Talk:Uvs Lake

Merge Ubsunur Hollow

I don't quite understand why there are two seperate articles, since the information there is only an incomplete subset of the information here. If it turns out that the other article actually makes sense for some reason, then it should be renamed to Uvs Nuur Basin. --Latebird 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Merged. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Type of basin - is it endorheic basin or rift valley?

I believe the Uvs Nuur is an Endorheic basin rather than a Rift valley, like the Sistan Basin is. We can check with the Rift valley people if we are not sure. But since it does not drain to an ocean but rather is an enclosed watershed, I think that makes it an endorheic basin -- unless you have read somewhere otherwise. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, it might be both at the same time, but I agree that it doesn't look much like a rift valley to my non-expert eyes (in contrast to Lake Khövsgöl).--Latebird 08:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rift valley is a genetic type, tectonics process result. Endorheic basin is a geographic type, genezis is not important in this case.Bogomolov.PL 05:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is about the lake not the basin

Why does the article have almost nothing about the lake in it and concentrates on the basin instead? If you are going to do that (ignore the lake and concentrate on the basin) should you not change the name of the article? It is very misleading the way it is now. The World Heritage Site referring to the basin, not the lake, is covered here. The World Heritage Site names the basin not the lake as the title of the site. When the lake is only one aspect of the over all basin, it seems like a strange way to name an article. Also, it is misleading to readers looking for the World Heritage Site to find it buried in the name of another article. Mattisse 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article used to be about the lake alone, until someone added all the information about the basin. I can't remember who that was, you might want to check the editing history... ;-)

Those additions resulted in redundancy with "Ubsunur Hollow" (now Uvs Nuur Basin), so the two got merged. Now that the other article has been reanimated, most of the details about the basin and the Unesco stuff should be moved over, leaving about a paragraph of summary pointing there. The remaining article will probably be rather short after that, so we'll have to look that we find more information about the lake itself, eg. its seasonal size changes and disappearances, fauna, etc. --Latebird (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Against merge

The Uvs Nuur has already been confused by making the article about the lake instead of the basin. Much of the relevant information has been removed or confused in the merge or copy/paste or whatever an editor did. The hollow, although lumped in with the World Heritage site is really about a different set of issues including nomadic peoples, archeology sites, enormous variation in terrain, endangered animals etc. The current article on Uvs Nuur seems to have missed all the relevant points on the geological aspects, plus the name of the article is different from the name given on World Heritage Site. Further, the editors have disregarded that almost all citations are about the basin; there is hardly anything in the article about the lake.

If you refuse to allow editors to write articles that they are interested in, and insist on an instant mindless merge, we can have an RFC, which I will abide by, unless you consent to a rewrite of the current article so it is accurate and not confusing. Why do you have such an investment in preventing other editors from writing articles about what they are interested in. It is against policy to #REDIRECT without a discussion which is what was done before. Please consider this, rather than instinctively merge everything. Many articles have been ruined by mindless merging. Mattisse 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is directed at me. I think I placed the merge tag before reading your discussions, and retracted it afterwards. However,I fail to see the difference between Ubsunur hollow and Uvs nuur basin, but maybe this is just ignorance on my part and you could enlighten me with a few words. I see the difference between a lake and a basin, though, and am perfectly OK (for now, anyway) with having two separate articles. Yaan (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Or naming the article after the basin and mentioning the lake - the lake is really mainly notable for its features stemming from its location at the bottom of an Endorheic basin. I don't mind them all being included in the same article, although the hollow has a somewhat different status. It became a protected biosphere in the 1950s, way earlier than 2003, and is valued for completely different reasons, cultural, archaeological and ecological, and also its location than the basin. Also, geographically they are adjacent and not the same. Mattisse 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole merge/unmerge issue stems from translation and terminology problems, aggravated by internet being the greatest invention to propagate ignorance.Several different notions are mixed here. I will try to untangle these tomorrow. Stay cool. `'Míkka>t 04:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To show you what's happening, I quickly created a disambig page. `'Míkka>t 05:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! The Unesco really has a talent to make things confusing, don't they? Btw: I don't think we should dedicate articles to individual sections of the Unesco web site (if I'm interepreting the two last entries correctly). --Latebird (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed. wikipedia is not paper and as long as there will be enough information, there will be a separate article. Meanwhile these may be handled via subsections/redirects. `'Míkka>t 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollow, Basin, Depression

Looking at the two newly (re)created articles Ubsunur Hollow and Uvs Nuur basin, I see the following definitions in each introduction:

Ubsunur Hollow (also spelled Ubsu-Nur) is a fragile mountain basin or depression located on the territorial border of Mongolia and the Republic of Tuva in the Russian Federation among the mountains - Tannu-Ola Mountains, and the Altay Mountains region - part of a combination of raised lands and depressions.

