Talk:Sava

message: 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)
replies: text: Nobody does. Fixed conforming to MOS.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  bolding settlements 

message: (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: .  No such user (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment and ecology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought you were the one who introduced "Central Europe"; actually User:Zavtek did it here  and then "corrected" it here . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That's why I think it's a good idea to mention those feats. Zavtek (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panonian Plain/Central Europe 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits in violation of WP:WIAGA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2016 UN report on the management of this river system 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified