Jump to content

Talk:Daugava

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Western Dvina is more commonly used name for this river, and in most of its flow it's called Western Dvina (in Belarus and Russia), being called Daugava only in small its part in Latvia.

Please vote!

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
Yes, and in Riga over 40% of the population speak Russian and call it the Dvina. Satyadasa 07:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) In Belarus the river's name is 2) In Russia river flows very small distance of all way to sea.
3) It is most important river of Latvia, but not of Belarus or Russia.
4) Most local Russians in Latvia also call this river Daugava. (Influence of Latvian language).
5) In EU oficial maps this river called Daugava [1].
--Feens 13:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused as to how you have come to this conclusion. Google has 94,500 English pages (-Wikipedia) for "Daugava" and only 758 for "Western Dvina". This does seem to indicate that the name "Daugava" is more popular... --Tail 16:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Radiant_>|< 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

I don't see the reason why you moved the article here (and removed the most well-known name of the river). Please look at the map: http://www.baltic-region.net/partners/dzd/pdf/basetop.pdf

You will see that less that 1/3 of it is "Daugava". In nearly all languages it is "Dvina". I suggest to revert to where it was. Mikkalai 17:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support --Monkbel 19:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. In many languages the name Daugava (or Düna) is used. --Valentinian 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

can you note any such languages? --Monkbel 17:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Latvian, for example. --Jūzeris | Talk 09:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any other examples? Septentrionalis 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Lithuanian it's Dauguva and I bet in some other Baltic languages like Latgalian or Liv it is similar, but that doesn't matter. In English it's Dvina. Satyadasa 07:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree too. The oficial name of this river in Latvia is Daugava and all inhabitants (independ of a native language) in Latvia call is exactly Daugava. So think, that at least the part of river that locates in Latvia must be called Daugava. --83.99.135.66 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name must be Daugava, because in almost all ENGLISH maps the name IS Daugava. For example:
... the name is Daugava or Daugava River
Digital1 20:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google:

  • 49 English pages for "Daugava" site:gov
  • 7 English pages for "Western Dvina" site:gov
  • 65 English pages from eu.int for "Daugava"
  • 1 English pages from eu.int for "Western Dvina"

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Livonian (or how you said Liv) is not a Baltic language, it's Finno-Ugric and the name of river Daugava in Livonian is "Vēna" (pronounced with long, narrow e). 78.84.174.186 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.

Request was:

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute this closing; 60% should be rough consensus, when half the opposing votes are weak. Septentrionalis 23:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "60% consensus" was a temporary vote tally of 3-2, which was previously 2-2 and has now changed even further. See below for more details. -- Curps 20:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote has been a little messy, but, with extra time, the votes are in at 3 for/5 against the move. As consensus for the move hasn't been reached, the page stays where it is. Consensus is only needed to support the motion, failure to reach consensus results in the maintenance of the status quo. As those in favour of the move didn't achieve a majority of the votes, there cannot be a claim that the majority are being overridden. --Gareth Hughes 20:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copied from the WP:RM PAGE

    • There hasn't been a second round of voting. After the first round was closed as a 2-2 tie (despite your claim of "general approval" [2][3]), you relisted the requested move here [4], and the only thing that happened was that one additional person added a vote to the previous-existing round of voting (which is still on Talk:Daugava), making it 3-2. Calling this a "60% consensus" sounds a lot grander than it really is. -- Curps 08:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I listed this vote after closing on WP:RM, it really was 60% for move (3-2 (with 1 of 2 votes against being weak oppose) after more than 2 weeks of voting!) so it could be called consensus and the page should have been moved. But it stayed and now after vote closing it is 5-5... --Monkbel 19:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When Ryan Norton closed this vote on the 15 October 2005 (due to WP:RM backlog) the consensus was after the ususal five days of discussion 2 support to 2 opposed and after the extended time 2-3. I believer that Ryan behaved correctly as WP:RM always defaults to the side of not moving and this consensus building was not as clear cut as it could be. However since two of the users, (from a very small pool) who were involved in the initial consensus building wish to re-open the vote and two more people have since expressed an opinion, and are persumably in favour of repoening the vote, I think it does no harm to let the consensus build for another five days and then shut the vote. Philip Baird Shearer 16:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However I do think the onus is on the person reopening the request to put the move template on the talk page and to copy the new request as worded on the WP:RM page to the top of the Requested moved section in line with the WP:RM three step guidelines so people know what the new proposed name is. Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LISTEN UP PEOPLE!!! It was NOT 3-2 - if anyone cares to read the discussion, you'll find that there was a person disagreeing there who did not "vote" above, which in most cases would make this 3-3, which is only 50% for the move. Please trust your humble administrators people! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And that's assuming I discounted the other issues involved (comments past deadline etc.) here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Title

[edit]

Once you have resolved the issue of the most popular English name for this river, the title of the Infobox should really match the title of the article. If there are other names, different versions of the name(s) in other languages, etc., that's fine, but that belongs in the body of the article. Thank you, —Papayoung ☯ 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Väinäjoki

[edit]

I think this Finno Ugrian name, used by the Livonians, is the original name for the Daugava, as Liivilaht (Bay of Liivi) is for the later (after 1201) version of Riialaht (Bay of Riga). Väinä means slow streaming peaceful river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.117.147 (talk) 04:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Arhangelsk is not anywhere near Daugava

[edit]

please remove photo from Arhangelsk to relevant article - that about Severnaya Dvina. clearly here's been confusion between Zapadnaya and Severnaya Dvina (one point for official name Daugava - less confusing; peoples around Baltic See definitely call it Daugava). wanted to delete it, but nice photo, might do well in relevant place. 'm afraid i cannot do it nicely, technically.BirgittaMTh (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

I'm no expert on this, but my thoughts immediately went to old river names from Iranian languages, once spoken in Eastern Europe like Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan, Ossetian and what have you. These people must have lived in the vicinity of the early Balts (whose languages have some archaic features) and there may be an archaic relationship to names that come from "Danu" (water) in old Iranian languages spoken in Eastern Europe. We still have the Danube, Don, Dnjestr, Dnjepr etc. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually english version is not a crap, but this is a complete mess. Daugava has nothing to do with Danu and etymology is known: Daug + ava == Many + springs. It is oldest name. Livonian name Vēna means river - simply - there are many names, that are based on this etynology. Slavic & german names for river are based on livonian version, simply because germans and scandinavians met livonians first and this was the name that was written in chronicles. And it is similar to wiki - once there is something written in wiki, it is absolute truth... unless you do proper research.90.195.8.59 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daugava&oldid=1194089221"