Talk:River Avon

Naming

(Deleted old talk mostly concerned with the naming of the article - "River Avon" or "Avon River" --rbrwr)

I think this disambiguation page is an excellent step forward. However, I'm a bit perplexed by the names you've chosen for the individual articles, 195.149.37.147 Renata. As far as I can tell your "Gloucestershire" Avon is never entirely in Gloucs, though it does form the border of Gloucs for a while. It is mainly in Warks and Worcs. Your "Somerset" Avon is never in the current administrative county of Somerset, though it does run through ceremonial Somerset for a while in the Bath area, and forms the boundary of ceremonial Somerset north of Bristol. It is in Wilts more than in any other county. --rbrwr

I'm guilty of the disamb page and naming, not 195.... Which names would you suggest instead? Renata 08:36 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry, Renata. I didn't read the history properly. If knew what the right names were I'd have moved the pages, but I didn't so I just whinged about it on Talk instead. I'll have a think about it and get back to you... --rbrwr

(later) The 1911 Encyc. Brit. and Encylopedia.com suggest Lower or Bristol Avon; Upper, Warwickshire or Shakespeare Avon; and East Avon (for the one in Hants.). The Environment Agency uses Bristol Avon and Warwickshire Avon. Two atlases that I have to hand (both printed during the existence of the County of Avon) use formulas like Avon, R., Avon etc., UK and Avon, R., Warwicks, etc., UK in their indexes. I would suggest River Avon (Bristol) and River Avon (Warwickshire). If nobody objects I will move them. --rbrwr 19:02 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

Great, that seems to be a good solution. Will you change the links too?Renata 22:11 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

OK, I will do so shortly. --rbrwr

Gloucs -> Warks is now done --rbrwr

Som -> Bristol is also done, and I've pointed as many links as I could to the right Avon --rbrwr

Etymology

The etymological source of the Rivers Avon is the Proto-Celtic *abonā, not the goddess Abnona. Abnona's name could plausibly be derived from *abonā, however. Dewrad 16:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Its wrong to describe the origin of "avon" as being Welsh, which only formed after about AD600. It should probably be Brittonic or British. Adresia 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Variants of Welsh were spoken all across England"? Even ignoring questionable use of the term 'Welsh', if this were true how would you explain the absence of Avons in Eastern England? One very good explanation would be the view of Oppenheimer and others that 'English' is a much older indigenous language than normally suggested, and not a post-Roman import. Pterre (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the use of "Welsh" is unacceptable; and it must be added that Brythonic languages were also spoken in Scotland. Scribe (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Western Vic

I think you're applying to rule too strictly. It's generally acceptable for a disambiguation to contain a roughly sentence-long discription of what's there. Including a slightly longer sentence then is done everywhere else seems warranted when it's a redlink. If you wrote the article behind it then I would have no problems with it being much shorter. —Felix the Cassowary 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for repeated reversions: I did think that my long edit summary explained the reasoning adequately.

A dab page is an index of articles, not an encyclopaedia article itself, and encyclopaedic information does not belong in it. A dab is not and does not need to be a comprehensive list. Dab entries do indeed often include a short description of the subject, but this should be only enough to distinguish one article from another, not a place to put information which does not fit anywhere else.

I'm afraid "The information is nowhere else on Wikipedia" is not sufficient justification for inclusion here or anywhere else. If you think about it, that would justify including any material whatever, such as what I had for breakfast or a list of the names of all my pet ants... This is why we have the criterion of notability for information on WP.

If this river deserves an article, the info belongs there. If it is not but the info itself is notable, then it belongs in a related article such as Lake Buloke (also a red-link). If the info is not notable at all, it does not belong anywhere on WP. Whichever case applies, it really does not belong here. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try drawing absurd conclusions that no-one would agree with. I don't see that there's any comparison between a river and your breakfast, and I don't think you think the comparison is truly valid either, so it's a waste of time trying to make my statement say that. As with everything you've said (anyone's said), my statement needs to be interpreted within the context it was given. (It's possible you just don't understand the context I'm relying on. But then why draw insulting conclusions, instead of just saying you don't understand?)

