Talk:Øresund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Denmark (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sweden (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Oresund bridge[edit]

Nothing about the Oresund bridge here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.147.144 (talkcontribs) 23:06, 30 January 2006

There is now. :)
Apis (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Name[edit]

What should we name the article?

The strait between Denmark and Sweden is called the same in both Denmark and Sweden, although it is spelled with a different character: Øresund and Öresund. Ø and Ö both referring to the same vowel, but that vowel is not used in the English language. In both Denmark and Sweden it's also informally referred to as sundet ('the sound').

English language sources refer to it as "the Sound": Norstedts sv-en dictionary translates "Öresund" with "the Sound". Encyclopædia Britannica and Encarta both list it as "the Sound" as well.

Suggestions made so far are: the Sound, Öresund, Øresund and Oresund.

This problem show up in all articles linking here as well (it's an important seaway after all so it's going to get mentioned in other articles). We could really use some insight by more editors, especially non Scandinavian ones.
Apis (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The name - again[edit]

Encyclopædia Britannica uses The Sound[1]. The same name is used by the Danish Maritime Authority [2] and in other official government documents[3]. Therefore the name of the article should be The Sound (strait). --Muniswede (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

As far as I know, there is no "Oresund" in traditional English usage. There is The Sound, or if one wants to use the local names, there is Øresund or Öresund. Subsequently, the article should be moved to one of these headings. However, I would like to hear the native English-speakers' word about this. Is The Sound still commonly used? --Sasper 07:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough there has been no debate on this issue here since early 2007.
Which name is most commonly used in English?
The name is Øresund in Danish and Öresund in Swedish. The strait constitutes the border between Denmark and Sweden, so both of them are "locally correct". Furthermore, a "Danish spelling" in English could be offensive to Swedes and a "Swedish spelling" in English could be offensive to Danes. And both spellings are complicated in the English language as both "Ö" and "Ø" are "foreign" letters. The name "The Sound" is also a bit complicated as that word also has an other meaning. What about Oresund, Oresund strait, Oresound and so on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedum (talkcontribs) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Why offensive? I'm Swedish and I cannot understand why someone would be offended by a Danish Ø. I guess that's why the name hasn't been debated. Actually, I think Oresund is much stranger since Ö and Ø are the same letter and pronounced similarly, whereas O is considered another letter and pronounced differently. Aaker (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also from Sweden, county of Scania or Skåne in danish and swedish. To use danish spelling of this straight is not offensive to people of the part of Sweden that borders the straight. There are absolutely no objections to the spelling "Øresund" here. In fact the interregional trains that crosses the tunnel under (closest to Kastrup airpot of Copenhagen)and bridge above the sea is spelled "Øresundståg" on both sides of Øresund/Öresund. And since before 1658 Scania was a part of Denmark and we share the same blood and culture there is no offense in the danish spelling at all. The letter "Ö" / "Ø" is by the way pronounced exactly the same - like "U" in "church" or "Churchill". The swedish alphabet ends "...X,Y,Z,Å,Ä,Ö" while the danish ends "...X,Y,Z,Æ,Ø,Å". Pronounciated "Å"="Å" like "A" in "allright"; "Æ"="Ä" like "A" in "at". However in english wikipedia the english language should be used. Therefore the article should be eighter "Oresund" or "The Sound" - wich is the most known in the UK. /Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.36.33 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That was really not the main point. But as "ö" and "ø" do not exist in the English language I think it would more convenient for native English speakers to use another spelling (and pronounciation). The article about the bridge is e.g. called Oresund Bridge. But I think the different spellings are at least a bit sensitive. The bridge has an official "compromise Dano-Swedish" hybrid name "Øresundbron" But the traditional names in other languages are e.g. The Sound (English), Sunt (German), Détroit du Sund (French), Sont (Dutch). The Scandinavian letters are not so easy to handle in other languages. The problem is that "sound" also has another meaning in English. But this should not just be discussed by Scandnavians. --Vedum (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Oresund would be the best name for this article, since it is the reasonable anglicised version of both the Danish Øresund and the Swedish Öresund. I'm sure it's fully comprehensible to people who have seen the Danish and Swedish terms and it is not any more clumsy. Giving preference to one of the two languages in this case could look almost a little POV, although I don't see it as a big issue and is more interested in consistency across articles. Tomas e (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am Swedish, as I think you are, Tomas e. The other contributors to this debate are also Danish or Swedish, I found out checking their user pages. I also ask: Are there no native English speakers out there who could tell us about the most common way of referring to this strait in the English language? I am also am also interested in consistency. --Muniswede (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm also from Sweden and personally do not care if the article is called Øresund or Öresund, although it might eventually cause some silly national edit war (it happens).
It seems to me, since this is the English Wikipedia, the article name should be what is most commonly used in English speaking countries, and not what we call it in Denmark or Sweden (e.g. Skåne redirects to Scania). Alternate regional spellings should be mentioned in the lead and there should be redirects of course (as is already the case). This seems to agree with the wikipedia guidelines on naming convetions for geographic names.
Norstedts sv-en dictionary translates Öresund to the Sound. Encyclopædia Britannica and Encarta both list it as the Sound as well. The Sound is already used by the band with the same name though. So technically this page should be named "The Sound", the band page could be renamed to "The Sound (band)" or possibly this page could be called "The Sound (strait)", although I prefer "The Sound" to refer to this page (in accordance with the other encyclopedias).
Apis (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article name should be the most commonly used name in English speaking countries. But only Scandinavians participate in this discussion. Perhaps "The Sound (strait)" is the best option so far. --Muniswede (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Returning to the subject, I note that the articles Oresund Bridge and Oresund Region are listed without choosing between Swedish Ö and Danish Ø. My opinion is still that naming would be more consistent if this article was moved to Oresund. Tomas e (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I still think the sound would be best, but as Muniswede says, only Scandinavians appears to participate here. It would be nice to hear a native English speaking persons opinion as well. But my above mentioned references indicate the sound at least.
Also, I found this in the page history:

