The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus not to delete, discussion about what to do with the article is taking place on the talkpage. Default keep then. Tone 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin names of rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not encyclopedic content, this is mostly just a translation listing. While some of the included rivers were known in Latin times, some of them were not, and others would probably have been known by Greek names. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of lakes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of islands for similar discussions. The transwiki tag has been on the article for almost two months with no apparent action, and the user who placed the tag is currently indefinitely blocked. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears that Category:Copy to Wiktionary is neglected and articles are not actually transwikied anymore since the bot that did it automatically retired. It has eight exonym articles that MiraclePine tagged then. I'm not at wiktionary enough to say if these should really be transwikied there, but agree with deletion and the prior discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If someone wants to know the Latin name for a river, we have interlanguage links and the Latin Wikipedia for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If finding one river name is the problem, then, assuming there is an article about the river on Vicipaedia, this indeed would be the best way, much better than a list here or a list on Vicipaedia -- because these lists are largely unsourced, whereas a river article on Vicipaedia will normally have been checked against sources and will have sources cited. Andrew Dalby 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is the kind of list that's particularly useful when studying Greek and Roman topics, because it gathers all of the related names in one place. In fact, I'm quite certain that I've looked for lists like this in the past, although I don't recall ever running across this page—presumably I was looking in the wrong place, or before this article was created. Searching for individual names in another language's Wiki—or hoping that an article exists for each modern name in another language—is about the most cumbersome way I can imagine to do this, and is almost certain to prevent users from finding the information they're looking for. As an aside, skimming the list I don't see anything that wouldn't have been known in Greek or Roman times, as the nominator suggests; pretty much all the rivers of western Europe barring those in Scandinavia and Ireland would have been known, as well as all rivers flowing into the Mediterranean or Black Seas, and most of those flowing into the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. But my main point is, it would be an extreme disservice to users to make it harder to find this information. P Aculeius (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NOT and LISTN. Consider copying to Wiktionary. Anyone who wants to see this content can find it at la:Index fluminum. buidhe 18:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN has no applicability here; geographical features such as rivers are notable by definition. The existence of an equivalent article at Latin Wikipedia is also irrelevant, since 1) if it shouldn't exist on English Wikipedia, it shouldn't exist on Latin Wikipedia either; 2) English-speaking users aren't going to find an article on Latin Wikipedia if we don't have one; 3) to the extent that the article has text in English other than the list itself—such as notes explaining which rivers are included and which aren't, or which are Latinized versions of Greek names, etc., sending readers to read the article in Latin is the opposite of helpful—they need to know what it means in English. This isn't just a list of translations, because all of these names appear in English-language sources about Greek and Roman history and geography—and articles about individual rivers aren't always going to give the Greek or Roman name. This list has value because it gathers together all of these different rivers in one place—and the purpose of Wikipedia is to make useful and reliable information available and easy to find. Deleting it, or relying on it being available in another language—although the same arguments for deletion could be made there—makes useful information potentially much harder to find, and perhaps not findable at all to English speakers. Why would we do that? P Aculeius (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument (1) isn't exactly true: the cases are different. A list of rivers may be encyclopedic content on Vicipaedia, and, if so, naturally it will be in Latin. A list of river names in some specified non-English language may not be encyclopaedic content in en:wiki. Still, there's a lot in what you say: the existence of the list on Vicipaedia doesn't help readers unfamiliar with Latin, who will not easily be able to find it or relate it to their own languages. Andrew Dalby 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that people need to remember is that much writing, particularly academic writing, in Europe was in Latin for many centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, so whether a river was known by the Romans in ancient times is irrelevant to the issue of whether it has a Latin name. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of European rivers with alternative names. Rename to Rivers of Classical Antiquity. The list gathers a lot of useful information, but there is already a list with Latin names of rivers: List of European rivers with alternative names. I support moving the names that are not already in this second list and then making a redirect to it. Following P_Aculeius suggestion, I think renaming the article to Rivers of Classical Antiquity is the best solution. T8612 (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but what about the non-European rivers in this list, such as Nahr Ibrahim / Abraham in Lebanon (Adonis in Latin)? This list doesn't but should include coordinates for each river, so one could figure out its scope and look up any river whose location one knows. --Doncram (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, tentatively. Note "Merge" is the more accurate term for a decision to "moving the names" to the List of European rivers with alternative names. I would consider supporting a "Merge" decision, but the Latin-named rivers are not just in Europe. Also the supposed reader who wants to know just the English and Latin names of rivers in any area of Europe would then have more work to look up just what they want. At that list-article's Talk page, I suggest renaming it to "European rivers' alternative names", which I think is better, but perhaps editors here might have an even better alternative name. Also I suggest adding coordinates of rivers (usually taking the location of the mouth of the river) to the list-article. That way a reader interested in compiling Latin names of rivers in a given country, say, can look up, with some effort, the English names by consulting the linked OpenSourceMap. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 23:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may have stated my opinion too fast. If the title is the real problem, we could just rename it to List of rivers of the Roman Empire, in which case the Barrington Atlas would be the reliable source of the article. There are still a few rivers listed here that would be taken out (such as Vistula and Volga), but the scope is larger than "List of European rivers with alternative names". "List of rivers of the Roman Empire" would also be more encyclopedic, since it was the nominator's principal concern. T8612 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Rivers of Classical Antiquity or something along those lines would be better, since it would include all of the names found in Greek and Latin sources—often the same name appears in both, or with only minor variations. The Roman Empire never included some of these rivers, but they were known to the Romans through travel and Greek sources—and there's no reason to delete them as long as it's possible to verify the names. P Aculeius (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Map all coordinates using Open Street Map" within the article now. The linked map now shows the Latin names for most of the biggest rivers in Europe and going across into Asia, where the Romans had names, within and without the Roman Empire at its peak. In process of adding coordinates for about 30 rivers so far, aiming for the bigger ones, I notice that the article omits Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, various other rivers definitely known to the Romans, but I am guessing these weren't given Latin names different than native names?

