Talk:Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve

[Untitled]

User:Latebird , please do not merge, delete, or redirect without consensus. Mattisse 16:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been explained to me that User:P199 got involved with this. Why did he do all that obscure redirecting and hidding of the original article? What is going on? Mattisse 20:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Varying names

Perhaps this article will help disentangling the various names and clusters etc. [1] Mattisse 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the various UN agencies seem to do their best to confuse matters even more than they would otherwise be. Because of that, we need to distinguish very clearly between UN given designations and real-life names.

• In real life, Uvs Nuur (or Ubsu-Nur) is the lake.
• In the UNEP article: Uvs Nuur is the name of a transboundary cluster of reserves in and around the Uvs Nuur (Lake Ubsunur) Basin in Mongolia

When talking about UN sponsered protection programs and their associated areas, then that article may indeed help to untangle a few things. When talking about actual geographical features, we may need to resort to other sources. --Latebird (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It does become difficult. In the articles on India there were arguments over which language spelling to use for such articles. India has several, depending on which era you are talking about, or what religion you are, or your ethnicity etc. Or whether to use the English version, or which English version, etc. (since this is an English wikipedia), whether to use the most "popular" name or the so-called correct name (depending on who was deciding the correctness). By the way, one Google book source I found said there was a fresh water lake in the basin along with the saltine lake. True? Mattisse 00:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Most likely. There are several candidates in the eastern part of the basin, but I haven't found a map yet that names any of them. --Latebird (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two larger freshwater lakes in Eastern part of the UN(Uvs Nuur) Basin: Баян нуур (30.8 sq km) and Терехоль (in Tuvan) = Дөрөө нуур (in Mongolian). On Terekhol is Russian Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve, my frends spent several expedition seasons there.

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 drainage basin, may be 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" Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Uvs Nuur, then you'll find that Mongolian: Увс Нуур; == Tuvan: Убсу-Нур, the latter in Russian combined to Ubsunur. In short, Uvs Nuur and Ubsunur are indeed the same lake in different languages.

As to the extents of the various basins and hollows, we need a map! So far I have assumed that the Uvs Nuur basin is basically the northern bulge of the Great Lakes Basin. The best map I've found so far was in this paper. It doesn't explicitly outline the boundaries, but clearly shows the topography. The question would be, wether the right half (including area nr. 11), beyond the very low diagonal ridge with the small (probably fresh water) lake belongs to the geographical Uvs Nuur basin or not. The Great Lakes basin includes everything down to the Mongolian Altai, partly to the south outside of the map. --Latebird (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need better documentation. This is a well researched area internationally by geologists so that should not be too hard to do. (There are many Google book references.) Even the various original inhabitants disagreed over what was what and still do. Then we have the various academics and those who translate language literally having their say (which certainly would not work if we were trying to determine geographical names/place for UNESCO in English). Also, we need to make a decision, in my opinion. I suggest that either we do our own thing, naming as we decide and not get involved with the UNESCO designations, or we stick with the UNESCO designations (if we are concerned about others in the world being interested in the sites -- as readers will never relate the esoteric names with the UNESCO sites). This is what happened in India, resulting finally in the India group changing of the names to match the UNESCO sites.

This one of the many problems of the merge at all costs position. We could have articles named after the UNESCO sites and explaining that. Then have other article(s) breaking out the area in different ways. For example, the Tarim Basin and the Taklamakan Desert are not UNESCO sites but are more important in many ways and much more interesting without this argument over wording which was resolved quickly. The important thing is that the names and articles make sense (not in terms of translated names) but in terms of relevant geographic, geological, ecological and ethnic cohesive units. If you haggle over translations, especially over words that derive from meaning one thousand years before modern earth siences, nothing will make sense. In the end, the purpose of the articles is supposed to be accessibility to the general reader of English. This is not the Russion Wikipedia. Regards, Mattisse 13:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Your friends experience there is OR, as I am sure you know! Mattisse 13:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• First. Official Tuvan name of the Uvs Nuur is Успа-Холь(Uspa-Khol), not Убсунур which is Russian spelling of the Mongolian name.
• Second. This small probably fresh lake is Терехоль (in Tuvan) = Дөрөө нуур (in Mongolian). This lake is main part of Ubsunur reserve. And it is eatable fish in it.
• Third. About map. I can create it, but we need decide abot its content/legend.
• Fourth. To my opinion even Greate Lakes Basin term basin is ambiguous too. In Mongolian and Russian it is orographic depression, not drainage watershed area.