20:49, 15 March 2008 OldakQuill (talk | contribs) m (moved Oresund to Øresund: "Oresund" isn't a popular English spelling.)

So someone has objected to Oresund before.
Apis (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a request for comments, hopefully that will resolve this.

I prefer the Sound and that the current article about the band the Sound is moved to The Sound (band). I think this waterway is more notable than a pop-band in both a geographical, political, economical and historical sense. :)

I don't think Oresund is a commonly used name anywhere, it's one of those bad compromises that makes everyone unhappy and is basically just wrong.
Apis (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Non-Scandiniavian (yay!:P)) - The article's intro sounds pretty comprehensive to me. If it stays that way, the choice will be easy: articles should be named according the first boldprint word or phrase. Right now, you have it as The Sound, so the title should be The Sound. If you go for that, I'd move the band's name to The Sound (band) rather than give this one any ()-markings... after all, the geography has been around for longer than the band and still exists. (As a side, I am obviously too far away to know much about that particular location, so you'll probably have to wait for someone from Britain to comment...:P)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 14:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If The Sound is the most commonly used name of this strait when it is mentioned in the English speaking world (and not just by Danes and Swedes) that of curse also should be the name of the article. The strait constitues the border between Denmark and Sweden so both the ö-spelling and the ø-spelling is locally correct, but none of the letters exists in English. --Muniswede (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Sound" sounds like the best solution. It's an English-language encyclopedia, so the most common English name should be the article name. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as Öresund, Øresund, and even the incorrect Oresund remain as redirects, this seems like the safest, most sensible solution. Rivertorch (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In American press reports, it is almost universally called "Oresund." Yes, the O is incorrect, but anglicized names often butcher spellings (Brazil, Japan, Spain, etc.) MarkNau (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet most English-language maps label it "The Sound." MarkNau (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I find a lot of anglicization using "Oresund Bridge", "Oresund region", "Oresund strait", "Oresund University." The term "The Sound" is used in other places where there is a sound, but it's usually only a local term. For example, people living near Puget Sound will often talk about "the Sound" in reference to their local sound. I would go with Oresund. And thanks for the opportunity to learn a little more about the Copenhagen/Malmo area! (See what I mean about anglicizations - "Copenhagen") MarkNau (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now noticed that user "Vedum" is swedish - but without telling us that. As I understand he doesn't live in the Oresund-region however. (??) If my suspicion is true he has started a silly non-question debate whithout knowlidge of the region. And why he should feel offense by danish spelling I don't understand. Furthermore this name question in english Wikipedia is not up to danes or swedes (from any part X-danish or not), but to people with english as first language. In Sweden we spell "the River Thames" - "Themsen" (and just "River Thames" without "the" isn't possible to spell)The issue isn't a local matter, just english and if "Oresund" is the most common, that spelling should of course be used. /Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.36.33 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that more people with English as first language should participate. Yes Vedum is probably Swedish (after all there is a locality by that name in Västergötland). But why this is a "silly non-question" I do not understand. The river Rhine is Rhein in German, Rhin in French and Rijn in Dutch. All the names are correct as the river flows in, or contitutes the border between, The Netherlands, Germany and France . But the article in English is of course titled Rhine. --Muniswede (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Opinion from an American English speaker: I think that "the Sound" is unacceptably generic. I can think of at least two other major sounds that are referred to locals as "the sound" -- namely Puget Sound and Long Island Sound. Also, though I know very little about Scandinavian languages, I can say that "the Sound" isn't a straightforward translation of "Oresund." I think that "Oresund" is the most reasonable Anglicization of the name -- "ö" is at least moderately exotic for English speakers, and "ø" more so. I don't see a consensus on how to spell the name in RS's -- [1] and [2] use diverging diacritics, and AFAICT they are both official-ish sites for the bridge spanning the sound. "Oresund" splits the difference, and heads off any potential ethnic conflicts, in additional to being easy to type and the most plausible Anglicization. — ækTalk 02:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. Oresund as a plausible anglicization, and you can talk about the alternative spellings in the article.
