Category talk:Dietenbach (Dreisam)

Lemma is wrong

The disambigation parentheses contains an wrong name, the Dietenbach (GKZ 23388944) being a trributary not to the Dreisam (GKZ 23388), yet to some Mühlbach (GKZ 23388944), which itselb south of Gottenheim is a tributary to anothe Mühlbach (GKZ 2338894), which, now called Alte Dreisam, finally trinutes to the Dreisam (GKZ 23388). --Silvicola (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Silvicola: is there (de:Dietenbach) exists corresponding article/link?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: There isn't yet an entry for this Dietenbach. My source for habitually listing homonyms for waterbodies in Baden-Württemberg is

• the thematical map of LUBW
• here focussed and with the relevant layers („Gewässernetz“, „Gewässername“) on

Augmenting the disambiguation page on de-wp, I didn't find this Dietenbach by the find function, as it is based only on the names of layer „Gewässernetz“, which are arbitrary attached names to whole waterbody strings spurce-to-mouth composed according to hydrological preferences and comprising segments with different names, thus onomastically unreliable. The names proper can only be found in layer „Gewässername“, which alas isn't searchable. In this case the Dietenbach was gobbled up with the (first) Mühlbach to which it contributes, thus couldn't be found by a search.

Habitually, I would now put this Dietenbach with a senseful red lemma into the disambiguation page of de-wp, as I would equally do, for the sake of completeness, with all successive river names down to the first one river which already has an article in de-wp. Yet

• part of the „red“ chain (the second Mühlbach alias Alte Dreisam) has (downstream) anpther name and I don't know which to elect as its lemma
• two sucessive member of the chain are (according to LUBW) both called „Mühlbach“, a rather generic name (“mill brook”). In such cases, the need to distinguish habitually makes the locals to differentiate names, so I doubt the names of LUBW (where one has, according to my experience, not much zeal for finding out and using the proper names) are to be really trusted.
• these waterbodies seem all to be artificially modified or even artificially created, which usually has the effect of them having multiple names, wheras LUBW always gives but one (and not necessarily the most common)
• I'm alien to this region, so I shouldn't impose lemmas on future contributors which are usually regionally based and thus more competent than me in onomastic questions.

As a first try (!), I would suggest you use Dietenbach (Mühlbach) as the new cat lemma here in Commons. Maybe it will have ti be changed sometimes in the future.

--Silvicola (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)