Talk:Buna (Adriatic Sea)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:Bojana (river)
)
WikiProject iconMontenegro
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro 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.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRivers Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buna

Why would a river that flows in albanian land then forms the border between Albania and Montenegro have the slavic name? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has repeatedly blanked out the name section and it might require some admin attention to stop it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering the same thing. The name should be Buna. Colonized even in our toponyms in wikipedia. 142.114.118.180 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Arguments about how there is another river named Buna were discounted. When determining what exact title is most desired for an article, the desired title, if needing disambiguation, simply gets disambiguated; it does not mean that editors can’t decide that a particular name is more desired as fulfilling the totality of the usual criteria better, because while precision is also a criterion, lack of precision caused by ambiguity is then resolved by disambiguating, not by settling on a generally less-desired name.
Arguments about how no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English did not go very far. It was not made controversial in the discussion that many English-language sources using both names exist. It emerged that both names are reasonably widely accepted in English, and both names appearing to be accepted in English does not mean that neither is accepted. Supporters tried to build an “ethnogeographic” argument around this, but there was no agreement among participants to base the decision to move on such an argument.
Editors did not agree whether there is a “common name” under
WP:COMMONNAME. A “common name” in the relevant sense here is not a name used more or the most; it is the single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by independent, reliable, English-language sources. Editors have discussed how both names are used in English, one less, one more, but which is which doesn't matter because it was not credibly contended that there are not two relatively frequent names. Most editors said something to the effect of how, yes, there are these two names, but one is used more than the other, which significantly undercuts the COMMONNAME argument on both sides because mere admission of the existence of two relatively frequent names removes COMMONNAME from the equation.
The supporters also recommended moving based on a claim that the river is significantly more present in Albania. The whole river flows either exclusively through Albania or along the border of Albania (in Albanian the river is called Buna) and Montenegro (in Serbo-Croatian the river is called Bojana). They have argued that the existence of the exclusively Albanian stretch of the river activates the second bullet of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Rivers with multiple names (a WikiProject naming guidance page), because the “section” of the river in Albania is in fact the whole length of the river, except for a small arm at the mouth of the river, which is exclusively in Montenegro. Conversely, the Montenegrin section is only that which is shared with Albania and the small exclusively-Montenegrin arm. Supporters have argued that therefore the “Albanian section” is longer than the “Montenegrin section” because the Albanian-exclusive section takes a significant portion of the entire length, causing the river to be more in Albania, roughly speaking.
This last point was opposed with relatively low intensity, actually. The counterarguments were either non-substantive or were critiqued as non-factual, and after a very long period of discussion, opposers of moving did not reaffirm how the invoked guidance (the second bullet of said WikiProject page), as worded, is not applicable to this situation. Opposers, however, argued that the name of the section of the river closest to the river's mouth should be chosen per the third bullet, but that bullet applies “if everything else is equal”, and it does not proceed from the discussion that everything else is equal, due to weak opposition to the claim that the river is significantly more in Albania.
A sizable and increasing number of editors coalescing around the last argument as the RM was nearing what seems to be its natural end caused a rough consensus to emerge. Clearly both names are fine for the English Wikipedia, but there is predominant support for the idea that one is better than the other even if ever so slightly. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 16:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Bojana (river) → Buna (river)
– Buna/Bojana is a river which flows from northern Albania to the Adriatic Sea. Half of its course is entirely within Albania and in the next half, it forms the border between Albania and Montenegro. Arguments in favor of a move to Buna:

  • Per
    WP:COMMONNAME
    : Google Scholar:
    • 5.940 (Bojana)
    • 9.260 (Buna). I searched for other variants and added some additional qualifiers to remove results for the name Bojana instead of the river, but the overall ratio doesn't qualitatively change. The name Buna is used more frequently than the name Bojana.
  • Per
    WP:NCRIVER
    : If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name Buna is entirely within Albania and half of its course forms the border between Albania and Montenegro. The name Buna is used for all sections of the river, while the name Bojana only for part it.
