Talk:Aarhus (river)

Aarhus River moved to Aarhus (river)

Hello. User:Bermicourt recently moved the page Aarhus River to a new page Aarhus (river). I opt for a revert of this unexplained and unnecesseary move. RhinoMind (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi RhinoMind. Firstly thank you for your work on Danish articles - it's important Wikipedia has a global perspective so what you do is great. I do similar stuff on German articles, and am also a member of WP:WikiProject Rivers, so was just doing some housekeeping here. The convention we follow is WP:NCRIVER. It's pretty flexible, but generally unless the sources use a regional convention (e.g. US: "Foo River" or UK: "River Foo"), where "River" is actually part of the proper name, we tend to just use the name of the river and put any disambiguation in brackets if it's needed. Hence Moselle, Rhine, Ruwer (river) and Inn (river). This is the usual convention for European rivers and, if you look at Category:Rivers of Denmark, also for Danish rivers, except that "River" has been used to disambiguate those that need it. However, this is not correct according to the convention - it should be "Foo (river)". However, very happy to discuss this further if the vast majority of sources on Danish rivers actually use "Foo River". Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Ah ok, this puts things in perspective and makes some sense. In Danish Aarhus is reserved for the city of Aarhus only. And the river is always referred to as Aarhus Å. Therefore it was very strange to see the title changed to Aarhus (river) and even after you explanations, I think it should be reverted to the former Aarhus River.

There is however a problem about translating Danish to English here. The Danish language has many names for waterways, with å, bæk and flod as the most common. There is not a completely clear scientific distinction between them, except that å and bæk usually refers to smaller waterways and flod refers to very large rivers, such as the Donau, the Rhine or the Nile for example. å and bæk would best translate as crook, creek or stream and flod as river. In many place names though, å refers to quite large streams, that would often be categorized as small rivers in English. Skjern Å and Gudenå is examples of that. It is unclear if Aarhus Å would be categorized as a small river in English, but this is usually how it is seen translated and as far as I know, the term river does not have a clear scientific definition in English either and could easily allow streams to be called rivers. All this taken into account, I believe that Aarhus River is the best and most proper translation of Aarhus Å. RhinoMind (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A good alternative could be to move the page to Aarhus Å, the proper Danish name of the river/stream, and then explain in the text, that it is usually seen translated as Aarhus River. I dont think Aarhus Å should be on the list of Danish rivers, as it is too small to be on this list. RhinoMind (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

All these ideas are great, but Wikipedia is supposed to follow the English sources. Google books gives the following stats: "Aarhus Å" - 2, "River Aarhus" - 4, "Aarhus River - 39", Aarhus + river - 26,800 but the latter includes non-relevant hits, so difficult to be sure without going through them all.

Be careful with the translations; generally, rivers are bigger than streams which are bigger than brooks, but there is no hard and fast definition. Also the term "stream", used technically, can refer to a waterway of any size. Crook is not an English term for a waterway. Creek is best avoided as it is used differently in British/European English - where it means a sheltered tidal waterway e.g. in a marsh - and N American/Australian/NZ - where it means a stream.

Looking at Wiki practice, most European rivers use "Foo" or "Foo (river)". Many of the examples of "Foo River" are in country categories where they are clearly using "River" as a disambiguator, which is incorrect. It is only "Foo River" if "River" is a normal part of the proper name, if a disambiguator is needed it should be "(river)". Some people don't like brackets much, me included, but that's the way Wikipedia does it. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the decision then? I dont see any good arguments for Aarhus (river), so what is next? Should we follow the procedures that was used for Skjern Å, Suså, Uggerby Å, Varde Å, Odense Å, etc.? The solutions can be found at the link Category:Rivers of Denmark that you provided above.

My suggesting is still Aarhus River, but Aarhus Å (river) would also be a choice, that would not be misunderstood.

