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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Romania-
related topics 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.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Slovakia 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.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
I believe this page should be retitled "River Tisza":
Tisza is the name most often used in present-day English-language sources -- see
this example
the German name is the least appropriate one to use, given that the river flows through no German-speaking countries
... apart from small parts of Germany and Austria where they happen to speak german, actually. :-)) Accidentally its origin happen to be in Germany as well. As a Hungarian I titled my original article "tisza river" but well, let the native english language people decide. --
grin✎ 09:42, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
Google finds 4,660 English pages for Theiss river, 13,000 English pages for Tisza river, and 5,820 English pages for Tisa river. I wondered if perhaps the name Theiss may have seniority in English, but dict.org can't find it in any of its dictionaries. --
Shallot14:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)reply
Both Tisza and Theiss are the official English names of the river, I do not know why. Theiss seems to have been prefered in the past. Both can be troven in large (paper) dictionaries. By the way, Google is not the right source to solve such problems (neither in this case, nor in other such cases) - reasons: not representative, not expert texts, one does not know how many of the pages are truly "English", contains many errors etc.... --
Juro 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Sure, it's heuristic, but it's indicative enough in this case... I don't think that its false hit rate for English vs. Hungarian etc could ever approach this ratio (2.8), and note that I used the word "river" in the search to help it. Theoretically it's possible that Theiss is universally used by English geographers, but I doubt it. --
Shallot17:50, 8 May 2004 (UTC)reply
Encyclopedia Britannica (Concise) has "Tisza River", with "Tisa River" as alternative, the name Theiss isn't even mentioned. Probably Theiss was more in use in the 19th century. So I guess Tisza is better than Theiss. EB also has "Mures River" , "Timis River", "Somes River". Time to make things a bit more consequent, I'll start moving things.
Markussep 12:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please move
Theiss River to
Tisza? Theiss is the not so current name for the river Tisza, which flows in Romania, Ukraine, Hungary and Serbia. Theiss is the old German name, but for instance in Encyclopedia Britannica the Hungarian name Tisza is used. The reason a simple move doesn't work is that there is already some history on Tisza. Right now it's a redirect to Theiss River, but it used to be a stub saying "this is the Hungarian name of Theiss". --12:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's been discussion on the
talk page, and no-one seems to object, so I've gone and moved
Theiss River to
Tisza, and changed the (quite numerous) redirects.
zoney♣talk 22:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
control?
I think "control of the Tisza" ("a Tisza szabályozása") should be written as "regulation of the Tisza"
Length (and other hydrological characteristics) of the Tisza, and the Refimprove tag
The length given in the geobox before my revision, 1358 km, is neither the “old” value of 1419 km nor the “new” value of 966 km. None of these three numbers appear with any specific reference, and one must assume they were taken from one of the two (but we don't know which) Romanian sources listed. I see that there was an attempt,
back in 2006, to set the geobox value to 966 km; the edit was promptly reverted on the grounds of failure to cite reliable sources—a complaint that is both odd (since the 966 km figure was given in the article itself) as well as kind of hypocritical (since the reverter did not supply a specific reference either).
Surely, the length of the river in the geobox should be the curent length, which the article itself gives as 966 km; Britannica gives 966 km, too. The book Rivers of Europe gives the length as 965 km. Now we can argue whether it's 966 or 965, but it is definitely 960-970 km, and not 1350-1450 km. Therefore I'm changing the data on the length (as well as on the drainage area and the discharge rate) to reflect the most recent reputable source I found, namely the aforementioned book Rivers of Europe. Incidentally, that book thereby becomes the very first reference in this article. True, there are two “sources” listed, but they are not easily accessible; and are in Romanian; and at least one of them is quite dated, from 1971; and one does not know which information in the article comes from which of the two. Thus the Refimprove tag.
Reuqr (
talk)
05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Navigability
If someone knows (and can cite a source) on just how much of it is navigable, I think that would be an excellent addition of the article. It was one of the main things I was curious about when I looked it up.
Tyrannophobe (
talk)
18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived 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.
Your Google hits are a bit disingenuous. None of the hits on your first page for "Tisa" are for the river except the one for the Wikipedia article, which of course is currently titled "Tisza". The story is nearly the same for
Google.com hits. —
AjaxSmack21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - It is more probably to have more hits with the name Tisa than Tisza because in most common languages for this river (Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Romanian, Slovakian, Ukrainian) this version is being used. Only nation that uses the current name Tisza are the Hungarians. For this reasons I believe this page should be renamed according to the majority of this languages over a singe one.
Adrian (
talk)
13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Disagree - The user making the proposal has been blocked on grounds of sockpuppetry and harassment (probably due to the fact that it's a sockpuppet of an indefed user), so I think that the proposal has lost its purpose (moreover as per the
banning policy this content would even have to be removed), so I propose canceling this vote altogether. --
CoolKoon (
talk)
22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
This is true, about a banned user, but arguments are much more important because if this request fails just because of this, any of us may restart this request and count by arguments.
