Talk:Southern Bug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Name 2 Buh or Bug 3 Moved to Southern Bug 4 Too bold

[edit] Name

It seems inappropriate to expunge the name Bug from this article, since it seems to be the most-used English name. Google searches of English pages, omitting Wikipedia. AndriyK, your maybe you should consider the practical effects of your changes, and not just your national pride. —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 16:34 Z

• "Boh river" -wikipedia—286 English-language pages
• "Buh river" -wikipedia—482 English-language pages
• "Bug river" -wikipedia—23,200 English-language pages

There are two rivers Southern Buh and Western Bug. In Ukrainian: Південний Буг and Західний Буг. The former one located completely in Ukraine therefore the correct spelling is Buh. The latter one begins in Ukraine and then flows to Poland. The larger and more famous part of this river is in Poland, therefore it is naturally became known in Polish prononciation Bug. Western Bug is larger and more famous than Southern Buh and Poland is better represented in Internet than Ukraine this explains why Google finds much more pages with Bug than Buh.

Using Bug for Southern Buh may (and in fact did!) cause confusion. Have a look at the history of the article Severyn Nalyvaiko. There was Bug linked to Western Bug, while in fact Southern Buh was ment in the article.

I know very well, how much you dislike what I am doing, but somebody has to correct such subtle mistakes that are not so easy to detect. You may disagree with me and continue to be sarcastic. It's your choice. But I'll continue the work that I find to be usefull for the quiality of Wikipedia. Regards, --AndriyK 17:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right about how common this mistake is. Do you think maybe sometimes it's not a mistake, but a transcription of Russian? Why don't you drop it, before someone else decides to pull a vote and too many editors decide that this article should be moved to the perceived "most common English name"? —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 18:02 Z

• "Southern Boh" river -wikipedia—36 English-language pages
• "Southern Buh" river -wikipedia—310 English-language pages
• "Southern Bug" river -wikipedia—1,430 English-language pages

Please, stop arguing and reverting and let's solve the problem. Andriy, I hear that it's confusing as it is, and needs to be fixed. Michael, you have a good point that this river is known in English as--among other names--the "Southern Bug". It's clear to me that both rivers are known as "Bug":

• "Western Bug" river -wikipedia 589 English-language pages
• "Southern Bug" river -wikipedia 1,430 English-language pages

So why don't we solve this with a better disambiguation notice? Please make suggestions. And thanks for caring so much about the quality and accuracy of this article. —Papayoung ☯ 19:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Does Britannica use incorrect English spelling? [1]--AndriyK 19:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Britannica lists Bug as an alternate spelling in the article entitled "Southern Buh". What's your point? —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 19:37 Z

"Ukrainian Pivdennyy Buh , Russian Yuzhny Bug, Yuzhny also spelled Iuzhnyi , or Juznyj river, southwestern and south-central Ukraine. "

You were insisting that Southern Bug is more common in English and I should not have moved the article. Or I misunderstood you?--AndriyK 19:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears you did. You removed the alternate name Bug from the article. I reverted you and explained why, at the very top of the page. You removed it again. That's all this is about. —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 19:53 Z

I suggest the following text at the top of the article, where disambiguation notices usually appear:

• This article is about the Southern Buh (also Bug or Boh), a river in Ukraine. The Western Bug (also Buh) is another river which flows from Ukraine through Poland.

Comments? —Papayoung ☯ 20:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine. The name in other languages can come at the end of the lead paragraph. We might want a disambiguation note at the top, for readers who came here looking for the other river, but I don't feel strongly either way about that. —Michael Z. 2005-10-26 01:09 Z

[edit] Buh or Bug

Although I see why Western Bug was kept with the -G, I still cannot understand why the southern Bug was added an -H. Yes its very right to put a note not to cofuse the two rivers, but there should be some consistency in the naming, to not further confuse the two, although I am not sure myself to be honest. On one hand Bug, like Kiev is much more common in English, on the other hand the Buh helps to add to the differencese yet takes away consistency. I say call a vote, and make sure majority of voters are English editors not Maidan ones.Kuban kazak 23:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I checked a little bit too. Most press uses Buh in the last two years if uses it at all, since Ukraine is rather an obscure place in the world news. Also, Britanncia's article is also called Southern Buh. So, I think we can keep a new name but that's just my opinion. I don't feel too hot about this and here at least both names make sense unlike some other moves and name changes done by the user you have in mind. --Irpen 23:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to Southern Bug

I was bold and moved it to "Southern Bug". It's far more common name in English and the policy is clear about this.

Google Books:

• Books 1 - 10 with 258 pages on "Southern Bug".
• Books 1 - 6 with 6 pages on "Southern Buh"

10:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too bold

Per Britannica, and lack of notability, I would like to revert this unannounced/undiscussed move back to Southern Buh. The following Google searches show neither a significant amount of use in English language, nor a large degree of difference between Bug and Buh. The move too bold.

• "Southern Buh" river -wikipedia—728 English-language pages
• "Southern Bug" river -wikipedia—942 English-language pages

• "Southern Bug" river-173 English-language books
• "Southern Buh" river-11 English-language books

--tufkaa 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)