DHooke1973 (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Sound isn't the local name, it's the English name. It's not because it's more major or important than other sounds. Likely it just happened to be "the sound" from a historical English perspective. The English language originates from Europe (and the sound connects the Baltic sea with the North Sea.) If we named it based on the local names it would be Öresund or Øresund, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Swedish/Danish.
Øresundsbron is the local official name of the bridge, a compromise using Danish letter ø and Swedish spelling of bridge. [3] is not official, appears to be from a German travel agency (thus the choice of ö perhaps) and the URL is spelled with oe instead of ö/ø. [4] is not a good source for this either since it's not an English language source (it's translated from Danish.)
We shouldn't make up plausible Anglicisations ourselves, but rather name it based on what's the official English name. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Encarta and maps are traditional RS for these things.
(Many have objected to Oresund already and it seems to be wrong from every perspective. O is not the same letter/vowel as ö/ø and they don't sound alike, we could just as well call it Eresund or Iresund then.)
Apis (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Going on historical reasons, perhaps we should say that the Sound is between Denemearc and Geatlond? The point being that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and there is no reason for us to inherit the onomastic predilections of conservative British academia. Furthermore, Encarta, Britannica Concise and Columbia Encyclopedia have entries at "Øresund," not "The Sound," so if anything the RS appear to be in favor of keeping the page where it is. On the question of "Øresund" vs. "Öresund" vs. "Oresund", this guideline is the relevant one. All the RSs I've linked to here support the use of "Øresund". Here is an article from the Independent (UK newspaper) that uses the umlaut, here's a BBC article that uses plain "o." The fact that our resident Scandinavians appear disinclined to edit-war over the question (kudos for being mature, folks) means that there isn't really an urgent need to change the status quo. If we do, then we ought to change to "Oresund," per my arguments above and consistency with other articles. — ækTalk 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Naturally we shouldn't try to preserve history, we should simply call it whatever the official English name is. We shouldn't call it something else just because we dislike British academia. The above was an explanation as to why it might be called "the Sound" (which at first surprised me). The North Sea is also a strange name from a global perspective, but we still call it that because it's the official English name (for historical reasons).
Last time I checked, Encarta called it "the Sound", although now only the dictionary remains online, which list it as "øresund"? Britannica uses "the Sound" [5]. (Why answers.com says Britannica list it as "øresund" I do not know?) According to answers.com Columbia Encyclopedia list it as "Øresund" or "the Sound". Answers.com also lists this wikipedia article however, which makes me a bit suspicious of that site. Most English-language maps label it "the Sound" apparently [6]. (I suspect "oresund" is just because of sloppy journalists).
There are soon (if not already) more non-native english speakers than native ones. Is the english wikipedia the english wikipedia or the british / american one? Soon the english language will be defined as much by the non-native speakers as the native speakers, especially concerning subjects that are local. English is the global lingua franca, and it is about time non-native speakers stop feeling like second class citizens when discussing language subjects like this. My advice is: choose the spelling that is most correct from a global perspective - the way the region markets itself to the international audience. Claesh1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
Answer to "/Eriksson". Yes I am Swedish. But your "without telling us that"-statement I do not understand. From your name Eriksson I guess that you also are a Swede, but you did not tell us that. What's the point? I have lived in different parts of the country including this region. I do not understand what my present domicile has to do with the question of the most correct name of the strait in English. --Vedum (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Oresund[edit]