  • Per
    WP:UEGN: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. If more than one local name exists, follow the procedure explained below under Multiple local names. The local name for over 98% of communities living along the Buna is Albanian both as an official and as a local name. Bojana is used as the official name in Montenegro, but Ulcinj municipality is an Albanian minority area. As such, both Bojana and Buna are co-official in the section which forms the border with Montenegro.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    talk) 19:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC) (struck * Pppery * it has begun... 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)))[reply
    ]
  • Support as per the above arguments. – Βατο (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per points made above. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Quantifying a common name from Google Scholar isn't appropriate as much of the data is skewed. For example, many articles utilize both names within their article title which skews the data. In addition, when you utilise other search terms such as Bojana river Montenegro 1.870, Bojana river Albania 1.480, Buna river Montenegro 1.280 or Buna river Albania 2.040, you get similar values meaning
    WP:COMMONNAME, Ada Bojana 1.500 is a lot more common than it's alternative name Ishulli i Bunës 63. Given the discrepancies, a change would not be beneficial as a clear deciding solution can not be deduced. ElderZamzam (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The name of the small islet is irrelevant because it lies entirely within Montenegro, unlike the river itself which only becomes relevant for Montenegro during its lower course. If everything else is equal in NCRIVER refers to If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name. If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name. I argued why the second point leads to Buna as the article's title.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The river is 24 kilometers in Montenegro and its common name is Bojana. It formed the river island of Ada Bojana. The number of results in the search is similar and I think it is quite enough that a note has been added that it is called differently in another country. -- Vux33 (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The most famous river under the name Buna is the one in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If the renaming was done, we would create confusion on many levels. There is no reason to force the name of the ethnic origin of a people, since Bojana is commonly recognized in the Balkans and in Europe, which does not change the selected search range on one of several possible search engines. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Buna in Bosnia and Herzegovine is not the most famous one. Buna river Albania and Buna river Montenegro have receive a total of 3350 hits, while Buna river Bosnia has 1570 hits. Not to even mention that the search for Buna river already receives Bojana as a result before Buna (Neretva) shows up. 686F7065 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the above arguments. Perhaps a solution as suggested by Ppery would help with clarity.Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As ElderZamzam notes, we don't use Google Scholar for assessing common names, it isn't really represntative of anything. And given the potential confusion with the Bosnian river, and the mixed bag in terms of usage, I'm just not seeing any sort of case for moving here. This is absolutely fine as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no confusion with the river in Bosnia because the Buna (Neretva) is a much shorter river.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- @Maleschreiber has made a strong case for change. On all sides, whether in Albania or Montenegro, Albanian speaking villages (majority Catholic, a few Muslim) with Albanian identity (as per both the Albanian and Montenegrin censuses) are found along the length of this river - making the case for
    WP:NCRIVER). Some editors posit that there would be confusion with a Bosnian river of the same name. That does not suffice as the Bosnian river is a minor tributary river of the Neretva, whereas this river is a main river of which usage of Buna is widespread, due to it being a major waterway in that part of the Balkans. The google searches that @Maleschreiber has diligently shown back up that point firmly.Resnjari (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per @ElderZamzam and @Vux33 arguments.
    I must add that the statement from @Maleschreiber saying that Buna is entirely within Albania and half of its course forms the border between Albania and Montenegro, is self-contradictory: is the Bojana-Buna entirely within Albania or is half of its course shared between Albania and Montenegro? In fact, of its 41 km, 25, or more than half, are located between Albania and Montenegro, which does not make it a river exclusive to Albania.
    Furthermore, the Google search carried out by this user to support his claim is biased: the terms Buna and Bojana may refer to something other than the river. By carrying out a more precise Google search on Buna, Bojana and Boyana (English transliteration of the Serbo-Croatian "Bojana"), together with the word "river", to ensure that the results refer to a river and not something else, we get a completely different picture:
    - Buna river: 902 results on Google Books, 732 results on Google Scholar, so a total of 1634 results, with a minority of these results corresponding to the Buna river in Bosnia.
    - Bojana river: 1640 results on Google Books, 609 results on Google Scholar, so a total of 2249 results, which all refer the the river we are talking about, since there is no other river by that name AFAWK.
    - Boyana river: 754 results on Google Books, 46 on Google Scholars, but again, while some of these results refer to a river of the same name in Bulgaria, most of them actually refer to the Bojana.