Adrian (
talk)
20:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)reply
You're right, the request could be restarted based on the banned user's initiative alone. But arguing with Google search results is VERY bad science, especially in cases like this. You see the river does NOT have a widely accepted/used English name, hence the search has to be appropriately adopted to account for this. Thus I've searched for
"Tisza river" and
"Tisa river" (yes, both terms encased in quotes), and the result's almost a 50-fold difference (in favor of Tisza). And this is not counting the Google Books search results... --
CoolKoon (
talk)
23:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)reply
You ought not to disparage people who make bad google searches while at the same time demonstrating the same problem yourself :) Your second search has a crapload of excess parameters that affect it, and neither of them have the pws=0 parameter. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
07:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Ok, be it. This time I've made sure I'm not logged in, appended the pws=0 parameter and even made sure to perform a "separate" search for the second term. The results? ~165k results for
"Tisza river" vs. ~33k results for
"Tisa river". That's still a 5-fold difference in favor of Tisza..... --
CoolKoon (
talk)
17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page.
Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about
notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.
Additionally, search engines do not disambiguate, and tend to match partial searches. While
Madonna of the Rocks is certainly an encyclopedic and notable entry, it's not a pop culture icon. However, due to
Madonna matching as a partial match, as well as other Madonna references not related to the painting, the results of a Google or Bing search result count will be disproportionate as compared to any equally notable Renaissance painting."
Bing:
+Tisza (also wrote Do you mean "tisza river" -tisza?) -> 38,000 results,
+Tisa -> 9,600 results
Disagree -- simply, because "Tisza" is the most widely used name by English sources, as it was demonstrated by Joy
[1][2]. Simply searching for the word "Tisa" without the word "river" is *very* misleading, since it also gives hits such as "TISA - Tax Incentivised Savings Association", "TISA - Traveller Information Services Association", "TISA - The International School of Azerbaijan" and so on. These have, of course, nothing to do with the river...
KœrteFa{ταλκ}20:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Disagree Besides the above, I note the "Integrated Tisza River Basin Management Plan (ITRBM Plan) is based on data provided by... Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia." from the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. (which I can't figure out how to link to)
Rmhermen (
talk)
01:26, 4 August 2012 (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.
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Romania-
related topics 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.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Slovakia 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.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
I believe this page should be retitled "River Tisza":
Tisza is the name most often used in present-day English-language sources -- see
this example
the German name is the least appropriate one to use, given that the river flows through no German-speaking countries
... apart from small parts of Germany and Austria where they happen to speak german, actually. :-)) Accidentally its origin happen to be in Germany as well. As a Hungarian I titled my original article "tisza river" but well, let the native english language people decide. --
grin✎ 09:42, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
Google finds 4,660 English pages for Theiss river, 13,000 English pages for Tisza river, and 5,820 English pages for Tisa river. I wondered if perhaps the name Theiss may have seniority in English, but dict.org can't find it in any of its dictionaries. --
Shallot14:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)reply
Both Tisza and Theiss are the official English names of the river, I do not know why. Theiss seems to have been prefered in the past. Both can be troven in large (paper) dictionaries. By the way, Google is not the right source to solve such problems (neither in this case, nor in other such cases) - reasons: not representative, not expert texts, one does not know how many of the pages are truly "English", contains many errors etc.... --
Juro 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Sure, it's heuristic, but it's indicative enough in this case... I don't think that its false hit rate for English vs. Hungarian etc could ever approach this ratio (2.8), and note that I used the word "river" in the search to help it. Theoretically it's possible that Theiss is universally used by English geographers, but I doubt it. --
Shallot17:50, 8 May 2004 (UTC)reply
Encyclopedia Britannica (Concise) has "Tisza River", with "Tisa River" as alternative, the name Theiss isn't even mentioned. Probably Theiss was more in use in the 19th century. So I guess Tisza is better than Theiss. EB also has "Mures River" , "Timis River", "Somes River". Time to make things a bit more consequent, I'll start moving things.
Markussep 12:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please move
Theiss River to
Tisza? Theiss is the not so current name for the river Tisza, which flows in Romania, Ukraine, Hungary and Serbia. Theiss is the old German name, but for instance in Encyclopedia Britannica the Hungarian name Tisza is used. The reason a simple move doesn't work is that there is already some history on Tisza. Right now it's a redirect to Theiss River, but it used to be a stub saying "this is the Hungarian name of Theiss". --12:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's been discussion on the
talk page, and no-one seems to object, so I've gone and moved
Theiss River to
Tisza, and changed the (quite numerous) redirects.
zoney♣talk 22:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
control?