And orographic and drainage basin are not wording problem, but sense and area coverage are different, like America and USA (we can call it America too) has different meanings, isn't it? Why I'm talking about Mongolian and/or Russian names of the depression - we need be sure about sense of the terms. English name is translation only - but encyclopedia is right place for correct meanings explanation, I guess. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have your input. Agree that it is the sense of the words that counts. (Maybe you would not have supported the merge that took place of the Uvs Nuur Basin into the Ubsunur Hollow?) Anyway, I think you are on the right track. Yes, geology books and encyclopaedia articles on geology that explain what they mean by the terms they use may give good definitions. Mattisse 14:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What is with basin and hollow merge. If we are sure authors meant the same - texts have to be merged.

Not geology, but geomorphology is right source.

And my intention is to push you on a right track. It is possible, I see. Articles creation without clear understanding of their theme definition is not welcomed. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruwiki has ru:Убсу-Нур, and Uspa-Khol also seems to be correct, so we'll have to fix that in several articles.

First we need a source map to identify all the parts of the puzzle. Creating our own with the result will have to wait until we know more.

The Great Lakes basin clearly isn't a drainage basin (it contains (parts of?) several seperate drainage basins, including the Uvs Nuur basin). The only real ambiguity here is how far it extends to the south east.

As to the general naming question, my position is very simple: If we talk about geographical entities, use geographic names, if we talk about protected sites, use their names. The rationale is equally simple: UNESCO has no jurisdiction to name geographical entities. And naming geographical entities after UNESCO sponsored protection projects/sites that happen to cover approximately the same territory is misleading at best. As was correctly noticed, those places have been there for quite a while before the UNESCO came along. In those cases where a protected site doesn't have its own article but is only mentioned in the article about the geographic entity, the UNESCO names can be redirected for those people who search for them. As for geographical names, I generally prefer local names, unless we're talking about really famous stuff like the Gobi (local: Govi). --Latebird (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Official Tuvan name is not in wide use, even Tuvans call the lake Ubsu-Nur. Uspa-Khol comes from Russian topo maps and only small Russian=Tuvan part is signed with this name.

UNESCO does not give names to the geographic entities, but for UNESCO projects only. For me and for geography it is clear Убсунурская котловина is a depression, not watershed.

Southern edge of Great Lakes Basin (depression, hollow) is line where elevation gradient changes from + to -. Simple watershed, but at this southern edge only. Our car felt the difference - its speed increased. It is nice thing to go down to the Lakes Dale, every 2-3 seconds you a loosing 1 m of altitude. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Redirects are not the solution to everything. So much is inappropriately redirected on wikipedia, that many editors bail out when they end up unexpectedly at another site name. They assume they are going to have to hunt through a long article about other stuff before they find what they want, and often they don't feel like doing that. That is how some of the India articles on UNESCO sites ended up marooned. Mattisse 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good practise to redirect to a suitable subsection of a more general article. That way, any clicking user will directly end up at the content they were looking for. --Latebird (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "redirect" or "link"? I have never seen a part of an article redirected to a "suitable subsection of a more general article {thereby removing it from the article). Could point out an example of what you mean? Also, I object to your change of pix for the article. I uploaded that image from NASA for this article. That pix that you put there now is a repeat of the pix on a similar article, hence reduces variety and encourages bordom -- a person having seen the same pix on one article is apt to only glance at it the second time and not examine it. Also, you did this without consensus to this article -- an article that you have tried to redirect out of existence several times and place the contents in your own preferred article. Therefore, I am going to return the original picture I placed there instead of another repeat of your piture. Regards, Mattisse 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mean "redirect". Of course, a "part of an article" can't be redirected (how on earth?). But article titles redirecting to subsections of articles are quite common, even if not used quite as often as they should.

See further below about that NASA image. --Latebird (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to understand what you mean, since you have taken over all the articles. Much of what you do is not readily understandable, so I thought you were going to impliment another odd idea of yours. Your writing is not clear much of the time. May I ask what is your language of origin? Mattisse 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that idea from about "redirecting part of an article". I certainly never mentioned such a thing before you did, so I must decline responsibility for this specific part of your confusion. But generally speaking, if you're unsure about how the technology works around here, don't hesitate to ask. It's never too late to learn new tricks, and operating just on assumptions is not really a workable alternative. --Latebird (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Uvs Nuur Basin is not the same place geographically as Ubsunur Hollow