It is possible that the Avon River in western Victoria is not sufficiently notable to have an article on it. Certainly it's not sufficiently notable that anyone's written about it yet. I don't have any in principle problem with it being deleted (and in that case, the Avon River (Gippsland) article should probably be renamed to Avon River (Victoria) on the principle that article titles shouldn't be any more specific than they need to be). (I do notice that the Avon River, Marlborough in New Zealand doesn't have significantly more information in it than you could get from a map. Are the notability guidelines for rivers, do you know?)

However, someone feels it is significant enough to at least have it included and to predisambiguate Avon River (Gippsland). On this I will defer to them, and you seem to as well. So why not actually include a single sentence of information somewhere? I don't know really know enough to write the article. But at least this way readers have some amount of context, which seems better and a reasonable compromise.

The rules on Wikipedia are just guidelines for having a consistent and useful encyclopedia. They can be bent or even broken when the need arises. I feel that this is a case when bending the rules slightly—to include just a little more information than elsewhere—is justified.

—Felix the Cassowary 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My comparison was not intended to be insulting, but you're right that it was absurd: reductio ad absurdum. It demonstrates that there is a limit to what level of detail of information we should include. (Actually it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.)

You say you don't have a problem with deleting the item altogether. As there does not seem to be enough material for an article, I think this is a good idea. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a limit to what level of detail we should include. But your reductio ad absurdum just shows that you're probably interpreting what I've said out of context. Most people don't say things that are absurd. So even if they don't put in all the conditions that make their statement non-absurd, you can safely assume that they are there. Anyway, I've deleted the offending item. —Felix the Cassowary 08:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

DABDIC

User:Pldms yes WP:DABDIC says "can be appropriate" but there's several reasons why this isn't good here IMHO per DABDIC "otherwise..Wikt" and "...not interlanguage dictionary" - we have wikt links already that cover this, and it's interlanguage. I personally consider such dict defs hard to justify generally as our general principle is to source content which cannot be done on a dab. I see DABDIC as slightly old fashioned, and will take that up at the dab project. Widefox; talk 22:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's just one sentence explaining the prevalence of the name. (The wiktionary links just inform the reader that it is "Any of several rivers..."). It would be nice to get some guidance from the DAB project since it's come up before. Some versions have been included rather lengthy explanations of the derivation of the name, which is clearly inappropriate.

Personally I quite like the old version 'River Avon (Old Brythonic abona, "river") is the name of many rivers:', which is brief and informative. shellac (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The wikt link wikt:avon has (archaic) Alternative form of aven (“river”). We also have a Welsh dab entry detailing an Anglicisation (now in the See also). Is this any different to dabs like Thames (disambiguation) which has similar etymology in the wikt:Thames but nothing in the lede?

Going back to general principles, how are we meant to maintain such DABDICs? We can't check sources. Anything in the lede should be copied to wiktionary anyhow, as that's a way to check validity, so it's back to a wikt link. Widefox; talk 17:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

wikt:Avon doesn't have the derivation (and honestly, who bothers following wiktionary links). And since there aren't a bunch of rivers sharing the etymology (explained in River Thames#Etymology) why would you mention it? Unless Celtic languages spread a lot earlier than we thought. shellac (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

wikt:avon is linked from the dab. The fact that both wikt links have different info is irrelevant for WP. This is about wikt than WP and offtopic here. Please take it up there, and as both are linked here already then no changes are needed here. This is en.WP, and I've shown examples of a random other river dab that relies on Wikt link, which is the most common form on dabs nowadays. As I said, DABDIC otherwise..Wikt and ...not interlanguage dictionary. Fundamental issues WP:5P It is not a dictionary and policy (not guideline like WP:MOSDAB) WP:V .

Looking at the history, another dab project editor User:Bkonrad has removed this before [1] and removed issues caused by it several times [2] [3].

How does any of this help readers select the river they're looking for? (ps your signature confused me into thinking there's two editors here "shellac" and "Pldms", please change it so it is compliant with the guideline i.e. your account name must be visible) Widefox; talk 10:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)