I think "control of the Tisza" ("a Tisza szabályozása") should be written as "regulation of the Tisza"
Length (and other hydrological characteristics) of the Tisza, and the Refimprove tag
The length given in the geobox before my revision, 1358 km, is neither the “old” value of 1419 km nor the “new” value of 966 km. None of these three numbers appear with any specific reference, and one must assume they were taken from one of the two (but we don't know which) Romanian sources listed. I see that there was an attempt,
back in 2006, to set the geobox value to 966 km; the edit was promptly reverted on the grounds of failure to cite reliable sources—a complaint that is both odd (since the 966 km figure was given in the article itself) as well as kind of hypocritical (since the reverter did not supply a specific reference either).
Surely, the length of the river in the geobox should be the curent length, which the article itself gives as 966 km; Britannica gives 966 km, too. The book Rivers of Europe gives the length as 965 km. Now we can argue whether it's 966 or 965, but it is definitely 960-970 km, and not 1350-1450 km. Therefore I'm changing the data on the length (as well as on the drainage area and the discharge rate) to reflect the most recent reputable source I found, namely the aforementioned book Rivers of Europe. Incidentally, that book thereby becomes the very first reference in this article. True, there are two “sources” listed, but they are not easily accessible; and are in Romanian; and at least one of them is quite dated, from 1971; and one does not know which information in the article comes from which of the two. Thus the Refimprove tag.
Reuqr (
talk)
05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Navigability
If someone knows (and can cite a source) on just how much of it is navigable, I think that would be an excellent addition of the article. It was one of the main things I was curious about when I looked it up.
Tyrannophobe (
talk)
18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived 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.
Your Google hits are a bit disingenuous. None of the hits on your first page for "Tisa" are for the river except the one for the Wikipedia article, which of course is currently titled "Tisza". The story is nearly the same for
Google.com hits. —
AjaxSmack21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - It is more probably to have more hits with the name Tisa than Tisza because in most common languages for this river (Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Romanian, Slovakian, Ukrainian) this version is being used. Only nation that uses the current name Tisza are the Hungarians. For this reasons I believe this page should be renamed according to the majority of this languages over a singe one.
Adrian (
talk)
13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Disagree - The user making the proposal has been blocked on grounds of sockpuppetry and harassment (probably due to the fact that it's a sockpuppet of an indefed user), so I think that the proposal has lost its purpose (moreover as per the
banning policy this content would even have to be removed), so I propose canceling this vote altogether. --
CoolKoon (
talk)
22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
This is true, about a banned user, but arguments are much more important because if this request fails just because of this, any of us may restart this request and count by arguments.
Adrian (
talk)
20:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)reply
You're right, the request could be restarted based on the banned user's initiative alone. But arguing with Google search results is VERY bad science, especially in cases like this. You see the river does NOT have a widely accepted/used English name, hence the search has to be appropriately adopted to account for this. Thus I've searched for
"Tisza river" and
"Tisa river" (yes, both terms encased in quotes), and the result's almost a 50-fold difference (in favor of Tisza). And this is not counting the Google Books search results... --
CoolKoon (
talk)
23:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)reply
You ought not to disparage people who make bad google searches while at the same time demonstrating the same problem yourself :) Your second search has a crapload of excess parameters that affect it, and neither of them have the pws=0 parameter. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
07:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Ok, be it. This time I've made sure I'm not logged in, appended the pws=0 parameter and even made sure to perform a "separate" search for the second term. The results? ~165k results for
"Tisza river" vs. ~33k results for
"Tisa river". That's still a 5-fold difference in favor of Tisza..... --
CoolKoon (
talk)
17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page.
Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about
notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.
Additionally, search engines do not disambiguate, and tend to match partial searches. While
Madonna of the Rocks is certainly an encyclopedic and notable entry, it's not a pop culture icon. However, due to
Madonna matching as a partial match, as well as other Madonna references not related to the painting, the results of a Google or Bing search result count will be disproportionate as compared to any equally notable Renaissance painting."
Bing:
+Tisza (also wrote Do you mean "tisza river" -tisza?) -> 38,000 results,
+Tisa -> 9,600 results
Disagree -- simply, because "Tisza" is the most widely used name by English sources, as it was demonstrated by Joy
[1][2]. Simply searching for the word "Tisa" without the word "river" is *very* misleading, since it also gives hits such as "TISA - Tax Incentivised Savings Association", "TISA - Traveller Information Services Association", "TISA - The International School of Azerbaijan" and so on. These have, of course, nothing to do with the river...
KœrteFa{ταλκ}20:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Disagree Besides the above, I note the "Integrated Tisza River Basin Management Plan (ITRBM Plan) is based on data provided by... Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia." from the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. (which I can't figure out how to link to)
Rmhermen (
talk)
01:26, 4 August 2012 (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.