# Talk:Sava

I'm not sure I understand the pattern of bolding in the table of settlements? Also, MOS:BOLD? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody does. Fixed conforming to MOS.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I encountered this version of the tributaries table, which was collapsed (probably contrary to MOS, but I don't feel like searching for that rule), possibly because it was so huge and complex. Since I spent quite some time trying the parse the information in it, I decided to spend some time on simplification: the result was this. Now, apart from county/region information (which I find superfluous -- this article should focus on physical geography, not on administrative divisions), I don't see that I erased anything relevant. The left/right side tributary is still present, and the fact that some rivers are in one country or another, or their border, is in the first column, "Country". Am I missing something? No such user (talk)

Collapsing tables is not against MOS when data is presented in the prose (and it is) per MOS:TABLE. County/region information is a part of geography as well and a GA should comprise major relevant issues related to the subject matter. The simplification also removed sourcing information, including a hastily removed reference used subsequently in the prose causing an error to appear in the reflist.
I found the "simplified" table to be a move to the worse because it was potentially misleading to readers who are not aware that the Sava is a border river at several places. A glance at the "simplified" table (mis)leads to a conclusion that the Sava flows from Slovenia to Croatia, then to Bosnia and Herzegovina, back to Croatia, once more to Bosnia and Herzegovina and finally to Serbia. On the other hand, I don't see how is inclusion of region/county info in a separate column detrimental to understanding of the article. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
We provide information that Sava is the border river in the very lead of the article, and the word "border" is repeated at least dozen times in the article. Even if it were not, I don't see how the older version of the table conveys that information to the reader any better than the "my" version.
As for regions, just because something is true does not make it suitable for inclusion; too much information is equally (if not more) detrimental to the article than lack of information. I haven't seen such information customarily included in similar articles.
I really have hard time interpreting the information in the current version of the table, which 1) employs 9 columns, 2) My eyes have to perpetually move left and right, then top to the heading, to see which is the next tributary. 3) Same holds for so many merged cells. A glance at the "unsimplified" table just make me wish to collapse it back, because, as a reader, I just want a list of tributaries, not something which needs a user manual to interpret.
I removed the reference by omission, obviously. The wikitext {{sfn|ISRBC|September 2009|pp=13-14}} was still there, I just didn't realize it does not appear in the article. No such user (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
So you find the "complex" table too complex and I find the "simplified" table misleading. Why don't you seek a WP:THIRD opinion?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
As an alternate solution: I plan to submit the article (after some additions to the prose) to GAN within a couple of weeks or so. How about let the reviewer there provide the third opinion?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine with me either way. There is no deadline. No such user (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(As a reminder to myself or whoever else wants to tackle this): We need a section on environmental issues and ecology, to summarize the environmental risks, water quality and pollutants, notable accidents in the past (if any), and protected areas such as Ramsar sites. Sources: [1][2][3].  No such user (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Good thinking. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Panonia is the exact location of what lies directly left of the Sava within a certain vast region. That however is part of Central Europe. So in light of mentioning Balkan for the territory to the right (officially Southeastern Europe), it is better to state Central Europe on its own. The Big Hoof! (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

While the border is blurred, "Central Europe" and "South-Eastern Europe" are more socio-cultural than purely geographical concepts, while "Pannonian Plain" and "Balkan Peninsula" are the reverse. Since the article is about a geographical item -- a river -- it makes much more sense to determine which regions in geographical sense it separates. A mixture, such as the one you're trying to introduce, is not desirable. There's no such thing as "officially Southeastern Europe" -- it is just that the term "Balkans" when used in geo-political contexts, has pejorative connotations; however, in geographical contexts, such as ours, it is alive and well. No such user (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to introduce anything, I was simply eradicating the text which made Panonia & Central Europe look like two different entities. If need be, you can replace Central Europe with Panonia but just don't have both. And another thing, there is nothing pejorative about "Balkans", that is just the way people with little knowledge or doubts about some of the bigger nations in the region are pushed to think by mainstream sources. Obviously in Dalmatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and northern Central Serbia it is not widely used because culturally things are different from the more central Balkan areas of Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bulgaria and northern Greece. In these parts, the word "Balkan" is a household name appearing many places. To Athens and Belgrade which lie at two extreme points, it is not a major unifying term when what is north of Belgrade and across the waters from Athens (the islands) is not Balkan. Nothing people are ashamed of though. The Big Hoof! (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were the one who introduced "Central Europe"; actually User:Zavtek did it here [4] and then "corrected" it here [5]. I reacted on that one, because "Sava is southern edge of Pannonian Plain in Central Europe" is simply bad English. Yes, Pannonian Plain is part of Central Europe, but those are not coterminous --  how does it make "look like two different entities"? It surely is correct and idiomatic to say "Rio Grande makes the southern border of Texas and the United States"? I prefer having only one in this sentence, and that is "Pannonian Plain". Anyway, I'll bow to the consensus, it's not so big issue. No such user (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I can see what you mean now, especially with the Texas and United States example. It can work two ways though we can assume people generally know the state of Texas to be part of the US. I suppose you're also right about the "official" status of central/southeastern Europe as these are terms that can change their outline whenever it suits a speaker. In that case it is better to keep it geographical with Balkan/Panonian, but if Central Europe is really necessary, can I suggest the Panonian plain of Central Europe. If not, Panonian plain will do. The Big Hoof! (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The sources are quite clear: Sava roughly corresponds to the southern extent of the Pannonian Plain and the southern extent of Central Europe, as well as the northern extent of the Balkan Peninsula (at least in geographical terms, and yes this article is on a primarily geographical term).--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
That's why I think it's a good idea to mention those feats. Zavtek (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sava/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 13:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Well not much to say about the article as it passes the GA criteria, but there are some fixes to be done.First and foremost the lead section is without any references.The userbox also contains some dead links.Hope you improve these first.RRD13 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up this review. In response to the two above remarks: Could you specify which links are dead? I ran the Checkinks query and it indicates all external links are in order - the report is available here. There are a couple of redlinks, but those are allowed per WP:REDLINK.
Regarding absence of references in the lead, WP:LEADCITE does not require citations in the lead except if specific material is likely to be contentious and challenged. The same policy also indicates that all material present in the lead must be found and referenced in the body prose and that need for any citations in the lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, is there any specific claim which you consider controversial enough to warrant a repetition of citation in the lead? Or did you have something else in mind?