On Google Books. Of course Aarhus + river gives so much more hits in Google Books. Aarhus is the second biggest city in Denmark and that alone should account for the majority of these hits. As explained in the ref'ed info I have put up on the page, Aarhus Å has been important for the city throughout most of its existence, so it is no surprise that the word river turns up in a context dealing with the city of Aarhus. Aarhus Å however is so much more, than the small part that flows through the city of Aarhus. and the proper name is Aarhus Å. We need to find out how to translate that, if native names are not acceptable as page titles in the English Wikipedia. In that respect the most common translation is Aarhus River.

PS. "crook" is of course not a waterway, my bad! RhinoMind (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The arguments for using Aarhus (river) are (a) "Aarhus" is the most common English proper name for the river, (b) it complies with WP:NCRIVER, (c) it is consistent with European river naming on Wikipedia and (d) we need "(river)" to disambiguate it from the town.

Aarhus Å is the Danish name. It does not conform to WP:NCRIVER and is the least commonly used name in English sources.

If we want to change the name, we need to do some convincing source research that shows the chosen name is in fact the most common English name. And we probably also need to do it for all Danish rivers to bring a measure of consistency. Quite a lot of work which might not be worth it. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for a well-structured comment. (a) No. That is a very clear NO. It has never been used even once as a name for the river/stream of Aarhus Å in any acceptable English text. (b) Probably. I trust you on this. But it is not the only solution that complies. And I have argued above why it is a terrible solution. (c) Only to the extent that b is true. (d) We could easily solve that obvious problem, by chosing a proper name.

Still, take a look at Skjern River and all the other "rivers" in the WP category you presented yourself. There a plenty of options and inspirations available there and I am still proposing my two suggestions above as the best solutions, for the very same reasons I explained. They still hold true. Btw. if we accept "Aarhus (river)" we should also change Skjern Å from "Skjern River" to "Skjern (river)", which would indeed also be a terrible move. This and many other similar examples should expose the fact that "Aarhus (river)" is not consistent with how other (Danish) rivers are named in the English WP.

Sources and refs. Yes a very good point. The pillar of WP. I have already put in a few in the article and I think it is it quite rude of you to not take any notice. So go and have a look at them right now and if you need more, just search the net and the will pop out for you in an instant. If you really cant find them, leave a note and I will flood the thread with sources and refs. RhinoMind (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consistency with the naming of Danish rivers. But if you look at the categories for some of the major western European countries like Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, they all use "Foo" and "Foo (river)". I have checked all categories for Europe and 2/3 follow this pattern. Of the others, many use "Foo River" only as a disambiguator which is clearly wrong.

As to sources: there are only 4 in the article, 2 in Danish. Whereas there are thousands of books that show up under "Aarhus" and "river". That's not conclusive as many of those will be hits on books talking about the town with some mention of a river. But we only need to find 30 books out of 26,800 that use "Aarhus" or "Aarhus river" for it to be the most common. Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay I've done some more detailed research into the actual books. The results are: "Aarhus River": 8 books, "Aarhus" (e.g. "the river of Aarhus", etc.) 9 books. Whilst that is not overwhelming in favour of "Aarhus (river)" (and I wasn't able to look at every instance of Aarhus as a river) it certainly doesn't justify "Aarhus River", especially in light of the other criteria. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Move revert

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I've reverted the move by another editor because we haven't reached a consensus or followed the move request process. Wikipedia has a process for moves once it is clear that there is a debate to be had (which was not the case at the time of my initial, good faith, move). --Bermicourt (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Im here trying to avoid unecessary conflict over this issue. I still don't agree that Aarhus (river) is a good and proper title, even in the light of the arguments presented above. I have also done a little research and was startled, when I saw the phrase "the River Aarhus" appear in a few places. It is really weird to a citizen of Aarhus to see this, but it was Danish links/sources trying to communicate in English even, which made me shake my head once more and start wondering what was going on. So now you can "take a swim in Aarhus" or "sail on Aarhus" and stuff like that? lol ...It might be the invention of a few PR-people trying to sell Aarhus abroad. Probably hired by one of the many private-public projects. I will return to this later and write more about it, right now I just needed to share my experience.

