Talk:Río de la Plata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Uruguay Portal This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Uruguay If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Río de la Plata, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

An archive of the naming discussion can be found at Talk:Río de la Plata/name. The result of the discussion, including two polls, is for it to be called Río de la Plata. This article should not be moved to another name.

Contents 1 Redirect? Size? 2 Widest river in the world 3 Whatever ... 4 Ancient meaning of Rio in Spanish 5 Drake Dates Problem 6 Name

[edit] Redirect? Size?

River Plate should redirect to the football club methinks 90% of people think of the club........

• the Battle of the River Plate occurred several miles off the coast of the estuary.
  • Please look at this Image:HMSO_Graf_Spee_cruise.jpg. There is some 150 miles of distance between the estuary and the point where the battle occurred. Is this distance "several miles"? --Ypacaraí July 5, 2005 02:45 (UTC)
    • I am willing to change it, but how can you see the 150 miles in that graphic? if you can find out a more exact number than "some 150 miles" please fix. --Lacrymology 07:56:27, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
      • I, from Puerto Rico and living near Mexico, having had Argentine neighbors in Puerto Rico, a friend who lived in La Plata and watching Telefe currently, can say that I don't know much about the river's history or geographically, where did the Battle of River Plate occured. However, I will agree with the original poster, that 90 percent of the time when someone says River Plate, we may think about the Futbol team. As far as accent or not, I think maybe we can accentuate the page and then redirect the non accentuated one. Antonio No Plate in his pockets Martin

[edit] Widest river in the world

I am adding the fact that the Rio de la Plata is the widest river in the world with 219 km where the water becomes salty (source: spanish Wikipedia) in comparison with a maximun of 40km in the wet season for the Amazon and will make a number of additions taken from spanish Wikipedia as well --Lacrymology 07:56:27, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Is it really a river? Isn't it an estuary where two rivers join? Its looks like more of a bay than a river -- Astrokey44|talk 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a river until the line Montevideo-Punta Piedras. Beyond that, it is a bay, with salt water (as is possible to see in the satellite views). So, it is not so wide as is claimed. As much, 104 km.--Km9 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever ...

Whatever the result of the move vote with regard to this specific article, "River Plate" still has a place on Wikipedia in the contexts in which it has been and still is normally the most frequently used name, that is, historical and current cultural references to the river from a British or Commonwealth perspective (for example in a Timewatch documentary about the Battle of the River Plate two days ago "River Plate" was used throughout) and thus the wholsale changes made by Tomer were and are still wrong and should be reverted. Jooler 17:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To which wholsale [sic] changes are you referring, specifically? Tomer^talk 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think people are arguing whether to keep it as Rio de la Plata or River Plate river. Antonio Riverman Martin

We just finished having that discussion three times. See Talk:Río de la Plata/name. Tomer^talk 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Jooler is referring to when you (Tomer) went and changed the links on other pages to 'Rio de la Plata'. In hindsight, that was what really got everybody's attention, not the page move. - mako 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There already are established policies on how to handle this; Jooler is right that it is probably proper to use "River Plate" in British-centric articles. --Bletch 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Such as, perhaps, the Battle of the River Plate where, you'll notice, I LEFT THE NAME ALONE? Jooler is many things, but "right" is not one of them. Tomer^talk 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, context usage got changed back and forth quite a few times. - mako 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_River_Plate&diff=prev&oldid=34069263
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Agamemnon_%281781%29&diff=34078654&oldid=21954288
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Cabot&diff=34068864&oldid=33926762
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata&diff=34074008&oldid=30046134

[edit] Ancient meaning of Rio in Spanish

Can someone confirm or elaborate on this bit from the Rio de Janeiro article?

"There is a legend that the mariners named the place thus because they thought the mouth of the bay was actually the mouth of a river, but no experienced sailor would make that mistake. At the time, river was the general word for any large body of water."

Does this also apply here? See also Talk:Rio de Janeiro. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drake Dates Problem

I just spotted a problem with the accuracy of a statement relating to dates: "The area was visited by Francis Drake's fleet in early 1588, in the early stages of his circumnavigation." However, Drake's circumnavigation was completed in 1580. Any thoughts on how to fix this? Thanks! Rich Lem 21:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct - should be 1578 as per http://www.bartleby.com/33/41.html Jooler 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I commented the very good edit by User:MAG1 because the source cannot be accessed (lack of link, and OED online is accessible only by subscription). Please somebody with a subscription to the OED provide the proper (and public) link or something else to source this text. Thanks! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake: the OED is also available as a book (one of those things with pages made of paper). It would cost roughly £1,500 to buy: would that stop you citing it? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a public link: it's subscription only, but it is verifiable. You might like to go to a decent reference library before casting aspersions; in the mean time perhaps WP:AGF should be followed. "Plate" as a noun in English has two separate roots: the Greek word platus (or in the popular Latin, plattus then the French word plat) meaning flat (hence coatings and the thing you eat off), and the medieval Latin word plata. Many of the words associated with the latter use are archaic now (but not when the river acquired its name), but still might be used for gold or silver tableware and domestic objects, for example (see meanings 8 and 9 in the affordable Concise Oxford Dictionary). In Early Modern English it was more widely used, for example gold or silver in mass, or for a gold or silver coin from the Spanish coin, the real de plata (sometimes rendered as royal of plate). I am not suggesting the name of the page should be changed, but quite clearly from the discussion an explanation of the English name for the river is of interest. MAG1 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the text of the link that I provided (here) , that was also commented out by Sebastian, you will see the word being used in that very context in several places. Most UK local authorities have an OED subscription for their public libraries, and all you need to access the site from home is a PIN number for your library card. I can access the link from home using my library card pin number and I have copied the entry for plate, n to here for Sebastians's verification. Jooler 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I should really have left the article speedily deleted because it was in the wrong namespace. But I have moved it to user:Jooler/Plate. Please delete it asap (not just blank it) since it is a copyvio. -- RHaworth 06:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake in putting it in the main namespace. Jooler 06:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

People seem to be taking things awfully personal here. Mag, I called yours a "Very good Edit", why on earth would you think I am calling you a liar? There is something in WP called VERIFIABILITY. A link that people without subscriptions can't access is not easily verifiable. If the word is so widely used I'm sure that there are other sources, as other users already pointed out. The gang-up on my edit is absolutely ridiculous, especially I since I even took the time to praise the editor for a good change and Thank people for their efforts. I purposely commented the edit (as opposed to removing it) to make it easy to be restored when the link was corrected. I am officially taking this page off my watchlist, the lack of good faith assumptions around this page has exhausted my patience and good will. If somebody wants to reach me about this message, use my talk page. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Grant, your recent edit to the first sentence, after the million-edit argument (which you were part of) that happened around it is among the worst "sneak attacks" I've ever seen. Alas, since I couldn't care less about this particular page anymore, I won't bother reverting. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's "one of the worst" then you should revert it. I didn't realise that every little edit was supposed to be discussed here. And I really can't see why you would object to my changes. Grant65 | Talk 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sebastian Kessel: my apologies if you are taking my comment personally: it was exasperation generally, not directed at you in particular. WP:V does not say that things have to be easily verifiable (except in passing, in saying that English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English sources): it just says that things have to be verifiable; in particular, it does not say anything about things having to be verifiable for free. Many articles have references from obscure or expensive books, only available in a select few libraries or to wealthy collectors - should these references be removed too? Assuming that the information came from the online OED then the proper link is to the online OED, subscription or no. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)