Talk:Olza (river)

Untitled

Dear Halibutt, what do you think was the official language under the rule of the Habsburg dynastie? Did I wrote "German language" or did I wrote "Germany"? When do you plan to learn reading, Halibutt ? --Irredenta 09:00, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you think that the German name is still relevant - go on. But please be informed that the names of all German rivers will be added in Slavic. For no reason at all, but still. And your comment would be just as good without personal remarks. Halibutt 09:07, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

All German rivers, like Oder, Neisse, Weichsel, Netze, Warthe and so on, still have a Polish name added. Do you want to threaten me with this? I want you to go on - not for no reason at all, but for the reason that the alternativ names are interesting and therefore worth mention in wikipedia. I promise to never delete an extra information, as I do not have to suppress informations in attempt to support historical falsification.
The German name of this river is relevant for historical purpose. --Irredenta 12:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All German rivers... lol... Do they speak German? Or perhaps they were born to German parents? Or perhaps they simply adopted German culture some time ago... I must say I like your animism. Halibutt 10:29, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why not Olsa River?

The Czechs call their 83km cs:Olše (řeka), the Poles their 16km pl:Olza (reka). Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary of 1997 calls it Olsa River. Yet, English Wikipedia once again echoes a Polish naming. Olsa would be a good compromise between Czech an Polish spelling - if it were not opposed by some for being "compromised" for being the German spelling used there for centuries, too.-- Matthead  DisOuß   03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Trolling again, Matt? Olza is not a Polish name it is Old Slavic name for this river. The river was called always Olza by local people - Poles and Czechs also. Olsa is a German derivate from Olza. Official Czech Olše was invented by Czech nationalist writers at the end of the 19th century. Olza was used also officially by Czechs as far, as till 1960s. There is now also a smaller academic debate in the Czech Republic regarding renaming the river from Olše back to its natural Olza. - Darwinek (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Olše was not invented by Czech nationalists. It was invented by Polish teachers from Galicia who came to teach on the newly established Polish high school in Teschen (established in 1895) and thought Olza is not Polish enough. (Other names suggested by these teachers were Olszawa (Olšava in old Czech maps), etc.) I really start to get annoyed by the nationalistic rubbish you keep on inserting here, Darwinek!--Xixaxu (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Olsa is Germanised version of Slavic Olza, it also reads as "Olza", which you should know. Besides, it is mentioned in the article. Olše was invented by Czech nationalist writers, because no other Czech equivalent existed. Polish nationalists also tried to make their own equivalent but they finally left it as Olza. Story that it was invented by Poles from Galicia is a common Czech misconception. You will not be able to find Olsze in any Polish document before the appearance of the Czech Olše. You will find Olsza and Olszawa but not Olsze. There is a whole section about the name in the article, it is referenced with great bilingual Czech-Polish book about the river. P.S. Keep up your personal attacks for yourself, please. - Darwinek (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, another one "why not use German name for something outside Germany?" series of questions? Leave the poor dead horsie alone... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion over the old naming and renaming is very interesting - can you find any sources for this and include it in the text? It'd also be a decent case for using Olza over Olše, although that's not what's under discussion here. Knepflerle (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not how the naming of Wikipedia pages works I'm afraid. We don't pick titles as "compromises", we pick the one in most common use in English. You have found one book that uses Olsa when talking about a "former city, * of Teschen duchy" and the division of 1920 - does that determine predominant usage in English, or modern usage in English? No. A quick look at Encarta and Britannica shows they use Olza, also not determinative.

Perhaps we should use the Luxembourgish Musel as a compromise between the French Moselle and German Mosel? Or perhaps the Latin Mosella, as a language of a previous ruler of the territory? As used in English in two English language encyclopedias (1993 1970), or is that just anachronistic? Knepflerle (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Completely agree. Olza is the easiest possible one to determine, because a.) majority of local population use this from, b.) vast majority of English-language sources also. Just check out the Google Books for example and search for "Olza River" and "Olsa River", number of results as well as the years of publications speak for themselves. No dilemma here. Also there is a separate section explaining the name in the article. - Darwinek (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty case of terrible vandalism over whole topic, region and across the articles covering Eastern Europe articles, there is a general rule set by ArbCom which I believe should be applied to Matthead, see this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction for details. His continuous disruptive behavior, edit warring and extreme POV pushing in the articles topics about Eastern Europe is frustrating. You, Matthed, tried to rename Sniezka to Schneekoppe, Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia to Euroregion Teschen Silesia, Cieszyn Silesia to Teschen Silesia, what next Matthead ? Czech Republic to Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, or Ostmark ? Or Poland to Prussland ? You also created highly disruptive template Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_27#Template:Sudetenland, for one purpose only - to disrupt, provoke, revoke the history and support your POV. This is pretty boring and blocks us from common editing and creating articles. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting hysterical does not help anything, Tulkolahten. Whatt Matthead suggests is to use on the English Wikipedia old German names instead of Czech or Polish names. In the particular case of Sněžka this would make perfect sense. German population used to live on both sides of the border (in Silesia as well as in Bohemia). That is not POV, that is not revoking the history, that is not justifying any German crimes against the Poles and/or the Czechs and/or the Jews and/or the Russians, etc., that is a fact.--Xixaxu (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This don't make any sense. You will not rewrite the history and the fact German population was expelled from there. Matthead was officially warned for his disruptive behaviour by uninvolved admin and placed on a black list. Do as you wish, you can be also placed on a black list as him if you will decide to behave as such. Whole national debate here is completely redundant, because per most common English-language use and also local use the article should be named Olza. Period. - Darwinek (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Length of the river and through which countries flows