    It is pretty clear from these results that Bojana should remain the name of the article: it is the most common name in English sources, even if we do not include its English translitteration Boyana. Krisitor (talk) 7:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. The argument that 25km of the river is shared by Albania and Montenegro does not violate the argument that the section of the river that uses the name Buna is longer than that that uses Bojana. 16km are in Albania (Buna), 25km is shared (Buna-Bojana). The math is simple. Besides, it's not like Ulcinj (the Montenegrin side of the river) is particularly known for calling the river Bojana in the local language. The majority (72%) of the local population speaks Albanian, plus the side of the river in Albania has a significantly larger population. The local name is a no brainer. The WP:COMMONNAME argument is also strong. Uniacademic (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For a river that is mostly in Montenegro or its border, it is simply not acceptable to carry the designation Albania in its name. If the river is almost completely in Albania and only passes through another country on the way, then it would make sense. This page, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography mentions Barbana (Bojana) river, not Buna. I don't know which name is older and whether it matters much, but both names are equally common and there is no reason to WP:COMMONNAME goes to one side because they are both common. -- Vux33 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a very unusual request. A river which is mostly located in Montenegro on within its border should be named in Albanian because of a random Google search and several editors who mostly edit Albania-related themes would like that? No, that would not be good for Wikipedia and it's not per NPOV. Soundwaweserb (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A river which is mostly located in Montenegro on within its border - Well, the river is also entirely located within Albania or on the Albanian border. It starts from the Albanian side of Lake Skadar, flows through Albania for about 20km, and the final 24km forms part of the Montenegro/Albania border. All 44km of the river is within/bordering Albania, whilst only 24km of it borders Montenegro.
    Similar-ish situation to the Jaguarão/Yaguarón River - starts in Brazil as the Jaguarão, flows through Brazil for a bit, and then the rest of its length (most of the length) is spent as the border between Brazil and Uruguay (and it's known as the Yaguarón in Uruguay) - however, the article title uses the Brazilian name of the river (Jaguarão River), as, ultimately, the entire length of it is in/bordering Brazil (as the Jaguarão), whilst only most of it is bordering Uruguay (as the Yaguarón).
Granted, I kinda stumbled upon this article via a
WP:NPOV. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 18:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The river has two mouths connecting to the Adriatic Sea, one serving as the Montenegrin-Albanian border and the other entirely within Montenegro's landscape (approximately 5 km). The statement claiming that the river is 'entirely situated within Albania or along the Albanian border' is not accurate. --Azor (talk). 19:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, that could very easily be rephrased as 'the river delta contains the island of Ada Bojana, belonging to Montenegro'- and I doubt that islands count twice towards river length within a specified country. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The river's confluence around the island Ada Bojana is divided between the Montenegrin-Albanian border and another segment entirely within Montenegro's borders. Significant cities and densely populated regions, both in terms of local inhabitants and tourism activities, are also primarily centered around the river's confluence around Ada Bojana, an island situated in Montenegro. As mentioned above, the case for changing names, overall, is notably weak, particularly when considering the potential for confusion with the Buna river in Bosnia, which is located approximately just 250 kilometers away from the Bojana River. :--Azor (talk). 18:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The small river Buna is located in a different country and nowhere in bibliography or in any sources is there any confusion about its location. A distance of 250km between two different locations is not a source of confusion in itself. Such a distance is slightly smaller (~270km) than the distance between the capital of New York (Albany) and Massachusetts (Boston).--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison includes the distance of two major U.S. cities with two comparatively lesser-known European rivers. The probability of confusion is simply greater when dealing with relatively smaller rivers that might share the same name. Searching for 'Buna River' already yields tourism websites for the Buna River in Bosnia. Overall, it seems impractical given the well-established recognition of the name 'Bojana River,' which has been in use for all many years. --Azor (talk). 07:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following rules are suggested for choosing a primary name for such a river:
If the river is particularly famous or most commonly mentioned under one name, then choose that name.
If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name.

The rationale applied on

Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Per WP:NCRIVERS: A river can be identified uniquely as a tributary of another river, e.g., Rio Puerco (Rio Grande tributary).