Novo mesto (Slovenia): river Sava doesn't flow through Novo mesto. 
River Krka does.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.103.64.12 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 

Thank you for pointing out the problem. I have deleted Novo Mesto from the list. Doremo (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that recent edits of Sava article violated several Wikipedia policies and might be construed as disruptive since my previous edit reverting repeated links and pointing to WP:OVERLINK through the edit summary was not only ignored but promptly reverted in what might be interpreted as edit-warring.
First, WP:OVERLINK defines that all terms which may be reasonably linked be linked at their first occurrence in the lead (per WP:LEAD) and only once again in the rest of the article, at the first instance of the term. If one is interested in a linked term the reader is more likely to access it at the first mention anyway. Second, WP:REDLINK clearly says that items meeting WP:GNG are meant to be linked even if there is no article on the topic as encouragement for editors to develop the topic. Finally, if one makes an edit, and another person reverts it (with a reasonable explanation provided in the edit summary, not condescending retorts currently found in Sava article history) the proper way to go is discuss the issue (see WP:BRD), otherwise the action(s) might be interpreted as edit warring which is more than likely to draw admin blocks.
Sava article is a Good article, which means a presumably experienced user has reviewed the article for several aspects (see WP:WIAGA), including placement and redundancy of links. Any editor who dislikes the Wikipedia rules and policies, should take that up on talk page of the respective rule (WP:OVERLINK in this case) and see if consensus can be created for it to change rather than making changes contrary to the current rules. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A 2016 UN report on the management of this river system could be worked into the article.  See also.  Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sava. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/25327/obiteljski-park-na-juznoj-obali-save
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903001312/http://www.he-ss.si/he-bostanj.html to http://www.he-ss.si/he-bostanj.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ng-slo.si/en/default.asp?k=razstava_dogodek&rid=281
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 20:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have seen that the origin of the river Sava's name is explained or connected with the Proto-Indo-European root. I believe a more recent connection could be made, as in Istria, in some local dialects, the old word for a river is "sava", the smaller ones being called "patok" or "potok".  The word "sava" is used as a generic name for a river, any larger river, those that cannot be crossed by walking through them, as is the case with patok. No longer in popular use, as it is preserved in the memories of our grandparents. I am not a linguist, I just wanted to show that there is a possible explanation of a slavic origin of the name of the river, because the word is still alive, with the meaning of "a river".
Even for the river Mirna, the word "sava" is used to describe it, for an example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.191.227 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 

The origin of the name is contested. Bichlmeier has repeatedly criticized Udolph, whom the lede is currently citing, to employ a modern theory of Indo-European comparative linguistics. I haven't followed the entire discussion discussing the Sava in particular amongst other examples and I still prefer Bichlmeier's rationale (2011, "Moderne Indogermanistik vs. traditionelle Namenkunde Teil 2 – Save, Drau, Zöbern"), saying that there is not enough evidence to reach conviction.
If regional sava "river" were of common Slavic stock it would be a piece of cake. So, I guess there are no sufficient comparanda to warrant a Proto-Slavic term. But of course, the word is useful information that a good etymology section could discuss. 89.15.236.51 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Udolph addresses the matter imediately. The words "savo, seva" are usually explained from vulgar Latin *exaquare (cp. wt:sewer#English) and therefore have to be ignored. That is, the words are thought to be younger than the ancient attestations of the river. I am not entirely sure those were the same words. At any rate, Udolph does certainly not mention *sewH-, nor *-eh2. 89.15.236.51 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)