The Uvs Nuur Basin (also Ubsu-Nur spelling is seen) is a fragile mountain endorheic basin, named after lake Uvs Nuur,a large, shallow and very saline lake. It is located on the territorial border of Mongolia and the Republic of Tuva in the Russian Federation among the mountains - Tannu-Ola Mountains, and the Altay Mountains region - part of a combination of raised lands and depressions.

To my untrained eye, those two definitions seem to describe exactly the same thing. Can anyone enlighten me what the difference is, or if that is not possible, why we now have two seperate articles about it? If they are something different, and don't just describe different aspects of the same geographical feature, then the articles should spell out that difference with the greatest clarity possible. --Latebird (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think "Ubsunur" is the Russian spelling, and "Uvs Nuur" the Mongolian. So I merged it. Ubsunur Hollow now redirects to Uvs Nuur Basin. -- P199 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ubsunur is Russian spelling.

About the basin. I think this term is possible use in two senses:

• An area where all rivers are running to the same lake (like with river basin - to the same river)
• A depression bordered with hills or mountains

In the first option source of river can be far out the depression (mentioned in the second option) and that expandes this basin area

In the second option is possible that in a depression are several lakes with own basins (like it is in Basin of Grate Lakes) Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think both of these can be called basin. See here and here. Hollow seems to refer primarily to "small" depressions (not entirely sure here, though), see here and here. Maybe a native English speaker could sort this out? Yaan (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Basin term needs wider explanation: in Uvs (Uvs Nuur) basin (in "rivers sense") has smaller area inside - the Uvs (-Nuur) basin as depression. I think these two areas are not equal. The first one includes really a lot of mountains, second one - no Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A propos Hollow, here is said that Basin is in Mongolian part, but Russian part is Hollow Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, judging from the adresses given at the end of the page, my interpretation is that Ubsunur Hollow is the english name of the nature reserve on the Russian side, and Uvs nuur basin is the english name of the nature reserve on the Russian side. But what they mean is essentially the same. So in this sense, it we could merge Ubsunur hollow and Uvs nuur basin, or, disambiguate to Uvs nuur drainage basin/watershed and Uvs nuur depression (and maybe Ubsunur hollow reserve, and Uvs nuur basin reserve)? Once the current confusion is overcome, anyway? Yaan (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In Russian geography it is called Убсунурская котловина, where котловина root is kessel (in German, I don't know in English) and means depression surrounded with the hills or mountains. Бассейн (basin) is commonly used (in geography) as area with rivers coming to the same river or lake. That is why Russians avoided using basin term, Tes river is too long, its sources are close to Sangiin Dalai Nuur (in Khövsgöl aimag). In Russian sens is very precize and they didn't want confusion with basin.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The german word for this kind of depression would be "Becken" ( = basin ). "Kessel" is IMO only used for the upper end of a valley, surrounded by steep mountains on three (not just two) sides. The word for drainage basin is "Einzugsgebiet". Yaan (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This argument over the various meanings of "basin" is so pointless, because in the end, any multiple articles on Uvs Nuur/Ubsunur basin/hollow/depression would all be very similar and merged anyway! -- P199 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the Котловина root origin, I was not proposing Kessel as correct definition. Only bucket sense I wanted to explane.

I am sure the (orographic) Hollow is a subset of (drainage) Basin, but they are not equal. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop User:Latebird from redirecting & merging articles that are not the same, thereby preventing the addition of important archeological & other information to them