If a river with an ambiguous name empties directly into a lake or definable sea, then the name of that body of water could follow in parentheses, e.g., Churchill River (Hudson Bay). (also Churchill River (Atlantic))
This Buna directly empties into the Adriatic Sea, while Bosnia's Buna is a tributary of the Neretva river.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Buna (Adriatic Sea) more as per examples provided by Ktrimi991. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buna (Adriatic Sea), seems alright to me (and probably won't be as vehemently opposed as Buna (Albania)) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ktrimi991's proposal, Buna is the name that should be used as per Wikipedia guidelines,
WP:NCRIVER, and it definitely solves the concerns of some editors above. – Βατο (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Good proposal. HokutoKen (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object Buna (Adriatic Sea) if this title is better aligned with NCRIVER.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good @
Ktrimi991:. Going by that Churchill River example, "(Atlantic)" without the "sea" part is in the title. It would probably better to have it the form "Buna (Adriatic)" instead, so as the focus is the river itself, not the sea -as some people not familiar with the area's geography may assume at first glance. Thoughts (@Maleschreiber:, @Βατο:, @AlexBachmann:, @HotMess:, @HokutoKen:)?Resnjari (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
One or the other is ok for me @
Ktrimi991:, but Adriatic Sea will do. All good.Resnjari (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
sounds good to me 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with Buna (Adriatic Sea) or Buna (Adriatic) in principle, although this discussion has turned into such a mess that I am no longer convinced the page needs to be moved at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might get even more messy, as nobody is coming to close it. haha
Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Pppery:, many Balkan related topics end up messy, from my end its its more about seeing through the clutter and whether the case for change is substantive about if i throw my support one way of the other. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As other commenters pointed out, Bojana is currently established name in English language, with significantly more sources using it, and name Buna is not assigned to "significantly longer section", as naming guidelines imply. Ђидо (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per NCRIVER. Buna is also the only name which is used by all local institutions. I don't see how Bojana is "established internationally" or used by "significantly more sources", because it's clear that neither claim is correct in the search results provided in the RM. Both Buna (river) and Buna (Adriatic Sea) work well for the new name. Nishjan (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Maleschreiber and others make a strong ethnogeographic argument here. The river's delta, which splits into two branches, discharges from both sides of the border. The entirety of the river's course, however, runs mainly through Albanian-speaking settlements. Kj1595 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.: The case is clear both in terms of wp:commonname and geographic location. The arguments are overwhelming (googlehits by far out-weight the proposed change) against a move.Alexikoua (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The arguments listed clearly explain why the page name needs to be changed to Buna. Typical Albanian (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above reasoning. Half of the river is in Albania while the other half is right on the border between the two states. Additionally, the locals in the region, on both sides of the border, are Albanian speaking and likely refer to the river as the Buna. Yung Doohickey (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neither river name is more popular than the other, and thus status quo should remain. "Counting" what percentage of ethnic groups areound the river is really something and tells us a lot. The fact remains that most of river Bojana is in Montenero, no matter of personal opinion or wisher. The renaming is in direct conflict witht he river Buna in Herzegovina, another small Balkan river, not to mention the Ada Bojana problem. If there is some sort of an alternative to Buna, a third way if you will, I would support such idea. This is just a not step forward. MareBG (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither river name is more popular than the other Indeed. And as per WP:NCRIVER, in such a case the name used for the longest section should be used as the article's name. A river shared between Greece and Albania is named "Aoos" in the Greek section, and "Vjosa" in the longer, Albanian section. Hence its article was named
Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact remains that most of river Bojana is in Montene[g]ro, no matter of personal opinion or wisher and the fact also remains that all of the river is either in or on the border of Albania - whilst only most of it is on the border of Montenegro - in other words, it's objectively more Albanian than Montenegrin, no matter of personal opinion or wisher.
Regarding the direct conflict with
WP:DOIT
.
Not sure what the Ada Bojana problem actually is, because the name given to this article does not impact the
Bojana (river)
within that article would still function as expected).