The river was measured by the appropriate government offices in the Czech Republic and Poland - 86,2 km. Official data based on these measurements have been published in encyclopedias Czech and Polish, but in an article for the principal shall be given not based on any measurements (no official sources did not confirm the information about the length of the river given in the publication which is based on article) - 99 km. It is most likely that they were invented in this publication (except for the information about the length of the river does not have to this publication reservations). The second false information is once again the numerical information and refers to the number of kilometers of the river is located in Poland and the Czech Republic. Mere glance at the map and read the information that the river is certain sections of the border between Poland and the Czech Republic should alert the reader that provide only the length of the river in the Czech Republic and the length of the river in Poland is not enough - it should be more information about the length of the river on the border between Poland-Czech Republic. It turns out that for reasons unknown stretch of the river at the Polish-Czech border is included in the course of the river on Czech territory! To what purpose are given false information claiming that the Czech Republic is located 83 km of the river? According to official figures, 16 km of the river course is only on Polish territory (1 section of the river), 46 km on the territory of the Czech Republic (3 sections of the river), and 24 km of the river forms the border between the Poland and the Czech Republic (3 sections of the rivers). Everything can be easily verified, just go to google maps and make yourself measuring the length of the river and the individual sections. Today, this type of forgery after all, you yourself overthrow.

Official sources:
Universum. Všeobecná encyklopedie 2001, vol. 6, p. 624 (Czech encyclopedia)
Słownik geograficzno-krajoznawczy Polski 2000, p. 532 (Polish encyclopedia)
Nowa Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN 2004, vol. 6, p. 164 (Polish encyclopedia)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.54.246 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2024

• Olza (river) → Olza
• Olza → Olza (disambiguation)

– I am pretty sure that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when compared to the village near the river. See Pageviews Analysis. FromCzech (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• support Does seem to be the primary topic (Pageviews can give a comparison for the four articles linked from the disambiguation page). catslash (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Per WP:DPT we can also have a look at a bird's eye view with all-time mass views of all the topics. Five views a day is not generally a level of traffic where I'd say there's a primary topic, because the average reader probably doesn't recognize any of these, even if technically most people go to the river. (A check into the clickstream archive brings up no identified clicks for the entirety of the last year - there's just too little data.)

Also, an intitle:Olza search (All pages with titles containing Olza) brings up Iñaki Ochoa de Olza that we don't list, presumably because there's no de Olza article to link to, but that article alone gets 32 views/day, too, and it's consistently like that.

Ultimately I'm not sure what problem this move would be fixing. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Iñaki Ochoa de Olza's surname is "Ochoa de Olza", not "Olza" or "de Olza". And is commonly shortened to just Ochoa. WP:DDD says Don't list every article containing the title, so by right he is not included in the dab page and is irrelevant to deciding what is the primary topic just because his full name includes the word.

Your 2015–2024 pageviews analysis shows that my proposal meets the requirement for WP:PT1: it is is 5,8 times more visited than the second most visited site and is 2.4 times more visited than the other sites combined. Additionally, I believe that Cendea de Olza/Oltza Zendea should not be counted for a similar reason to Ochoa de Olza, so that would be 3.4 times more.

What this move would be fixing – that must be a rhetorical question. Every removal of unnecessary disambiguator speeds up the user's path to the primary topic and removes the need for a piped link for editors. FromCzech (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the argument of removing unnecessary WP:PTMs, but that efficiency argument works much better at scale, not at this miniature level. With this little traffic, the amount of average English readers who would wonder what's the meaning to that 'Olza' inside that compound Spanish name might be comparable to the amount of average English readers who would wonder what's the meaning of the Slavic toponym. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

The Disambiguate of River is helpful. Especially with the push to translate articles of places into English Wiki project. Just looking into the Polish language project there 7 articles which would meet the Notability for translation that have proper names of "Olza".

Please remember that the numbers showing a page view does not mean that was the original intended target of their search. Ex: I routinely click and read articles that have similar names of what I was searching in hopes said article may reference my intended target.

[1]https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olza RCSCott91 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest deleting the dab page, just moving it. There are 5 pages on the plwiki (not counting the red link), three of which are already here and taken into account, and the notability and potential page creation of the other two is debatable (but it doesn't matter for this discussion, because both of them do not threaten the position of the river as a primary topic).

Misclick does not distort the results, see the traffic of the dab page. Even the Olzai page, which is offered between the dab page and river page, does not show signs of frequent traffic due to typos. Possible elimination of micslicks and faster search is, on the other hand, the reason why the river should be moved – it will be displayed in the first place in the search field. FromCzech (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

When I said, Disambiguate, I was referring to the disambiguator, "(river)". I know this isn't a AFD discussion.

The the relative number of views is on average greatest for Olza (river). The example given for a primary topic is Apple the company versus Apple the fruit.

I might be opposed to this move but I can see the merit in the argument for it.

RCSCott91 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as catslash's query shows. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More comments coming up, consensus not yet formed. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)