Talk:Uvs Nuur Basin

Mongols: Tuva Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles 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.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by Tuva task force.

Untitled[edit]

If this article is supposed to deal with the world heritage site, it should be moved to Uvs Nuur Basin, as this is what the Unesco calls the site ([[1]]).Yaan (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Uvs Nuur is really about the lake, not the basin. They refuse to change the name to Uvs Nuur Basin. They have it named incorrectly after the lake, but then they go on to say almost nothing about the lake. Then they mix the basin in the article with no cohesion what so ever. They mix up the important geological elements -- they through out the Endorheic basin part as unimportant. They did a bad copy/paste and #REDIRECT from my original article. Now I want to write another article and they are going to muck it up like they did before. Mattisse 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they could do the same to this article, couldn't they? I am not saying this article should be moved to Uvs Nuur, but that it should be moved to Uvs Nuur Basin. Uvs Nuur Basin currently redirects to Uvs Nuur, but this does not have to remain so. Yaan (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a general article with {{main|article}} to unify there. Each of the other articles can and will be expanded. The "hollow", which a mild depression without water (often providing an area for people to settle in is not a basin which is a watershed for surrounding higher elevations. The Uvs Nuur basin is important because it is on of the world's noted Endorheic basin, which was confused by User:Latebird with the lake, and its geologic importance is not discussed in one of his first merge/redirects of the article. In fact the fascinating aspects of the area are overlooked in order to cram everything into one article. The hollow in independently important because of the conflicting hypotheses of ethnic history, plus the many excavated archaeological sites that will yield interesting findings in the future. In fact, the hollow is unique in its concentration of burial mounds, and ultimately will probably be more important than the other members of the cluster historically. Likewise the preservations of nearly extinct plant and animal life in the general basin area, excluding the lake itself, is important. We all know that the naming of areas can be hapazard and locally determined and the World Heritage Site does not investigate the etymological history of the terminology. To decide the hierarchy and arrangement of articles based on archaic terminology seems careless to me, especially when decided by a person who seems to be unfamiliar with the issues of the area. Mattisse 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uvs Nuur central discussion[edit]

A discussion has been opened in a central location to reach consensus about the organization of the various articles relating to "Uvs Nuur". Please join this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia.

- Hux (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagreed. Discussions of specific topics must be carried out in talk pages of the corresponding articles. And the discussion is already in progress. before you jumped in with wikilawyering. Project pages are for general organization. Instead of herding people around, why don't you write an article or two instead? `'Míkka >t 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "herding people around". I'm trying to help. If you don't agree with the nature of that attempt then that's your prerogative, but I fail to see how your belligerence is justified. Is this the way you treat everyone who makes an effort to improve things? - Hux (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The two articles are about the same thing. There was a somewhat acrimonious debate on this and wider issues in 2008, which led nowhere. The only serious argument against merging was that a hollow or depression is more narrowly defined than a drainage basin or structural basin. There may be merit in that argument, but the problem is that Ubsunur Hollow is almost entirely about the basin, not the hollow. You could deal with that by rewriting the article so that it only dealt with the hollow, but where the hollow is named after the basin there is always likely to be confusion, and in practice it is evident from the two articles that people use the names interchangeably. So it would be better to merge, and in the merged article point out that the hollow strictly refers to an area within the basin. The merged article can then sensibly link to articles on Uvs Nuur (the lake) and Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve.--Mhockey (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]