There are a cluster of related articles. One is primarily of geological interest, another is primarily of ethnic, ecological, and archaeological interest. User:Latebird demonstrated in his first run of merge/redirects that he does not understand the geology of the area. He also does not understand the historical importance of adjacent areas (which will become more important as the burial mounds and other archaeological sites are excavated). He seems unaware of the ethnic concerns. Ecologically, the lake is water. The other cluster contain glaciers, mountains unique combinations of steppe, tundra etc., unlike seen in any other places of the world. Also, there are endangered species here, like the snow leopard, which obviously do not live in the lake.User:Latebird has not given adequate thought or respect, in my opinion, to this unique area of the world and how best to present it. He has flung/merged/redirected pages that where carefully written and by combining them haphazardly, has made his ultimate page confusing and inaccurate. Mattisse 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please show me evidence of ONE example where I've merged or redirected articles that you created or worked on. If you are unable to provide such evidence, then I'll consider the above (and several other such notices you posted elswehere) a personal attack, and it will be followed up with the appropriate sanctions. Before attacking people, the very least you could do is check your facts, don't you think? --Latebird (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You merged Uvs Nuur basin with a #REDIRECT without discussion (against policy) with Uvs Nuur and incorrectly worded your merged article. After realizing your mistake, you again #REDIRECT Uvs Nuur to Uvs Nuur basin and set up a disambig page, Uvs Nuur (disambiguation) that violated the policies in Wikipedia:Disambiguation (after which I attempted to fix your mistakes on the disambig page). You twice now have #REDIRECT Ubsunur Hollow and merged it with another page without discussion which is against policy. Now you have changed its name (without discussion to Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve on the disambig page. I do not mind this change, but I do mind your taking over this series of article per WP:OWN and not consulting with the editors who created them, especially since you do not seem to know the subject matter well. Please do not do any further #REDIRECT, merging etc. without consultation and thought. What is your rush that you cannot take the time to consider these changes properly? Mattisse 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeating your unsubstantiated claims doesn't turn them into evidence. Evidence would be a diff proving any of that. You know how to check the edit history of an article, right? --Latebird (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are not the one doing this, then I apologize. I assumed you were continuing what you started. Perhaps I jumped to the conclusion as I saw others were having problems with you on the Central Asia Project page. Sorry for blaming you for the continuing screw up of the pages. Mattisse 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But I'm really surprised to see a person of your apparent professional and life experience badmouthing another editor without anything than mere assumptions to back up your claims. Would you do something similar to a person you met face to face? Would you want it done to you? --Latebird (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Topics to cover

For articles where its title and content make it clear that it the same thing, proceeding with a merge is not necessarily against policy (see WP:MM). I suggest the following articles:

• Uvs Nuur - specifically about the lake only
• Uvs Nuur basin - about the depression/basin and the UNESCO site
• Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve - specifically about the Russian zapovednik

As it stands now, there is still too much overlap, which may prompt a merge. -- P199 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against any merging of the items in my version of the disambig page. There is enough confusion in real life and don't try to carry it over into wikipedia. We are here to make things clear, not to formally merge things just because thinks seem similar to a first best layman wikipedian obsessed with policies and guidelines. No policies can take precedence over reality. Uvs Nuur basin and Uvs Nuur Basin are not one and the same and the topics are easily separable. If you cannot do this, go away and don't mess with my intention to bring order. Alternatively I may well let you play your "cut and merge" for a while, wait until you get bored, and then redo it correctly. Make your pick. `'Míkka>t 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Míkka said: "If you cannot do this, go away and don't mess with my intention to bring order. Alternatively I may well let you play your "cut and merge" for a while, wait until you get bored, and then redo it correctly. Make your pick." I have not been involved in this discussion, but I just want to note that this attitude is, imo, unacceptable on Wikipedia. It's a blatant violation of WP:OWN and, more importantly, in total defiance of WP:CONSENSUS. And the fact that it's coming from a administrator is even worse. I'm half inclined to open up a complaint, to be honest. - Hux (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Go away, wikilawyer, do something useful, like, write an article or two. Or open a complaint, have fun.<plonk> `'Míkka>t 03:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I think I understand what you are saying. I may have screwed up your version of the disambig page, so I apologize. It is important though, to follow the Wikipedia:Disambiguation rule, i.e. the title word should not be linked; no other links should be on the page except to the disambig articles (e.g. lake should not be linked on its own). From my point of view, the basin is an endorheic basin and interesting for geological reasons, the lake is a lake with interesting flora and fauna, changing the name of the Ubsunur Hollow of Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere is fine with me. As far as it being a "hollow", I do not think its importance rests there and I wonder what its signifigance is as a "hollow" per se. In my mind the ethnic, cultural, archeological and ecological significances are important and information on those issue will be added with time. I also am against mindless merging. It discourages the addition of significant information. Besides, the way this merge was done rendered the information inaccurate. Mattisse 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem with that disambig page is that Uvs Nuur basin and Uvs Nuur Basin go to the same article, so they both cannot be on the disambig page with different descriptions. Ubsunur Hollow also redirects to the same page as the other two. So three of the four existing wikilinks went to the same page. I am not clear where the redlinks would go. However, I am willing to help you in any way and agree with your approach. If Basin and basin are different article, then that is fine. So much has been merge now, that I do not know what is what. Mattisse 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I created the disambig page in the form it is now to serve as a starting point for what and how it is to be "detangled" here. When I am done with the skeleton of articles about the area, I will update the disambig page. And as I see the basic mess increases, despite best intentions. I don't even know how to start. Probably I have to draw a diagram of articles and do some operations research in order to do renaming in most history-preserving way :-) `'Míkka>t 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• P.S. about disambig pages: it seems that you didn't look into the highly convoluted WP:MOSDAB page for quite some time. In particular, the title word may be linked. `'Míkka>t 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have skipped through it several times today. I missed that though. However the example given (school) does not match the use on the disambig page we are talking about, unless I am missing something else (which is quite possible). Mattisse 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Very strictly speaking, that thing isn't a disambiguation page at all, because it doesn't disambiguate between items with the same title... But I'm still not in the mood for wikilawyering, and it seems so serve as a working list well enough for the moment. --Latebird (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your version of the DAB page is like "splitting hairs". In your opinion it may "bring order", but in my opinion it will only increase confusion because I highly doubt that there will ever be enough substantiative info in any of these articles to differentiate them. To avoid having 8 tiny stubs, it is much more practical to cover these topics in only a few articles (or even one) and add appropriate subheadings. Unless you are going to do some serious research and write some solid articles, they have, as I stated before, the same content now and any wikipedian may in the future prompt a merge. Also, your comments are close to violating WP:OWN, so a broad consensus should be reached to make that decision. -- P199 (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know who you are referring to in your comment. User:Mikkalai originally did the disambig page, I changed it by removing some terms but I am not sure that was for the better. Latebird may have contributed to it also. We are all struggling with the problem of the names and of how many "clusters" or biomes to include, which will eventually be decided by consensus. Mattisse 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple of words about Basin and Hollow. Institutional geographic name of the region is Убсунурская котловина, for the decades it was (both Russian and Mongolian parts) over mostly Soviet (later - common Soviet-Mongolian) scientists investigation. In Mongolia there is no special name for the region, it is signed at maps simply as Great Lakes Basin(Hollow?) Их нууруудын хотгор. Хотгор meaning is not any "watershed draining into the lake", but exactly the hollow=depression fenced with mountains or hills=котловина(in Russian). Both UNEP and Russians meant the same - Котловина=Хотгор, but translated into English with different terms. Russians used most correct definition (hollow) which does not create ambiguity, UNEP used term with better sound (basin) but not precise: may be a drainage basin, may be a hollow. Of course Russian Ubsunur reserve can not be any part of the Uvs Nuur drainage basin - it is located at different lake. But it is orographic hollow part definitely. Tes river is very long and expandes drainage basin far out of the orographic hollow to the Khövsgöl aimag. Even satellite image in Uvs Nuur Basin article does not include this long "tale" . If you look at the map, all the UNEP "clusters" are surrounding orographic hollow (and inside), but no "clusters" at upper Tes river. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Differing names

