Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names): Difference between revisions

Archive of discussions up to 1 Dec '06

I updated the proposal according to the Clarification Needed section above. I did not include that a Names/Etymology section should be created when there are at least three alternate names. How do we want to incorporate that into the proposal? Olessi 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. ? For what I mean see Pécs#names, although there is probably a better example. Septentrionalis 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that formulation. A minor point: I think it would be more aesthetic if the obligatory sentence in the lead is not "known also by several alternative names^Names" but "known also by several alternative names". How about that? Tankred 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. While the alternate names in the lead are usually italicized, are there any objections to bolding alternate names in the separate Names section? Having multiple things bolded in the lead looks awkward to me (Casimir IV Jagiellon), while having a mix of Roman type and italic type (Banská Bystrica) is a little jarring on the eyes (in my opinion, of course). This is not necessarily something that should be clarified in the proposal, but just an opinion about presentation. Olessi 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much bold anywhere can be jarring; see Democratic-Republican Party (United States). There's already language about using judgment to avoid garishness; do we need to strengthen it? Septentrionalis 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related matter, biographical articles quite often use the English name in the title, and the local or official name in bold. In biographies, there is usually only one local name, and the English name is a translation. Do we want to encourage this for cases like Marseilles, where there is only one local name? (Of course, this supposes that the city will be moved to its English name; <sigh>). Septentrionalis 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see from discussions that this intended guideline is not only about the name of the article (a thing rightfully in purview of a WP:NC guideline) but also about texts inside the article itself. That however belongs to WP:MS and should not be taken out from Manuals of Style. People look for text writing guidelines at MS and its sub-pages (such as Wikipedia:Proper_names). And they should find all of it there, not in "some other places" of guidelines. Besides, is this thinking above checked against current MS guidelines and their systematics and logic? Is this discussion announced in MS project pages? This must not go against already agreed MS instructions, and also this should comply with how things are instructed in various MS documents. Shilkanni 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem simpler to add a cross-reference from MOS, which is all Wikipedia:Proper names seems to have. This proposal is rather more detailed than Wikipedia:Proper names#place names, but entirely consistent with it. Septentrionalis 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, inscructions on whether or not to use transliterations in addition to non-Roman scripts for foreign language names. I believe it is vital! If I am serching for Tshernovits or Chernovtsy and find Chernivtsi instead, I will want to know why! I might not even be aware that the city has more than one name and the one I'm looking for isn't official anymore. I might not even be aware that the page I am redirected to is the same city! If a user can't read non-Roman scripts they will have no idea what this the foreign names say or how to pronouce them. I mention this city in particular because it has many foreign / historical names and the issues of transliteration has been contentious of late. It needs to be adressed. Thanks. Kevlar67 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially important for those scripts which are not universally supported, and show up as little boxes. Septentrionalis 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's already dictated by Wikipedia:Accessibility; but it would certainly help to repeat it here. -- Visviva 10:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been stable for over a week; the only even mildly disapproving comment has been that we are overlapping Wikipedia:Proper names and WP:MOS. I added comments to their talk pages, and nobody has objected, here or there. If someone wants to make this a {{guideline}}, I will support the change; this looks like consensus to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of voting to be invoked (and you woudn't prefer to keep the voting mainly within the gography project community), I gladly add my 'Aye' to fixing this as a WP convention.--JoergenB 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more votes; all we need, acoording to Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy, is to change the tag on the page if we have consensus, which I would accept this as being. I'd prefer not to, because I plan to invoke this guideline when the tag is switched. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason while I see we are ready, I'd prefer for somebody else to do the honors...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our lists are being invoked as to whether Bath, the city in England, should be disambiguated, and if so, to what. It's a complex question; the relevant administrative county boundaries have been redrawn twice, and the old counties are still used for ceremonial purposes.

