This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Eh, we have really stupid situation with this river since it flows 27 km within Hungary, 27 km within Serbia and 15 km as a border river, which means that we could equally use both names, Serbian or Hungarian. This would be a problem for Wiki naming policy because I really do not know what should be done with article name in the case when we can use both names. Or perhaps somebody have more detailed data of how long this river flows within Hungary or within Serbia, i.e. I doubt that both numbers are exactly 27,00 - one of them could be 27,30 and another 27,70. PANONIAN17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
There are many similar/identical names for different subjects in Geography. The situation here needs clarification. The article has some accurate data, but the author(s) did not do their homework, or were deliberately making up numbers. No literature was consulted, as shows the article that there is no single reference in it – so comes the error about the length. The river (actually a stream) is not 70 but 90 km long. It indeed has a local Serbian name, but since the area where it flows is predominantly inhabited by Hungarians, the Serbian name just reflects its Hungarian one - it is derivative. The first mention in literature (17th Century) and all old maps show the name "Kirish" or "Korosh". The local Serbs call it "Kiresh". This seems unimportant, but there are other rivers in Hungary and Romania with similar names, so we better stick to the right one to avoid confusion. The article will be corrected, but the name should stay (because of the above mentioned facts).–Jozefsu (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