To find some websites using the phrase "The River Aarhus" just search on Google. There are not many, but VisitAarhus is one example. RhinoMind (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved the article back, because there wasnt consensus to move it in the first place. - Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Christian75 (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Christian75 I am with you. RhinoMind (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@RhinoMind. In English we often refer to rivers just by their name - the Seine, the Rhine, the Moselle, etc. We also frequently add the descriptor "river" in front or behind where clarification or disambiguation is needed e.g. the river Saar, the Ruwer river. As soon as you add "River" with a capital the implication is that it's part of the official name of the river. This is sometimes true, especially in English-speaking countries e.g. the River Thames in UK and the Mississippi River in the US are official names. For rivers in non-English-speaking countries we should be led by the sources. The problem is that if the river name is also a town name, as in Aarhus, it's difficult to distinguish them in an online search unless the number of hits is low. Even so, my research indicates that "Aarhus River" is not the most common English rendering. Finally we would say in English "take a swim in the Aarhus" or "sail on the Aarhus" so people knew we meant the river and not the town!

Now here's an interesting thing: if we look at Category:Rivers of Denmark there are six examples of "Foo River" and every single one needs to be disambiguated from another article called "Foo". The other rivers are just called "Foo". This strongly suggests "River" has just been used to disambiguate them, not because it's part of the proper name. In which case, they should all be "Foo (river)" which is the correct way to do this. If "Foo River" is the correct proper name in every case, can someone explain why half the rivers in Denmark are called "Foo" in English and the rest are called "Foo River"?

I can explain it. see new section below.

If you just don't like titles with brackets, just say so and we can save time. Yes brackets are ugly, I know. I don't like them either. Bermicourt (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: River is part of the proper names. In every case that is brought up, including Aarhus Å. As I explained, I have found a few cases referring to the waterstream as "the River Aarhus", but they a very few. Some of them are even inconsistent about it, while others are doubtful as sources (their English is very poor). Could you perhaps supply a few solid English sources Bermicourt? Because I can't find them, however hard I look. RhinoMind (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Danish language, etymology and translations

Now here's an interesting thing: if we look at Category:Rivers of Denmark there are six examples of "Foo River" and every single one needs to be disambiguated from another article called "Foo". The other rivers are just called "Foo". This strongly suggests "River" has just been used to disambiguate them, not because it's part of the proper name. In which case, they should all be "Foo (river)" which is the correct way to do this. If "Foo River" is the correct proper name in every case, can someone explain why half the rivers in Denmark are called "Foo" in English and the rest are called "Foo River"? Bermicourt (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I can explain it. The ones called "Foo" has the name/word å in it. The word/letter Å means stream in Danish. In the Danish language, Å is sometimes integrated in the waterstream name, sometimes it is separated. In Skjern Å it is separated, while in Gudenå it is integrated. I don't know why some names integrate the å and others separate the å, but the meaning is all the same. I would like to add that Skjern (like Aarhus) are used in a number of names. Skjern just means the town of Skjern, Skjern Å means Skjern River, Skjern Kommune means Skjern Municipality and so on. So if you just say Skjern, it automatically means the town and nothing else. Same with Varde, same with Odense .... and same with Aarhus.

PS. I would think the situation is a bit similar to that of the Mississippi River. Except "size-wise" :-) RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have perhaps spotted some errors in the category we discuss. "Østerå River" makes no sense. Østerå means Eastern-stream. As I have explained above, this is an example of integrating the word/letter å in the name. The proper name in English would be just Østerå, Eastern Stream or perhaps Østerå (river). Here the use of brackets would be appropriate. Same story with "Suså River". RhinoMind (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If we take this naming thing further, the very name Aarhus stems from the Old Norse Aros or Arus meaning simply river-mouth (or stream-mouth to be exact). Therefore Aarhus cannot be the name of the river itself. It just means "where the stream meets the sea", without calling that stream anything specific. RhinoMind (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Å and Århus Å (clarification from Denmark).

