Jump to content

Talk:Tonlé Sap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename

[edit]

I think this article needs to be renamed to Tonlé Sap, as Tonlé already means lake (or a very large, wide river). It's kind of a redundant title. --Dara 00:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a problem, in that the Khmer and English terms aren't quite equivalent. In Khmer, as far as I can tell, there is one name- Tonle Sap- which refers to the lake and river together, while in English we differentiate them. However since the article actually discusses both, renaming seems a good idea. Mark1 02:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible, I'd support the renaming too. Coyote-37 09:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I saw this, I was hit by the redundancy. Needs to be changed right away. Unschool 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor edits only. The images on this page are great but it needs a little more text to flesh it out. Perhaps we could get some ideas from Lake Burley Griffin Paxse 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

[edit]

Why is there a Thai name for a lake wholly in Cambodian territory? And why is the name just a Thai pronunciation of Tonle Sap Khmer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.27.231 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the acute in Tonlé? Khmer isn't tonal, and the second syllable is the least stressed. Is this a French transcription?--94.223.169.174 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butchered

[edit]

I just butchered this article, removing 60% of the images, plus infoboxen and silly cats - Siem Reap province? What on earth were people thinking? This monster takes up the entire middle of country, forget Siem Reap, baby - this thing is in NINE different provinces - the provincial borders go down the middle so everybody gets a piece of the fish. I'm quite happy to have images and dimensions deleted, changed, restored - I still don't think it looks very good now, just better than before. Feel free to restore images I removed. I just couldn't see why a picture of a small girl staring at a camera was relevant to an article on Cambodia's largest landform - mind you there was one of a small boy as well for equity purposes. :) Cheers, Paxse (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonle Sap River

[edit]

Should there be an article for the River? Cambodians do make a distinction between the Tonle Sap and the river that intersects with the Mekong. Also, requesting additional content on the reversal of the flow of the Tonle Sap River and it's significant occuring during the time of the Water Festival in Phnom Penh (Bon Om Tuk). --Dara (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

60% of Cambodians' protein intake

[edit]

How could this be? Surely Cambodians eat rice? Perhaps what is meant is animal protein.User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tonlesap.jpg

[edit]

I am going to enhance the quality of this image a bit and rotate it (north on top).

I have no idea about the legal implications, but i guess it is ok:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia:

"..some licenses require that if you modify the work, your modifications must also be similarly freely licensed; and finally,"

in case i am wrong, maybe somebody has a better idea.... ATBWikirictor (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info-box

[edit]

there are couple of parameters in the info-box, which i have no idea about, e.g. "type" ???? - please help! ATB!Wikirictor (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Tonlé Sap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change impacts

[edit]

This article needs to be updated with more recent information about drought and climate change impacts. It has been in the news many times. There currently isn't a single mention of it on here.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2024

[edit]
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: not moved. While the move isn't about adding or removing diacritics, there is a consensus not to move the article. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonlé Sap → Tonlé Sap Lake – The original name before renamed after the discussion Talk:Tonlé_Sap#Rename above, due to possible confusion with the river that connect the lake and Mekong. The name "Tonlé Sap Lake" is NOT redundant at all.

In that discussion user Markalexander100 stated that "Khmer and English terms aren't quite equivalent. In Khmer, as far as I can tell, there is one name- Tonle Sap- which refers to the lake and river together, while in English we differentiate them." This is not quite right because the official name of the lake in Khmer is "បឹង​ទន្លេសាប" (Boeng Tonle Sap), where បឹង/boeng means lake. So clearly they still have the word "lake" in the name, to differentiate it from the river. ទន្លេ/Tonle means river and that's its only meaning, not "Tonlé already means lake (or a very large, wide river)" as stated by user Dara above. For example, Mekong is "Tonlé Mekong", Bassac River is "Tonlé Bassac", Kong River is "Tonlé Kong". There's no known translation as Tonlé to "lake". Another similarly named geographic feature is the Boeng Tonle Chhmar (a smaller lake next to the Tonle Sap Lake).

So to sum up, if we say "Tonle Sap" (without adding "Boeng") to the Khmer-speaking people, theoretically we are referring to the river (according to the meaning of the words). But then since the lake is too well-known, the term "Tonle Sap" will become ambiguous. However, as a matter of fact, they should be able to tell which one you are referring to, based on the context of the conversation.

My suggestion is to rename this article to Tonlé Sap Lake, and have a separate article about the river. Two options for this separate article's name is:

  1. Tonlé Sap (as per its literal meaning in Khmer) or,
  2. Tonlé Sap (river) and Tonlé Sap becomes the disambiguation page.