I see no consensus emerging from the above discussion but status quo, with Øresund as the article name and The Sound as the first name in the lead, is untidy and confusing. According to the Wikipedia naming conventions one should choose the "widely accepted English name, in a modern context" if one exists. By far the most common name used in English language media, on both sides of the Atlantic, appears to be Oresund, e.g. NYT [4] and BBC [5]. Most articles talk of Oresund, the Oresund bridge, [6] or Oresund region without reference to "the Sound". "The Sound" is a traditional English name for the strait (as evidenced by Encyclopædia Britannica's usage) but this name appears to have largely gone out of modern (media) usage. I therefore suggest that this and related articles use the name Oresund in article names and throughout the text, while giving the alternative English name and names in other languages in parentheses in the lead, and possibly containing a section on "Name". (For the record, as some contributors appear to find this significant, my nationality is (wait for it) Norwegian(!)) Oyst1 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In an attempt to find English pages I tried the following searches.
site:uk "Øresund": 49,800
site:uk "Oresund": 74,500
site:uk "Øresund": 43,900
site:uk "Oeresund": 2,080
So, it seems Oresund is at least an acceptable choice. 83.227.185.251 (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Meaning[edit]

What does Oresund mean? --Chvsanchez (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe ör or öre is derived from an Old Norse word meaning something akin to "rough gravel", and is found in many Swedish and Danish placenames, e.g. Örebro. Sund means "sound", as in, a large ocean inlet, or a narrow ocean channel between two bodies of land. You can read more on the etymology of sund here. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/555304/The-Sound
  2. ^ http://www.dma.dk/news/Sider/Danish-SwedishshipreportingsystemintheSoundapprovedbytheIMOSub-CommitteeonSafetyofNavigation(NAV56).aspx
  3. ^ http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/61562.pdf
  4. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=oresund&more=date_all
  5. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=oresund
  6. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5339726.stm

The name of the article[edit]

After reading the previous conversations, I came to conclusion that there is no official english name.
To the comment that there other ones that are called 'The Sound': at least those two mentioned are in english-speaking areas, and if this would follow the same convention, it should be the place or location and then 'sound'. Maybe then it would be something like Denmark-Sweden Sound, but that isn't probably sourcable from anywhere.
It is though quite strange that the name of the article is Øresund, but the article still starts with The Sound is.... 82.141.95.57 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Name of danish city[edit]

The name of the danish city is HELSINGØR, not bloody Elsingore or whatever you call it. You can call the swedish town of Helsingborg by it's original name, but not the danish name? Why? Because Shakespere said so? The name is Helsingør, END OF STORY. - Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.41.78 (talk) 19:40, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

The Danish name is Helsingør, but the name most commonly used in English-language sources is Elsinore, and that's what guides our choice of names for articles. Analogously, we use Copenhagen rather than København. Favonian (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 56 days, no messages in the last 38 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


ØresundOresundRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Øresund is the Danish place name while Öresund is the Swedish. The Sound is the traditional English name for the strait but Oresund (for the strait and as part of related names) is the name used in English language media both in Britain and the US. relisting Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Oyst1 (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Support neutral and English naming, without need to pick Danish or Swedish. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Or we could use Ø̈resund like the Ø̈resund bridge company uses. —  AjaxSmack  15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Now that is a very messy unicode piece of coding crap with very weird combining characters. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I wasn't serious. —  AjaxSmack  04:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
          • A redirect from that title would be a good idea though... 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support --Muniswede (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. As I have previously stated above I support the most commonly used English name. Whether it be "The Sound" or "Oresund". --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When it comes to matters of geography, maps must take precedence over newspapers. Maps are made by people who are experts of geography; newspapers are written by people who know nothing of geography. English-language maps do not use Oresund. It's important to realize that it's never been Wikipedia policy to simply pick the name that yields the most Google results; on the contrary, scholarly sources are to take precedence over non-scholarly ones.
Furthermore, the preservation of diacritics etc. is de facto Wikipedia policy, as witnessed by tens of thousands of articles. This talk page is not the place to try to change that de facto policy. Ryvyly (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem here is that there are two different varieties of the local spelling of the name, one used on the Danish side, another used on the Swedish side of the discussed strait.. Noone is more "correct" than the other. BUT, which spelling is most commonly used in English language publications issued outside Scandinavia? Why just randomly pick one of the local varieties? --Muniswede (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
English is an international "lingua franca". Articles in many languages are translated and modelled from the English version. The result is that even in languages which use the letter "Ö" (but not the letter Ø) (like Hungarian and Turkish) this name is written "Øresund", which IMHO is a little strange. Probably there is no exonym for this name and they have just taken this spelling from en-wp. --Muniswede (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Picking one of the local names makes sense if there is no English name. In this case there are two English/anglcised alternatives. Moving the article to The Sound would be a significant improvement but this is the conservative solution given that it appears to be in little use. This also wouldn't provide a solution for related articles as I assume that "The Sound Bridge" is out of the question. Oyst1 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
But all three names {Oresund/Øresund/Öresund) are used to some extent in English. Perhaps this is sloppy of some of these users (see post above), but it's not sloppy of Wikipedia to make a rational decision to drop the diacritic in view of this usage pattern, if we so choose. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"The Sound" is out of hte running, not the primary topic of the term "The Sound" in English. If it were renamed so, it would have to be The Sound (Baltic Sea) or The Sound (North Sea). Even then, is it "The Sound" or "Sound" (Sound (Baltic Sea) or Sound (North Sea))? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. A very interesting example, see below. Relisting in view of no consensus so far and to allow discussion of the more general principle. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Don't forget about another spelling variant: Oeresund, which yields a few Google results - many of them in English. That's because the Swedish and Danish languages spell out their letters Ö/Ø as "OE", Ä/Æ as "AE" and Å as "AA" when there are technical or other restrictions that prevent typing the correct special characters. I think we could supply {{foreignchar|Oeresund|Ø}} for the article for that purpose. Per Ryvyly's and AjaxSmack's arguments, I shall oppose the move. "Oresund" is just not the English name, in addition to being neither Swedish nor Danish ("The Sound" might be, but as I understand it is rather uncommon). To draw a parallel: the Danube River is known with many names in the countries it flows through: "Donau" in German, "Duna" in Hungarian, "Dunărea" in Romanian, "Dunaj"/"Dunav" in different Slavic languages, but the title of our article is the river's English name, because one exists: Danube. On the other hand, another river is known as "Maritsa" in Bulgarian, "Evros" in Greek and "Meriç" in Turkish, and we have (randomly) selected one of those names (Maritsa) because there isn't an English one. I think the issue with this strait is more comparable to that with the Maritsa than to that with the Danube. --Theurgist (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
But there are no "technical or other restrictions that prevent typing the correct special characters" here. Why is Maritsa more comparable than Danube? There are one or two English names for this strait so the question is if we should use one of them or, despite this, rather favour one of the local names.Oyst1 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the diacritic dropping. Online sources omitting a diacritic for technical reasons does not an "English" name make. "The Sound" might be fine but a bit sloppy with a long dab label. When judging this article I went to have a look at what the river Thaya/Dyje is named on Wikipedia and noticed the former, neither of those are English names, you just have to arbitrarily choose one, and Thaya is probably there because it's easier to read (I can see a similar possible reason with Maritsa above). If I had to choose from the two local names I would pick Öresund, just because an Ö is easier to read than an Ø but that's just personal opinion and not based on policy.. policy says to use the most frequently used one. User:Ryvyly - what maps are you sourcing here and which form do they use? - filelakeshoe 18:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

please add further "votes" to the poll above rather than to this section

This is a very interesting case in terms of use of diacritics in page titles generally. It's something of a perennial issue, and this case is I suspect one of the best we can hope for regarding making a case to drop the diacritics. Taking just the base article Oresund/Øresund/Öresund:

  • The article is of about equal interest to both Sweden and Denmark, so we can't choose on that basis.
  • Dropping the diacritic gives us the same title whether we start in Danish or Swedish.
  • The undiacriticised title is readily recognisable and unambiguous.
  • The undiacriticised title is far more generally recognisable than either of the diacriticised versions, as both are local variants.