Please remember this and not confuse the two. Regards, Mattisse 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that referenced opinions, not my private or even your, we have respect. I think it is possible basin and hollow have different sense. But is it possible make orders to my collegues in Wiki editing? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My current understanding is that the Ubsunuur Hollow is a part of the Uvs Nuur basin. "Not the same place geographically" therefore seems at least a bit over the top. At one point, someone even claimed that Ubsunur refers to a different lake, but that doesn't make sense. Ubsu-Nur is Russian for Uvs Nuur, and Ubsunur is simply a garbled version of that. Or do we have any reliable sources telling us something different? --Latebird (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found Ubsunur Hollow Reserve site, here (in Russian) is description of Убсунурская котловина geography. This description is very close to the watershed basin. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not understanding Russian... Would that mean that "Ubsunur Hollow" is really just another name for "Uvs Nuur basin"? --Latebird (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This means that we have a reference for that opinion. I will try to find something in books... Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Physical Geography World Atlas (Soviet Ac.Sci. 1964) p.201 (Geomorphology map of Soviet Union) classifies the planes around Uvs Nuur as MH₁₄class what means "Intramountaineous hollow" = Межгорная котловина. So Hollow does not includes mountaineous parts of the watershed basin (it is visible at the map). If we will respecting this atlas opinion. It is Great National Atlas of Mongolia, but I need have relations with Academy ... Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that in English watershed is technically a divide (water divide) that separates one watershed area from another. Especially in the U.S. and Canada, the term "drainage basin" is used to denote watershed instead. Is that the sense it is being used here? Mattisse 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I will remove the material refers to the other area not being considered by you, as that information is inappropriate in this article. Mattisse 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Which "other area" are you talking about exactly? Btw.: I would prefer to use the term "drainage baisin" as well, the double meaning of "watershed" may cause misunderstandings too easily. --Latebird (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, drainage basin is correct.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can add 3 more Котловина 's: Minusinsk Hollow, Tuva Depression,Darkhad valley. These Котловина's are in the chain (from S to N):

• Great Lakes ru:Котловина/mn:Хотгор
• Uvs Nuur ru:Котловина/mn:Хотгор
• Tuva ru:Котловина
• Darkhad valley ru:Котловина/mn:Хотгор
• Minusinsk ru:Котловина

They are translated in Wiki as Basin, as Hollow, as Depression and as Valley. There are translations of the same Котловина term. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, wikipedia is dominated by the American point of view. If you notice, on wikipedia, all wikilinks to watershed ultimately must redirect to Drainage basin unless you want to leave the watershed wikilink going to a disambig page. I wrote the explanation on the disambig page and explained the different usage again on the Drainage basin page with a footnote. This is an example of the American interpretation of the word dominating the use of the word in Europe and other parts of the world. Hence, if you look through wiki articles on the subject, you find a jumble of misuse of the words. The same situation exist between endorheic lake and endorheic basin , which are considered by most geologists as the same thing. Editors like Latebird do not seem to understand or care about the underlying geological concepts, and would rather take over article and change their direct without consensus with the original editors. A sorry state of affairs that will not, in the end, result in an accurate, improved, or interesting article about geological and ecological concepts, though Latebird gets to have his way. Likewise hollow has no geological meaning on wikipedia, so the mass carnage Latebird has caused over the use of these names has been misguided in my opinion. Mattisse 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, Mattisse, you are are not talking with abstract partner, but with concrete Wiki editors. Who of them is against drainage basin term as such? It is normal, correct term, precisely describing its sense. We have make a decision to use it as synonym/translation of Котловина term or not. And some time ago I want pay your attention, that drainage basin is term from physical geography (geomorphology) field, but not geology, you see. I've studied this at university as you, I hope. So you are right - hollow has no geological meaning, because it belongs to different branch of knowledge. From geology or tectonics poin of view it is graben. And be more respectful to your collegues in Wikipedia editing, or the way of your discussion can be interpreted as a personal attack. Sincerely Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect image

Üüreg Nuur (new file)

