-Nette in Dutch (i.e. the Dutch part of the park uses the Dutch spelling of the river). One argument in favour of the Dutch spelling might be that the Dutch town Swalmen is named after the river and adopts the Dutch spelling.
- Argument 3 Pragmatic and Status Quo. The current status quo is the Dutch name, and without a pressing reason to change we should not. A pragmatic argument could be that using the Dutch name would nullify the need for adding something like (Maas) to the title (which in any case should be (Meuse) as it refers to the Meuse river). Taken together this results for a weak preference for retaining the Dutch name (and remove the (Maas) addition which makes no sense in English anyway). Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also support the suggestion to move it to Schwalm (Meuse) since Meuse is the usual English name of the parent river and that would seem to address most of the questions and comments. What makes no sense is to give a predominantly German river a Dutch name. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends, of course, on how you define predominant. About 74% of its length is in Germany, but considering that rivers tend to grow larger when they near their termination the volume of water is likely much closer to 50/50. Also, since we define its identity by the reference to the Meuse, a river that at no point enters Germany, a German name is not self-evident. As I said above, I do not think this is a clear-cut case. Arnoutf (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Length is clearly a major river parameter and known very accurately by country. But let's take catchment areas: over 90% of the river's catchment is in Germany. No-one measures the volume of water by country - if they do it's extremely obscure - so that's hardly decisive. And whether the Meuse enters Germany or not is irrelevant. But then I guess someone from the Netherlands is naturally more likely to favour a Dutch name for a mainly German river. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I admit that me being Dutch does make me (slightly) favour the Dutch name. On the other hand, that maybe true the other way around as well, as your heavy involvement in German language articles may shed doubt on whether your preference for a German spelling is fully neutral. Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lol. I usually get accused of favouring English names over native German ones! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        So you really appreciate the Dutch language equally much as the German language? But no kidding, let's wait for some other editors to pitch in. Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

There seems consensus above that the current name Swalm (Maas) is not optimum, and that some move should take place.

There seems also to be consensus that the proposal to move to Schwalm (Maas) is not optimum either. I will add another argument... the combination of the German name for the tributary and the Dutch for the main river is ugly and unlikely to be recognisable. I don't think there's any policy or guideline that forbids ugliness, and probably it's such a subjective call that we can't write a useful guideline anyway, but in its absence I'll plead WP:IAR. The matter of whether it's recognisable is covered by WP:AT of course.

The best of the suggestions above seems to me to be Schwalm (Meuse tributary). Does this have support? If not, what other might have? Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two issues about the name. I think there is consensus that the bracketed addition (Maas) does not work, and your proposed change to (Meuse tributary) makes a lot of sense there.

However, most of the discussion has been about whether we adopt the German name, or the Dutch name of the river. I do not fully get your distinction tributary versus main river. We all agree that the S(ch)walm is a tributary to the Meuse. In fact you could say it is a tributary to the Meuse only in Dutch (as this is where it flows into the Meuse river) while the main river is in Germany (most length, most of the drainage basin) - i.e. an opposite interpretation of what you suggest above. In any case your suggestion does not solve that discussion straightforwardly. The discussion has some similarity with this Tributary#Ordering_and_enumeration. We have to decide whether we name the river after its sources (German) or its mouth (or in this close contribution to the Meuse) Dutch. As I stated above, something it to be said for both. (PS I fully agree that once we have resolved this we should consistently use one of the spellings throughout the article) Arnoutf (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support Andrewa's proposal except for the word "tributary" which should be left out to conform to Wikipedia's river naming policy i.e. Schwalm (Meuse). As a member of WikiProject Rivers, I've never seen the word "tributary" used in disambiguation. If two European rivers have the same name they are usuaally distinguished by parent river e.g. Aa River (Meuse), Eisbach (Rhine), Lenne (Weser), Lutter (Leine), Nette (Hase), Aron (Loire), Avre (Somme), Orne (Moselle), etc. There are hundreds of them! Since the Meuse is the common and well-known English name, it's a good choice - thanks Andrewa! Bermicourt (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems there will not be many more editor to involve themselves. Let's just call it a day. I can live with Schwalm(Meuse). Please make it so. Arnoutf (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a rough consensus for Schwalm (Meuse) as the new name. It ticks all the boxes for me. D'accord? Andrewa (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me. Arnoutf (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bermicourt (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. GermanJoe (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.