Do we want to say that three encyclopedias determine whether Bath should be Bath, Somerset, when they don't have our needs for disambiguation; or do we not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do about names too rare to appear in English, and where two forms are local official names? This was elided in the South Tyrol discussion; but comes up at Talk:Brussels-Capital_Region#Names_survey: the names of the suburbs of Brussels, where both French and Dutch (Walloon/Flemish, if you prefer) are official names, and the places are very rarely mentioned in English? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what about going with a good ol' Google test?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a section; if anybody disagrees, please discuss here. Single names do seem to be consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but why mentiont the case of 'the communes of the South Tyrol'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partly to document the present solution there, rather than write Wikipedia:naming conventions (South Tyrol); partly to show that that solution, by local population, only works because of particular circumstances which don't exist in most places. I could move the details to a separate page; but even the name of the naming convention would be controversial with strong Italianizers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that examples should go in their own section - where we already discuss Wilno/Vilnius and souch. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free; please leave a cross-reference, since there are several solutions to the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R9tgokunks (talk · contribs) has been bolding alternate/historical names in Polish (formerly German) city articles (as well as Lviv), which breaks consistency with the majority of other locality articles. In addition, he has been adding "formerly", which was discussed and rejected before. Olessi 16:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you ask him to stop and show him this policy...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the beginning of the second sentence in the "Emphasis" section:

It is customary to bold names frequently used in English, and ...

can be ambiguous and misinterpreted. How about rewording it to something like:

It is customary to bold the article title name, and ...

This is the current practice, and all the other Roman script forms can be italicised. --Lysy^talk 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me try it then. --Lysy^talk 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the content of the "definitions" section of the guideline ? Why is it empty ? --Lysy^talk 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It vanished when we stopped using "swaEn" as jargon; since we don't use it - and don't need to - we don't need to define it. (It was structured to include definitions as footnotes; but the present structure seems clearer to me.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not in fact use İstanbul or Meißen as article names; they are and should be redirects. We have indeed had this argument over and over again; and the pædants who would alter this have never prevailed; instead the English Wikipedia has chosen to communicate with its English-speaking readership. The principal purpose of a guideline page is to summarize the results of such discussions, so we need never have them again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's been numerous polls on the accent issues and neither view ever clearly prevailed. Therefore it seems inappropriate to use the guideline to force (or reinforce) one of the sides of the dispute. I think we should neither claim that accents are "bad" nor "good" here until a true community consensus is reached. Moreover, the issue is not within the scope of this particular guideline. --Lysy^talk 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the location of the article Istanbul outside the scope of this guideline? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it certainly is relevant. --Lysy^talk 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, Wikipedia does not use İstanbul or Meißen but it uses Zürich or Besançon, so giving only one usage example can potentially lead to future misinterpretation. I'd either leave it out or provide both and example with and without diacritics (e.g. Istanbul but Zürich). --Lysy^talk 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine; this is partly intended to quell the "misspelling" argument, which has never taken off. I prefer Besançon, since the question of which Zurich is actually used in English was contested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it confusing that we have two separate sections, one titled "Things to remember" and the other "Recommendations". What is the difference ? Should they be merged ? Or maybe renamed to better reflect their purposes and contents ? --Lysy^talk 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely accepted name" seems clearer and less vague to me. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would suggest removing this example:

If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted. For example, the use of Tenedos in this website