Will this article help?[1] Or maybe it makes it all more confusing. Mattisse 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed "The less common English usage "Uvs Nuur Lake" (e.g., in UNESCO) is a pleonasm, as the word nuur already means "lake" in Mongolian." per MoS. This sort of discussion does not belong in the lead. If you want to put a section on etymology somewhere in the article, explain the difference spellings/meaning and their overall ramifications, you could do that - especially if it has relevance to the ethnic/cultureal issues there. It would have limited interest, IMO, as the importance of this article (about one of the lakes in the basin) lies in its ecological geological importance, not what name is settle upon them, other than that the name be recognizable and not an unusual use. Plus that the use of names be consistent throughout other articles. Mattisse 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

re "limited interest" not a valid argument. Toponymy is a large, valid area of research. Don't judge importance of various subjects by your own limited interests. `'Míkka>t 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Matisse is correct that extended discussion of the name does not belong in the lead section; that isn't what the leader is for. If its etymology is of sufficient note then it should have its own section somewhere in the main body of the article. - Hux (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the reason of your wikilawyering here? The text has already found its place. Matisse's deletion of valid text instead of moving it elsewhere is despicable attitude. Go have fun somewhere else. `'Míkka>t 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering?" I'm simply approaching this from the perspective of what a lead section is for: it's an introduction to the content that is to follow. It's there so that readers can get a rough understanding of what is to come and therefore decide whether they want to read on. Any information in the lead that is not central to the overall point of the article should be either moved to the main body or deleted, depending on how relevant it is. The inevitable alternative to this is "leader bloat", which degrades the overall quality of articles.

I was not aware that this rationale was controversial, given that it is standard throughout the publishing world when it comes to this kind of work.

As for your "Go have fun somewhere else" comment, it's completely unacceptable for you to say that given that neither you nor anyone else owns this article. Please try to be a little more respectful and have the good grace to see my comments for what they are: attempts to help rather than attacks on your opinion. I'm on nobody's "side" here. - Hux (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake Bai-Khol

There is a Lake Bai-Khol there also:http://www.springerlink.com/content/743675084ht72197/ Mattisse 14:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) This is strong salt lake (water mineralisation 31.4 % - it is leach).