However, I'll admit that I'm no subject matter expert re the
WP:COMMONNAME debate, so I genuinely have no idea which name is actually more prevelant, or whether or not the arguments about stats being fluffed earlier on are valid or not, or what proportion of the local population are of which ethnicity and actually call it by a certain name. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@MareBG: saying that "The fact remains that most of river Bojana is in Montenero, no matter of personal opinion or wisher" is not factual. A simple look on any map will show that the river itself from near Shkodër up until the village of Samrisht i Poshtëm, close to the border is entirely within Albania. The river below Samrisht i Poshtem to the Adriatic Sea is split between Montenegro (west bank) and Albania (east bank). Combined, Albania has more of the river within its frontiers than Montenegro by 3 (both banks in the northern half, eastern bank southern half) to 1 (only southern western bank). "Neither river name is more popular than the other, and thus status quo should remain" the river is surrounded by a compact and dense population of Albanian speaking people with Albanian identity, mostly Catholic a few Muslim, even after Montenegro acquired its present border in the area during its territorial expansions/conquests in 1878 and 1912-1913. On both sides of the border, local Albanians use the form Buna, not Bojana.Resnjari (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per @ElderZamzam and @Vux33 arguments. Also, encyclopedia Britannica mentions the river twice, once as Bojana (Lake Scutari article) and once a both Buene and Bojana in the Shkoder article (which is in Albania, but the name Bojana was still mentioned as the variation). Plus, the most recognizable feature connected with the river's name is Ada Bojana. "Ada Bojana"+island has more google hits than "Bojana river", "river Bojana", "Buna river"+Albania and "river Buna"+Albania combined (116.000 to 79.000). PajaBG (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has already been explained that Ada Bojana is outside of the scope here. Constantly repeating something does not make it right. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. Most of the river is in Albania, changing the name to its Albanian form sounds reasonable. Anna Comnena (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymology of 'Bojana' (Бојана)

So, I noticed that this article currently discusses the etymology for the Albanian name of the river (Buna/Bunë), but says absolutely nothing about the Montenegrin name (Bojana/Бојана). Was the river simply named after the given name Bojana? Or did it have a completely different origin - I did stumble upon this blatantly non-authoritative source which suggests another origin which could be credible from the Vulgar Latin or the Balkan Latin “*boiana” (herdsman’s [river]), from the Latin “boviana,” meaning “herdsman’s.” (although the suggested etymology of 'being derived from Bayan I' probably isn't the case, seeing as he was based elsewhere).

Anywho, reason I'm bringing this up here is because I'm assuming that the authoritative sources on the matter are probably in Montenegrin or Serbian or something like that, and, well, I have no idea how to read any Balkan language. But, whilst there's still some activity here on the talk page, I may as well see if anyone here who does know what they're talking about can lend a hand to fill in this missing information. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I also noticed the lack of an etymology for "Bojana". Yugoslav or Serb/Montenegrin academics should have elaborated, but a Serbo-Croatian speaker is needed to search for those sources.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I have just added the hypothesis of a well-known Serbian linguist, Milivoj Pavlović. Krisitor (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlović’s hypothesis seems quite
WP:EXTRAORDINARY - for starters, why would only the Slavic rendition of the river’s name be based off of the Boii, and second of all, what do the Boii have to do with anything related to the river Buna? Were the Boii even involved in a migration or raid to that part of the Balkans? To the best of my knowledge, the Boii never settled the region, nor had they even stepped foot there… Botushali (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Pavlović's conclusions were accepted by Yugoslav experts of his time, and are still valid among post-Yugoslav scholars, as far as I know. Otherwise, I've also added a reference to Skok's major work, which was clearly missing here. Krisitor (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Boii connection is indeed extraordinary, and the mid-20th century sources used are too old to be included. I suggest to rely on more recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia rule stating that works dating from the mid-20th century have no place here. What's more, the works in question were published in 1966 and 1971-1974, so well after 1950. Per
WP:NPOV, the prevailing rule is that all hypotheses must be listed, so I've added the one that prevails among experts in onomastics from the former Yugoslav area. Krisitor (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The etymology with the Boii is nonsense. I could add some really interesting etymologies based on "academic works", but when something is obvious crap we do not add it. There is also Cabej's claim that "Buna" comes from an Albanian word meaning "overflow of waters", but it has found no credible support; hence I am not adding it.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
And yet you still cannot describe how exactly the Boii even relate to the river Buna - I recognise the efforts to include impartial views on the article, but when something is simply extraordinary, it really shouldn’t be included. This view on the Boii link is really unscholarly. Botushali (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pavlović (1966) is outdated and fringe even for 1966. He explains the name of the ancient region of Boeotia in Greece as a result of southern migration of the Boii. (pp.373-374). If his work has influenced post-Yugoslav authors, then Krisitor should be able to find publications by modern Montenegrin linguists which reproduce it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The terms extraordinary, "crap" and "nonsense" are being thrown around, yet a cited prevailing view has not been put forward. Is the prevailing view what is being pushed in this talk page by a couple of editors? Hardly reliable. Such practices violate
    WP:EXTRAORDINARY is utilized when a strong body of evidence already exists and a new addition goes completely against what is already listed. This can not be applied here as this topic is significantly under researched. In addition, the idea that Pavlovic is too old means that the Barbanna to Buna evolution theory needs to be removed, as that theory was coined by Norbert Jokl in the 1930s. ElderZamzam (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is also the view that Slavs took the hydronym from the Albanians. Demiraj elaborates on its phonetic stages, but I would like to see the opinion of other, Western scholars too on the issue. Pavlovic also claims that Scardona was named after....a Celtic tribe, though high-quality scholars such as Wilkes and Hamp say it is part of the typical Illyrian toponymy. Pavlovic claims that Boeotia was named after the Boii. Find a decent scholar supporting that. Given that you once attempted to add a fringe claim that Albanians stem from the Carpi tribe, better make some more reading about the region's pre-Slavic history before trying to make relevant edits. Cheers,
Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
from the Vulgar Latin or the Balkan Latin “*boiana” (herdsman’s [river]), from the Latin “boviana,” meaning “herdsman’s. If that Latin term does exist, that's the most convincing etymological attempt for an explanation of the name that I've come across. It's semantically impossible for a river to be named "battle -ana" or so. Names always make sense, this attempted Slavic/Celtic mediation does not, especially when the tribe in question that allegedly has given the name to Bojana and Voiotia has never set foot in (let alone seen) Albanian territories.