It's the last point that is especially relevant in terms of both the letter and intent of WP:AT. Taken together I think they make a very strong case for the move. So I'm especially interested in the logical consequences for article title policy if these moves are rejected despite this strong case. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your points except perhaps the last. However, other things to consider are, first (not that it matters to English usage but) the undiacriticised title is wrong in both Danish and Swedish and wronger than using the opposing diacritic. I.e., Danes would recognise Ö as a subsitute for Ø and vice versa but in neither language is O a substitute for Ø or Ö. Second, I question whether dropping diacritics makes anything more recognisable to an English-reading audience. Any evidence for this? Also, I'm not convinced that Oresund without diacritics is used in situations outside of those where all other diacritics are dropped, i.e., is it really an English exonym or just editorial policy or sloppy dropping of diacritics. —  AjaxSmack  04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Swedes and Danes would use ‹oe› as a substitute for ö and ø respectively when these are unavailable: Oeresund. See also my comment above. You are absolutely right that neither of the two languages concerned uses O as a substitution for Ö or Ø. --Theurgist (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Oeresund would be a viable solution for me. (It should atleast exist as a redirect, along with Ø̈resund) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with AjaxSmack that the fact that Oresund is not an acceptable spelling in Swedish or Danish is completely irrelevant to how it should be spelled in English. "Gothenburg" and "Copenhagen" are also not acceptable spellings in Scandinavian languages (and they both happen to be English exonyms were the native ö/ø has been replaced with an o). That Oresund is the name most commonly used in the English language press seems to me to support the view that this name is more generally recognisable.
Is Oresund an established exonym? Apart from being in common use today it has been used in academic articles for at least half a century [7]
The Google Scholar results do not establish "Oresund" as an exonym per se. They could merely show that, for example, in 1973 the International Journal of Marine Biology couldn't typeset an Ø or Ö or had an editorial policy not to. In the case of "Oresund", status as an exonym would be better established if it was used without diacritics in a source where other Danish or Swedish names do use diacritics. —  AjaxSmack  00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Oeresund, oe is indeed "an alternative way to write the letter ö (...) when this character is unavailable", but availability of letters is hardly the issue here. Oyst1 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I question whether dropping diacritics makes anything more recognisable to an English-reading audience. Any evidence for this?... This is a rather special case, in which many of the English-speaking audience are familiar with one or other of the diacriticised versions. To either group, one version with a diacritic is alien; To all of them, the undiacriticised version is reasonably recognisable. Andrewa (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I would assume that those familiar with "Ø" or "Ö" would recognise that they are roughly equivalent to each other but not the same as "O". For those not familiar, they are both meaningless decorations. However, I can check at Talk:Mötley Crüe to see if "Møtley" is equally recogniseable. —  AjaxSmack  17:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a very shaky assumption if you mean that those who would recognise the undiacriticised version as equivalent to their diacriticised version would be equally likely to recognise a differently diacriticised version as equivalent to their diacriticised version. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. And I can't, without an extensive research effort, prove the null hypothesis in this case. It just boils down to an opinion which, when confined to talkpage space, is still legitimately expressed. —  AjaxSmack  03:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
sloppy dropping of diacritics... Again, I think this completely misses the point. Nobody in this discussion is advocating sloppiness, just the opposite! Others, outside of this discussion, may well be sloppy, but if these others are in a majority then Wikipedia practice and policy is to follow them rather than to correct them. Andrewa (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned this issue regarding comments on the name of the article made in a prior discussion above. Sources were cited as using "Oresund" in English and these sources included ones with editorial policies explicitly eschewing diacritics. To blindly follow other style manuals that do not reflect typical Wikipedia usage (i.e., use of diacritics in placenames) is sloppy. —  AjaxSmack  17:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree totally that To blindly follow other style manuals that do not reflect typical Wikipedia usage (i.e., use of diacritics in placenames) is sloppy, but surely you are not suggesting that this is what is proposed above? Just because someone else quoted as an example of English usage, that doesn't mean that the proposal is to blindly follow them. This rhetoric is unhelpful IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I was, as I noted, referring to previous discussion. I think the nomination here has strong merit prima facie and does not rely on such reasoning. However, there isn't much other evidence to support it either except allusions to usage in unnamed English sources. —  AjaxSmack  03:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For now, I created Ø̈resund and Oeresund as redirects to Øresund (the current pagename). This won't hinder a possible fulfilment of the move requested. --Theurgist (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that so much of the above discussion concerns what is correct in other languages... isn't this completely irrelevant on two different grounds? Or am I missing something? If I'm correct, it could cut through a lot of the current impasse, perhaps? Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.