Lake location is 50°20′11″N 95°00′58″E. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Uvs Nuur central discussion

A discussion has been opened in a central location to reach consensus about the organization of the various articles relating to "Uvs Nuur". Please join this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia.

- Hux (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagreed. The discussion is already in progress where it belongs: in article talk pages. Instead of herding people around, why don't you write an article or two instead? `'Míkka>t 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "herding people around". I'm trying to help. If you don't agree with the nature of that attempt then that's your prerogative, but I fail to see how your belligerence is justified. Is this the way you treat everyone who makes an effort to improve things? - Hux (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

two problems in "Uvs Nuur Basin" sections

The section currently states that the Uvs Nuur Basin is half as big as Mongolia, which seems rather big (one zero too much?) It also states that Uureg nuur is in the same basin, which seems a bit strange to me given the 2000m ridge between Uvs and Uureg lakes, but maybe this is just my ignorance again. Any comments? Yaan (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this statement about area?

Üüreg Nuur is out of Uvs Nuur drainage basin (Üüreg Nuur has its own). Üüreg Nuur is out of Uvs Nuur depression/hollow (Üüreg Nuur water surface altitude is 700 m higher than Uvs Nuur). So - it is definitely out every definition of Uvs basin/hollow/depression. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Uvs Nuur Lake is the centre of the Uvs Nuur Basin, which covers an area of 700,000 km²". Mongolia covers an area of around 1.5 million sqkm. Yaan (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Really it is 70.000 - 100.000 sq km drainage basin area Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ok. Yaan (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proper english name

This article was recently subject to a mass move under the pretext of using "proper english names". However, much of the rationale seems to be merely derived from the fact that 'nuur' translates to 'lake', not from actually looking at which form is more common in current usage. We aren't going to change Tian Shan to Tian mountains, after all. Google scholar for example does give a (slightly) different picture of current usage: 24 hits for "lake-uvs water" [2] (9 of which use variants of "Lake Uvs nuur") vs. 112 for "uvs-nuur water" [3], for example. Given that there is a whole cluster of articles like "Uvs nuur basin", "Ubsunur hollow" etc, using "Lake Uvs" seems also to create more confusion than this kind of renaming was supposed to prevent, so I think "Uvs Nuur" might be the better name for this article. I am not going to fight over this (I already reverted a some of the more nonsensical renamings without any discussion), just wanted to give my 2 cents. Yaan (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That mass move also created gems like "Wörthersee lake" and worse. Google scholar indeed seems to indicate a strong prevalence of "Uvs Nuur" in printed sources, so combined with your other arguments I'd agree to renaming it back. --Latebird (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Uvs Nuur (or Uvs-Nuur, or Ubsu-Hur) are more frequent, but what to do with WikiPedia rule for articles naming: articles (out of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales) have be named with English word "Lake" (and "Lake" would be the first). And when a cluster of Uvs Nuur related articles exists it is preferred name "Lake Uvs" or "Lake Uvs Nuur", but the latter has Nuur=lake in title, but Amu Darya example shows that if local term translation is not wellknown for common reader it is recommended not translate this term (not Lake Uvs), but add English translation in title (Lake Uvs Nuur). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"articles (out of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales) have be named with English word "Lake" (and "Lake" would be the first)." Actually, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(landforms) does not seem to insist on using the "Lake" term for lakes. it says "often", not "always". Yaan (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (landforms) is not an accepted naming convention. There are no specific rules on how to name lakes, so the general naming conventions apply, ie. "use the most common name". --Latebird (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not 100% rule, but if we have a look at List of lakes we can notice that generally it looks as this rule is present. Only India, Iran, Pakistan, Argentina and Chile are naming "XXX Lake", the rest of Wiki are naming "Lake XXX" Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The sitation was somewhat different before rarelibras recent mass move [4] (seems like I missed some more nonsense with German lakes). Yaan (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And Austrian lakes too. Just now Rarelibra has a very emotinal discussion about these movings. Rarelibra erases every critics in his address so you can find this in page history here. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that. But the Austrian lakes seem to have been rather messy already before rarelibra's changes, so I did not like to bother with them.

The relevant WP policies seem to be at WP:MOSPN. It does give a preference of "Lake xxx" over "xxx nuur", but as I see it only for "major" lakes and not at all costs. Yaan (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSPN gives example (Mount Fuji) where japanese -san was translated into English as mount.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)