Latin toponyms do not constitute a rarity in Albanian territories, see Pukë (< Via Publica), Peshkopi (< lat. pescopus), Lipjan (< lat. Ulpius), so I wouldn't rule the "herdsman’s [river]" version out. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's semantically impossible for a river to be named "battle -ana" or so. Well, there is also the hypothesis that it could have been named after the given name Bojana (Бојана). (Бојана (Bojana) is the feminine version of Bojan (Бојан), which in turn comes from Бој (Battle)). Could it have been named after someone called Bojana (like how there's a lake in Africa and a river in Canada called Victoria)? (Genuinely no idea myself, and ofc no real evidence either way for either etymology, and just putting this train of thought out here for devil's advocate-y reasons so we don't just blindly follow an etymology which isn't supported by actual evidence) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bojana, if Slavic, would probably possess a Slavic suffix (-ina/-ova/…) indicating a personal name. I believe it wouldn’t be just Bojana. Slavic suffixes indicating such things as possessions are not uncommon, e.g. Uroševac (new name for Ferizaj, Kosovo) „City of Uroš“.
Nevertheless, one thing is sure: The Boii theory is to be dismissed. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what point is trying to be made here, nobody has a convincing answer regarding how the Boii are even remotely related to the river Buna. It’s an extraordinary claim; claims that contrast against prevailing scholarly views are considered
WP:FRINGE, whereas extraordinary views are just that, extraordinary. Botushali (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Klasen E.I. in his book New materials for the ancient history of the Slavs in general and the Slavic-Russians of the pre-Rurik period in particular with a light outline of the history of the Russians before the Nativity of Christ mentions that the Bojana river was probably named after given name Bojan, explaining that this was the name of Homer and that the river was named in his honor. Albanian E. Çabeju mentions that the name Bojana comes from the Albanian version of Buna, but that it also relies on the given name Bojan. Bulgarian Petkanov believes that both names are derived from the Latin toponym Boviana. Some believe that the name is derived from an appellative Boiana in Romansh and that the given names Bojan and Bojana originated from it. It is also mentioned that the name Bojana is older because the Slavs entered the city of Durrhachium in 546, while the Albanians from today's Romania settled those areas in the 10th century. -- Vux33 (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does Durres have to do with the Buna now? I’ll just ignore the ridiculous sentence that you dropped at the end of your statement. Other than that, thank you for providing more sources. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Bojana river was probably named after given name Bojan, explaining that this was the name of Homer and that the river was named in his honor do not tell me you are talking about
Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I would propose to come back to the proposal on naming using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) where it is very clear, it does not matter how a place was called once, but how it is officially called today. Having that in mind, I think there is clear evidence that Buna in Albania (where most of it flows) is officially called that: Bunë. No doubt, it is important to note that in Montenegro the river is called Bojana, this should be clearly stated in the article itself. But, considering that only a very small part of the this river flows in Montenegro it sounds reasonable not to be the main name for the article. Anna Comnena (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already noticed that the request suddenly stalled even though the request has been submitted almost one month ago. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buna (Adriatic Sea) -> Buna (Adriatic)

@

Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Ktrimi991:, i dont mind either way, if there is no disagreement, yeak ok.Resnjari (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I prefer "Adriatic Sea" as a disambiguator, per Adriatic Sea. "The Adriatic" is a little informal. —Alalch E. 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, since everybody agreed on the current name, we better keep it as is.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buna_(Adriatic_Sea)&oldid=1219258465"