Talk:Eder (Fulda)

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.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 11 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Eder to Eder (Fulda). The result of the discussion was moved.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eder. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213124626/http://www.goldwelten.de/edergold.php to http://www.goldwelten.de/edergold.php

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 July 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Eder (river). (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Subsequently moved to Eder (Fulda) per discussion below after RM was closed. Vpab15 (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eder → Eder (Fulda)
Eder (disambiguation) → Eder

– no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC [1] Joeykai (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support the 1987 footballer gets 76,406 views, the 1986 gets 5,469 compared with only 789 for the river. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:NCRIVER, shouldn't it just be Eder (river)? Lennart97 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eder (river) vs. Eder (Fulda) discussion

I've moved this discussion from my talk page as it's more relevant here:

Hi Bermicourt, regarding Eder (Fulda), I chose to move it to Eder (river) so that it follows WP:NCRIVER, as Lennart97 mentions. I am aware there is another river with the same name, but this river would be the clear primary topic for a river. As mentioned in NCRIVER: The primary topic can stay at the undisambiguated title while lesser-known ones add a qualifier, e.g., Jordan River (in the Middle East), Jordan River (disambiguation), Jordan River (Utah)". Do you think you can move it back to Eder (river)? Vpab15 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Vpab15 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCRIVER says "If different rivers with the same name exist, disambiguate with parentheses using either the parent river, country or (if both in the same country) the largest geographical entity that distinguishes them" so I don't think that was appropriate and it appears to have simply been that Lennart97 didn't notice the other river. The proposal fits in with that while the alternative doesn't. While partial disambiguation is occasionally used it has been controversial so I don't think it should have been done without more consensus at least. The primary topic example of Jordan River is a base title not a qualified title namely one with brackets anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vpab15 Crouch, Swale It's a pity that the NCRIVER deals with the naming of rivers with the same name in two different places, both of which have been highlit above, but on re-reading them I'm inclined to agree with Crouch, Swale that, unless one is the primary topic overall, they should both be disambiguated by parent river, which is what I did in the first place. But if Vpag15 as the closing Admin still disagrees, what's the next step? Do we need to run another move request? Or do we ask for further clarification of the naming convention at WP:Rivers? Bermicourt (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find Eder (river) much better than Eder (Fulda). For the average reader, the second disambiguation term won't be very meaningful. But if the consensus is to have the parent river in parenthesis, even if it is the main topic for a river, I don't oppose. Vpab15 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's more understandable, but the problem is that we technically have two "Eder (river)" articles and need to dab them from each other. I don't think it's a major issue because I suspect most people will come to the page via a link, in which case it really doesn't matter, or via the dab page which makes clear what all the links actually are. And however they get there, the opening sentence should clarify what the article is about. Bermicourt (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vpab15: Are you reconsidering the close based on the above? Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Eder (Fulda). Vpab15 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vpab15: why did you change your close in this way? Your original close of Eder (river) is a much better and clearer title, given that this is the primary river of this name. I'm not sure why you've changed this after the close and move was completed. — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Eder (river) is better. But I was in the minority per above discussion. Also, Eder (Fulda) was the originally proposed title. Vpab15 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its clearer to be unambiguous like the current title is rather than partly disambiguating. I'm not sure than this qualifies a Thriller (album) sub primary topic? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: Yes, I suppose it's not a Thriller case, but in that case shouldn't it be Eder (Fulda tributary), per WP:NCRIVER#Multiple rivers with the same name? The present title leaves it very unclear that this is even a river. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, NCRIVER gives Rio Puerco (Rio Grande tributary) as an example however the others in Category:Tributaries of the Fulda that use the the parent river such as Giesel (Fulda) use the bare name alone perhaps per WP:CONCISE however if that's against the guideline which it appears it is the others should also be changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. I think this is a case where WP:RECOGNIZABILITY could trump WP:CONCISE, as (Fulda tributary) is a much clearer and obvious disambiguator than (Fulda) IMHO. — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]