I am stronger now for "Keep", although amenable to a rename, because the needed, now partly developed, linked map makes the entire list-article much more useful, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These should probably be included, although the Tigris and Euphrates were presumably known by their present names in English, which are of Greek origin. Knowing that the names aren't different is still useful to readers, who might otherwise think they've been omitted by mistake. However, if memory serves, the Nile was the Nilus in Latin. The only parts of Europe where rivers are unlikely to have been known to or named by the Romans—and they may have known of some of them—are Ireland, the Scandinavian peninsula, and roughly the area of medieval Poland and beyond to the north and east. The Romans knew all the major German rivers, everything in the Balkans, and the major rivers emptying into the Black Sea. P Aculeius (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The deletion nomination asserted the article is "Not encyclopedic content, this is mostly just a translation listing," but in fact that statement is simplistic and non-encyclopedic itself. The set of rivers known and named by the Romans is more complicated, and it is not a matter of merely translating names. There is not a simple one-to-one correspondence to rivers known and named in Wikipedia's perspective about rivers of Europe. Consider:
  • There are numerous cases where the Romans' perspective on which is a tributary vs. which is the main stem of a river differs, hence which should get a different name. Note the longest river in the U.S., the Mississippi-Missouri River combo, might better have been given one name, and what is now the Mississippi north of St. Louis maybe could, perhaps should, be considered a tributary to that.(Well, probably not; the naming was not just a historical accident from the fact that La Salle reached the Mississippi above St. Louis, first. I think the native americans considered the Missouri, smaller at its mouth than the Mississippi, to be the tributary. Anyhow, I did pass by some Roman/Latin differences in perspective this way.)
  • Global/regional climate changes, and humankind's actions affect physical reality of what are rivers vs. streams vs. wadis/dry rivers vs. obliterated/no longer there places, and hence which get named and widely known as rivers. Note the former streams / rivers over Manhattan no longer exist. Maybe some now-dry wadis were flowing in Roman times. Even at a single moment in time, it is arbitrary to say which is which. For example, to the Romans, the Feritor was probably considered a river, while it is termed a stream (Bisagno (stream)) in Wikipedia now (though it is pretty big and river-like IMHO, based on photo in its article).
  • Historical events and knowledge affect what streams/rivers are considered important. For example the Rubicon was a highly notable legal border in Roman times and crossing it in 49 B.C. was a very big deal. It is a major member of "rivers in the Roman perspective" and would be no matter how small and stream-like it might be.
  • Region of rivers known and named by Romans is different than the extent of the Roman Empire (which itself varied in extent through time), and is different than "Europe" which itself is an arbitrary concept.
    • The Roman Empire included areas not showing in now-linked map, e.g. arid North Africa, where there were and/or are no rivers.
    • The Roman Empire did not include areas known to Romans, such as where Vistula and Volga run, as noted above
    • The Roman Empire included parts of Asia, wasn't there some Roman dude ruling over Palestine at some point? Oddly the list does not include the Jordan River, important in history.
    • The Roman Empire and roman knowledge didn't span Ireland, Scandinavia, as noted above.

The list-article could/should be developed to be more encyclopedic, including by directly incorporating map(s) from Roman perspective. It could/should appear a lot less like a mere one-to-one correspondence / set of words to be translated. I expect they could have better been renamed and developed, but probably the topics of List of Latin names of lakes and List of Latin names of islands should not have been deleted, either. --Doncram (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is now Bisagno (river) - that was just terrible English. And the Nile river (Nilus to the Romans) was rather important to them. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Nilus" is not stated to be the Latin name in Nile's Wikipedia article, but I am putting it into this list, taking the word of P Aculeius and Johnbod. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per keepers, but open to a rename. The wictionary tag by a blocked user should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary / transwiki tag removed. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of possible renames and of possible expansion ongoing at Talk:List of Latin names of rivers. --Doncram (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per P Aculeius and Doncram. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.