First of all, Danish å doesn't mean river, but minor stream. The name Århus Å is authorised by the Danish state. Other spellings are not authorised. The town Århus/Aarhus are both accepted by the Danish state, but the latter is used by the local community.--Madglad (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes let us move this page to the title "Århus Å". It will end the mess and set things right.

Can you (@Madglad:) provide the source on "the Danish State" you are referring to? It is essential if the spelling "Århus Å" should be implemented.

RhinoMind (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not supported. Why would we use native names for "river" or "stream" here and generally nowhere else on Wikipedia? The name is already disambiguated correctly in line with Wikipedia practice and guidelines. Calling it "Århus Å" will simply start a new mess. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, I forgot the issue. The official Danish state place name list is here: https://www.stednavneudvalget.ku.dk/autoriserede_stednavne/AUTORISEREDE_STEDNAVNE_v.2013-05-23.pdf

Århus Å is listed on page 1568. --Madglad (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Official names are not unimportant, but the main criterion is what English-language sources use. I think I established above that the overwhelming English usage is Aarhus, usually with the word "river" in lower case to distinguish it. Like thousands of entries against a handful for the native name. I'm happy for us to revisit that, but would be surprised if the position was reversed. Bermicourt (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the position was never established. And sources (in the English language) did not support the claim that the name Aarhus is used to denote the river too. Only a handful of sources used the name Aarhus to mean the river as well as the city. RhinoMind (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes the research was done and the results summarised. But if you've found clear evidence to the contrary, please share it. Bermicourt (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think enwiki works by reverse onus. Can somebody give just one example of "Aarhus" being used as name of the stream? --Madglad (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Nor does it work by assuming your position is right and requiring everyone else to prove you wrong. Each of us should provide evidence in good faith, but I seem to have been the only one so far to have bothered. Yet a quick search on google books shows that Århus Å and river gets a mere 44 hits whereas Aarhus and river gets 26,800, the most common by far being "Aarhus river" or "Aarhus River". Google doesn't distinguish between upper and lower case. Bermicourt (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If I google "Manchester River" I get 204.000.000 hits, but no Manchester River exists. The same holds true for Århus Å. Not one single example of the stream called "Aarhus" in an English text has yet occurred outside enwiki. --Madglad (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a bold claim! Can you prove it? Meanwhile here's just one of many books that calls it the Aarhus River: State of the World 2007: Our Urban Future by The Worldwatch Institute. And here's one that uses the lower case version "the Aarhus river": Freewheeling by Tom Foran Clark.

BTW you don't get 204M hits for "Manchester River" if you put it in inverted commas! You get around 16k. And they're mainly about river cruises in Manchester. So you need to refine your searches by using "" and by focussing on Google Books which is a more reliable indicator. If you do that for "Aarhus river", you get many more real hits and way more than "Århus Å" + river (5 hits - only 2 of which look valid). Bermicourt (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: But if English sources use "Aarhus River" or "Aarhus river", then why do you insist on excluding "River" from the name entirely? Well, I think I know why (you explained it long ago), but it is no backed up by sources to exclude it apparently. RhinoMind (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

To make my position clear, I am with Madglad on how to spell the name in Danish, but agree with Bermicourt that we should go by the English name here on enwiki if possible. And that English name is "Aarhus River". Your sources also backs up this approach. RhinoMind (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: I wrote "Can somebody give just one example of "Aarhus" being used as name of the stream?" (that is without the word "river"). Not one single example has been given. Probably because Aarhus/Århus is the name of a city, not the stream. --Madglad (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've re-run the searches and found a couple of examples of "Aarhus" being used to mean the river, but "Aarhus River" seems more common, so I'm content we move it to that or to "Aarhus A". Either way we should strive for consistency in naming Danish rivers, so that should be part of a wider review of what English sources call Danish rivers. Bermicourt (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aarhus (river). 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/20140223020025/http://www.dengamleby.dk/museum-aarhus/malerier-fra-aarhus/aarhus-aa/ to http://www.dengamleby.dk/museum-aarhus/malerier-fra-aarhus/aarhus-aa/

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) 02:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)