The reason for having a separate article for the river is simply because not everything about the river can be merged into the lake's article. For example, Phnom Penh, the state's capital, is located at the mouth of the river and there's probably something about the river related to Phnom Penh's urban planning that's worth writing about. And merging these into the lake's article would be inappropriate. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 17:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some old maps by the U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency that referred to the lake as "Boeng Tonle Sap" and the river as "Tonle Sap": [1], [2], [3]. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and would strongly oppose removing the accent. The lake seems to be commonly referred to in English solely as Tonlé Sap (ie. without the "Lake", but with the diacritic), and would be the primary topic for that term even if we had an article for the river. But as we don't as far as I can see, I don't see a point in unnecessarily lengthening the name. Turnagra (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnagra: "The lake seems to be commonly referred to in English solely as Tonlé Sap (ie. without the "Lake", but with the diacritic), and would be the primary topic for that term even if we had an article for the river." How exactly was this confirmed? If Google search is the tool you used to determine the primary topic for that term, or how common the term is used for each one (lake and river), then I guess I should mention the case of Golden Gate. If you look up "Golden Gate", I think it's pretty clear which one is more common, the bridge or that strait?
I can only agree that in many researches, when the authors mention "Tonlé Sap", they are actually referring to the whole ecosystem (both the river and the lake). It is worth reconsidering which one of these two should be the primary term, or none at all (the term would a disambig). If you think that river is not as commonly known, then I will provide another fact that it is the site of the very famous Bon Om Touk festival of Cambodia. The Phnom Penh Autonomous Port, one of the major port of Cambodia, is also situated on the river's side. And then within the articles currently linked to Tonle Sap, a significant amount of them are referring to the river. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If authors refer to the whole ecosystem, this article should be about the whole ecosystem. We don't need separate articles for the river and the lake if there are no sources that don't treat them separately... EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EmeraldRange "if there are no sources that don't treat them separately..." Please don't get confused, I never said no sources treated them separately. I implied that "in many researches", not "in all researches". ទន្លេតូច (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if there are enough sources that only discuss the lake or only discuss the river (geographical science or culturally), then the solution might be to create three articles EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 23:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EmeraldRange: The point we are focusing on here is which one (lake or river) should be the primary topic for "Tonle Sap". Whether or not to have a separate article has more to do with WP:Notability. And according to WP:GEONATURAL, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", both Tonle Sap Lake (បឹង​ទន្លេសាប/Boeng Tonle Sap) and Tonle Sap River (ទន្លេសាប/Tonle Sap) are two different named natural features, and definitely more than one source discuss them, so they are eligible for two separate articles.
Since you mentioned three articles, I guess you are trying to refer to the case of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan–Huron, aren't you? Well, I think the Tonle Sap lake and river are not necesarily like that. The lake and river are studied together most of the time, simply because of the important role it plays to the lake: the river is the main source of water that carries flood from the Mekong to the lake. If you were to have three articles: Lake, River, Lake + River, you will likely find that contents of the Lake and Lake + River articles overlap (due to their close relation, as pointed out above). So my point is, two articles for Lake and River are enough.
Let me correct myself a little bit:
When the authors mention "Tonlé Sap", they are actually referring to the whole ecosystem (both the river and the lake) but then in the same study/research, they will also use "Tonle Sap Lake" and "Tonle Sap River" to differentiate which is which, where necessary. (see this and this)
The reason I brought up this argument is to reject Turnagra's statement that "The lake seems to be commonly referred to in English solely as Tonlé Sap (ie. without the "Lake")". I don't think you can find any sources that studies the lake but completely ignores the river, due to the its important role. The river, on the other hand, is very well-known for its natural seasonal flow reversal. This unique hydrology characteristic has been been the subject of countless of studies and researches (which in this case, the flow reversal is the main subject of study, not the lake). When you mention "Tonle Sap's reversal", the term "Tonle Sap" in this context clearly refers to the river, not the lake.
So to sum up, the river can only be at least as important as the lake, which means none of them is the primary topic. And that's why I mentioned option 2 above. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the Tonlé Sap article should be about the whole ecosystem if that is correct. I haven't looked at any sources to confirm, but if what you say is correct, Lake + River should be one article. Lake + River being separate articles with a smaller scope is not a problem as long as they don't become WP:CONTENTFORKs, trying to split Tonlé Sap into a lake and river would do exactly that if there is no third article about it.
> I don't think you can find any sources that studies the lake but completely ignores the river, due to the its important role.
Additionally, this isn't how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC works- if Tonlé Sap, the system, is referred to in sources as a whole system, then there is notability for the system and it deserves it own article. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the system, and not the lake nor the river which can be two different articles. i.e. three articles Tonlé Sap, Tonlé Sap lake, Tonlé Sap river. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EmeraldRange Tonlé Sap is indeed referred to in sources as a whole system, I agree BUT as far as I can see, this reference should only be taken as a trivial mention (WP:SIGCOV). When it comes to more in-depth discussion (in the same sources of that trivial mention), that's no longer the case, but instead they will use "Tonle Sap Lake" and "Tonle Sap River" to refer to the lake and the river, respectively.
I agree that if Tonlé Sap as the whole ecosystem has its own article, then it would be the primary topic. However, like I said above, it's just a trivial mention, and hence might not be notable enough. And even if we try to draft one, here's what I see. Since we have determined that the coverage is the whole ecosystem, we will have to stick to that and our subject will have to be the whole ecosystem throughout the article. This can probably make the whole article sounding too technical, which goes against WP:TECHNICAL. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relist, to allow additional discussion including regarding removing the diacritic BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Rivers, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Cambodia, WikiProject Lakes, and WikiProject Climate change have been notified of this discussion. Reading Beans 17:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: No comments for almost a month. Relisting for more input. Reading Beans 17:46, 14 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tonlé_Sap&oldid=1241556823"