A possibly obscure web site can hardly be considered an authoritative source of English usage. It also could lead to too easy adoption of neologisms. Also, using the commercial site to set an example does not seem appropriate. --Lysy^talk 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website does not appear to be obscure; and we do not claim it to be authoritative, merely indicative. The fact that users of the local name feel that translation is necessary in practice is important. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the removal of that example, too. Some editors may be tempted to use various insignificant websites just to support their POV. I think it is better if we stick with major sources. Tankred 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also see the long debate at Talk:Tenedos, which proves that we cannot come to a consensus on what the real English name of the island is. It would be better to give another, less controversial example. Khoikhoi 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the consensus is demonstrated in the move requests and subsequent discussion. What we have is a handful of nationalists who disagree with the consensus, and a lone editor who believes that Wikipedia should always use the official name. (See this extensive edit by Josiah Rowe which summarizes much evidence of English usage; Rarelibra is a single-purpose editor who has similarly insisted that we must use Alto Adige for South Tyrol, although the latter passes our criteria (as does Tenedos).) I agree that this is a weaker form of evidence, as the text says ("probably widely accepted"); and would accept another example if I knew of one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling me a nationalist because I disagree with you? It's still obvious from the talk page that there isn't a consensus at all. Whether you're right or not, what's so hard about picking another example, something that most editors agree on? Khoikhoi 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have overlooked a differnce between your approach as opposed to Baristarim's (on the Turkish side) or Hectorian's (on the Greek side), I regret that; but I genuinely do not see one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for another example: suggest one. This is the only one I happen to know of. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson, who is the "bunch of nationalists" please ? As for consensus, it seems that we have at least 75% consensus that the example is inappropriate and should be removed. --Lysy^talk 13:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenedos has three sides: a collection of Greek editors who support "Tenedos" because it's a Greek island by rights; a collection of Turkish editors (and one crank) who support "Bozcaada" because it's a Turkish island; and a large number of editors (most recently Josiah Rowe, Akhilleus and myself, but also Robert West, Proteus and others) who support "Tenedos" as English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Hm, am I a Turkish nationalist by your definition. --Lysy^talk 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, you're a Polish nationalist by my definition. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it make sense ? Polish nationalists like Greeks. Poland always fought against Turkey. --Lysy^talk 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My wife is Polish, and I am American, and Pmanderson is incorrect and alone in this whole idea/approach. Rarelibra 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the above discussion, we have agreed (3:1 or 75% consensus if you like) to remove the example. Only a single editor (Septentrionalis) opposed it. --Lysy^talk 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis, with all due respect, you're the only one that wants to use the example of Tenedos. Isn't there a less controversial one you can use? Khoikhoi 03:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only example I happen to know of; it has the somewhat unusual property that it is clear that Tenedos is being used to communicate with English-speakers, since the Greek would be Τενεδος. How is this more controversial than, say, Gdanzig, already on our list of examples? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's controversial because many Wikipedians disagree with your opinion on this. This cannot be denied. Khoikhoi 23:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can; a handful of Turkish nationalists and a single-purpose opponent of Wikipedia policy do not make more Wikipedians than disagee with the Gdanzig decision; just as you, and you alone, do not make Istanbul controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing the opinion of your opponents by labeling them as "nationalists" does not make their opinion invalid. The dispute is whether Tenedos is still the most common name for the island (keep in mind that Smyrna was once the common name for İzmir). Since there clearly isn't a consensus yet, another example should be added. Bozcaada is only one of the many trillions of places in this world. Khoikhoi 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We are only citing this example for the use of the argument. I will rephrase to make this clearer.
• There are three, or is it four, separate WP:RM discussions recorded on Talk:Tenedos, and it is where it is. Khoikhoi only thinks this controversial because his ox is gored.
• We have already conceded far too much to Khoikhoi's disruptive edits in using Meissen instead of the far more well-known, and even clearer case of Istanbul as the example on spelling. The same pattern of solitary disruption is visible on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(standard_letters_with_diacritics); is someone willing to co-sign an RFC? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you get it: Tankred, Lysy, and I all agree that it is inappropriate to use Bozcaada as an example. You are are alone on this. Khoikhoi 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VERY alone. Rarelibra 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The example text is:

• Bozcaada or Tenedos? Bozcaada is the modern official name, but Tenedos has been widely used in English since the Renaissance; during which Tenedos has (with one brief exception) had the same official name. In addition, websites about the island use Tenedos as a translation of Bozcaada (as here); this need not be conclusive without other evidence.

Khoikhoi is continuing to object to this text, which documents the use of the argument:

• Bozcaada or Tenedos? One of the arguments for the present location is that websites about the island use Tenedos as a translation of Bozcaada (as here); this would not be decisive in itself.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi is not the only one objecting to the text. There is a consensus against the text. Rarelibra 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rarelibra is a profane and uncivil editor, whose single purpose appears to be to make Wikipedia use official names; contrary to the policy which this page is intended to implement. His opinions should be weighted accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current style guide says:

(Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3)

The colons are superfluous and visually heavy, and other reference books I've looked at don't use them. I would recommend

(Armenian name1; Belarusian name2; Czech name3)

The semicolons improve on the commas because they make it easy to have multiple names in a given language, e.g.

(Armenian name1, name2; Belarusian name3; Czech name4, name5)

Comments?

         --Macrakis 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]