Uvs Nuur

Please note that the image Image:Uvs nuur.jpg does NOT show Uvs Nuur (right), despite the name and despite the description from the NASA site. Instead, it shows Üüreg Nuur, a little further south west (compare the outlines of the lakes on any decent map, or just compare the images). I've re-uploaded it as Image:Uureg Nuur.jpg (left) and submitted the misnamed copy for deletion to avoid any further confusion. --Latebird (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes!!! I didn't recognize this in time! Honor to you, Latebird! Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is still not convinced, this view in Google maps shows both lakes in context. The NASA image has Üüreg Nuur slightly rotated to the left. --Latebird (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is too bad. The "wrong" version gives an excellent view of the geology of an endorheic basin while the "correct" one is uninformative. But since this article is not about geology it is immaterial here, but good for geologically-oriented articles. Mattisse 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just read and try to understand what I wrote? If you want to show Üüreg Nuur, use Image:Uureg Nuur.jpg (the correctly named copy I uploaded). If you want to show Uvs Nuur, use Image:Uvs-nuur.jpg. If you just want to show an endorheic basin, use any of the two, but label it correctly. And in either case, don't use the misnamed copy that is going to be deleted. --Latebird (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, a compassionate person already fixed that for me. Mattisse 19:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing the topic of this page

Since this is the third time this has happened (or is happening) to the article, so that the content I am interested in writing about is redirected or merged inaccurately, I propose that Latebird return to his original target page that I was working one, and let me move this page to another name to fit the content I have written and so others may join me in doing that. I am tired of having all the content of the articles I worked on removed to focus solely on Latebird's concerns. Mattisse 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I request that you focus your attention on Uvs Nuur Basin, the article Latebird first attacked. Surely you are willing to allow me to continue writing an article on a somewhat different topic. I realize that Latebird stripped the original article and put the contents into Uvs Nuur Basin, but that should not disallow me from continuing one of the other articles I was working on. Latebird's goal seems to be to merge all the articles I was working on into one. I am pleading with you to focus your energy on Uvs Nuur Basin rather than needlessly merging all the content I wrote into one. This is a request, as I realize that I have no power here and my concerns are irrelevant. I would like to be able to follow a different course then Latebird's endless arguments over Russian wording while dismissing and attempts to interject geological information into the article. (This is one of many pages that Latebird has interjected his view that the article not focus on real world issues like geology, but only on arguments over Russian translations. It is not a very inclusive position as I have now been kicked out of all the articles I was working on, since knowledge of the Russian language is now mandatory for contributing to these articles. Mattisse 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this article is not about Uvs Nuur basin

This article is not about Uvs Nuur basin. Latebird has merged and redirected all articles not strictly concerned with Uvs Nuur basin to that article. I looks like he is trying to do the same thing here. I am requesting that you take your concerns about Uvs Nuur basin to that article. Mattisse 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First, could you try to assume good faith? Terms like "attacked" are not really appropriate in a discussion like this. And repeatedly accusing me of having merged articles around here doesn't help either. Reality is, I haven't. In fact, I have hardly ever touched this specific article here. With your 35,000+ edits on Wikipedia, it should be trivial for you to figure that out. It's not hard at all if you are even just the least bit interested.

Second, the discussion on what the focus of this article should be is not finished yet. It doesn't make sense to start changing it now before we have reached any kind of solid consensus. Right now, the discussion is still very open. If you read this talk page, you'll notice that we've just tried to figure out what exactly that "Ubsunur hollow" really is, because the information you added about it so far doesn't answer that question at all. Let's figure it out together, and then decide about how to proceed further. --Latebird (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith when you trashed articles I put work in without consensus or consultation? Now you are attempting to delete an image that is no longer in the article you took over, apparently as a vendetta, as it an image that I can use elsewhere in the geological articles I like to write. It seems that by complaining, I at least get you to recognize my existence. That is one step forward for me. Please follow your own advice about consensus. With all my edits on wikipedia, I have rarely encountered legitimate editors that act as you do. Mattisse 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I warned you [here], from now on when you utter claims like "trashed articles without consensus or consultation" you will have to provide evidence by diffs, or you'll face admin sanctions for personal attacks. If that is the attention you strive for, and the constructive discussions most other editors besides you are having on this and similar talk pages are not good enough for you, then that's your choice. --Latebird (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I would ask you to stop posting nasty little notes on my talk page.[2] Mattisse 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Any more and I will ask for admin sanctions not only for personal attacks but for your changes to articles without consensus. Mattisse 19:45, 14 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. Discussions of specific topics must be carried out in talk pages of the corresponding articles. And the discussion is already in progress. before you jumped in with wikilawyering. Project pages are for general organization. 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)

Ubsunur Hollow

This article is almost identical to Ubsunur Hollow, with some pieces of text and most pictures being completely identical. Maybe the two articles should be merged? --Roberta jr. (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Ubsunur Hollow. I will try to fix this article to reflex the differences. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)