Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archive 2

Update

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Manual of Style

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)

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)

One thing missing

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)

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

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

Is this soup yet?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Bath

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)

Auderghem

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Bolding

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)

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)

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)

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

Definitions ?

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

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)

Spelling

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Confusing (?) section structure

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)

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

Bozcaada example

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

Summary

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

text

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)

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

Colons in Klingon: Xgopk

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)

Sensible; but [[Armenian language|ar:]] seems to be quite common, and that probably could use a colon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Collateral damage

If anyone does object to the substance of this edit, about Merano, please say so; I have restored it as collateral damage of the dispute over the Aegean islands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

British Isles

If I want to write about usage of an alternative name for this island group, can I simply trawl the net for examples of the use of X as an alternative names, and then write a section saying that X is sometimes used giving the website as a reference, or, do I need to find a secondary source discussing use of X as a name?--86.31.225.220 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Trawling is bad unless you take out all of the mirrors and such. Bad idea. Find good, reliable sources. Rarelibra 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources for details on those.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We recommend scholar.google.com, but give warnings; please don't use straight Google at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan related categories

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion
  • #Category:Airlines of Kurdistan and Sub-category Airlines of Iraqi Kurdistan (deleted)
  • #Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (being discussed)
  • #Category:Current governments in Kurdistan (deleted)

I believe the categories fail to meet these set of conventions in a nutshell. Comments? --Cat out 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)

Aren't those two policies addressing the same issue?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is perhaps some overlap. But they are different. This guideline primarily addresses the language or version of the place name that is used (i.e. should the article be titled Montreal or Montréal?). The Settlements guideline (which should really be renamed) deals primarily with the level of disambiguation required in the place name (i.e. should the article be Montreal or Montreal, Quebec?). In a perfect world, perhaps we'd have one guideline that covered all issues, but the ongoing/endless debates over at Settlements might very well preclude a simple merger. Skeezix1000 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Historic buildings

If there's a historic building, should it be "Such and Such House, Town" or "Such and Such House (Town)" or just "Such and Such House"? I think just the name of the place doesn't give enough context --AW 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That alphabetical rule...

... is going to have some odd consequences. For any places in Transylvania, now in Romania, that have an English language name we are going to end up putting German and Hungarian names before the currently dominant Romanian; if someone chooses to refer to "Castilian" it comes before "Catalan", but if they call it "Spanish" it comes after; I'm sure there are a lot of other issues where the result will be perverse. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The convention does currently state "As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name." Olessi 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What about a person born during occupation?

Let's say that, folowing a war, a region 'R' of state 'A' has been occupied by neighbour state 'B', for 'Y' years. Let's say that Mr. X, an important scientist, was born in region 'R' during these 'Y' years. Before the occupation and after the end of occupation, region 'R' belongs to state 'A', but during the occupation (and when Mr. X was born) it belonged to state 'B'. How should be Mr. X's birthplace designated in the Wikipedia article? I am not sure about Wikipedia's conventions regarding this kind of situation, but it seems that there are some people (most probably living in state 'B') who insist that Mr. X was born in (region 'R' belonging of) state 'B', although this 'belonging' was only temporary and unrightful. If Wikipedia conventions are indeed pointing to this way of designating to Mr. X's place of birth, then I think they should be changed, because they are unjust and illogical. I understand why are the wikipedians from state B doing this. They want their country to be credited as the origin country of that important Mr. X (sometimes they will even try to convince everybody that Mr. X' nationality is B-ish while he is actually A-ish). But what dissapoints me most is that some English and American wikipedians seem to support this too. Maybe this happens just because no part of USA or UK was recently occupied by another state, so it is hard for them to objectivley see both POV's. To give you a clear example, let's just pretend that Chopin was born during Germany occupation of Poland. Then should we say "Frederic Chopin was a Polish piano composer born in Germany, in the Żelazowa Wola village of Masovian Voivodship, about 60 kilometers from Warsaw, Germany (now in Poland)"? How do you like this?-Paul- 23:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• It would depend on what name was (and is) widely accepted in English for the area during WWII; which (in the hypothetical) would be "Frederic Chopin was a Polish pianist and composer, born in Żelazowa Wola in Occupied Poland...." Not, I think, the Masovian Voivodeship, not then functioning, but probably Masovia. Anything more specific would depend on what real example is in your mind. For example, it is usual to speak of Lithuania as part of the Soviet Union, so Lithuanians should be listed as born in the USSR between roughly 1944-1991 (both ends are arguable). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think it depends at all. In the case of Chopin, he was born in POLAND (occupied or otherwise). Whether or not a country is 'occupied' should not matter (or would you say someone born in Iraq is "born in the United States"?). Persons born in a country that no longer exists (i.e. USSR or Yugoslavia, etc.) or a country that has "shifted borders" (such as Germany/Poland, Poland/Russia, etc.) should be listed as being born in that country (whether or not it exists is not a matter), and then listed that they currently reside in the present country (or something along those lines). Rarelibra 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• In such cases I prefer to give details - like born in German-occupied Poland, or partitioned Poland - with links to correct subarticles about those priods/regions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "German-occupied" may be better, especially if the date is 1940; and we should certainly link. It is also possible, and may work well, to write a short paragraph about the situation; see, for example, the paragraph in Arvo Pärt about the occupation of Estonia, although Pärt was already four years old. This is most profitable if (in the hypothetical) there were a controversy about Chopin's nationality or legacy which still persists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It doesn't matter who occupied it - or again, will you title it as "United States occupied" for persons born in Iraq presently? I would think not. It is the country of origin of birth, not the country of occupation - otherwise, a lot of Germans, Japanese, etc. would have been born in "US-occupied" or "British-occupied", etc. Rarelibra 18:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know. As often, you manage extreme disagreement without bothering to understand the position with which you disagree. Widely accepted usage for 2007 Iraq is Iraq, so we should say someone who dies there dies in Baghdad, Iraq - as we do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Several Germans and Austrians were born in the British, French, American or Soviet Zones of their respective countries - and it often made a large difference to their lives which one it was. We should, especially for the Soviet Zone, say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Carrying that logic forward, would be the same to denote being born in "US-occupied Iraq", correct? Rarelibra 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. "British Zone", "Soviet Zone" are and were widely accepted usage for 1947 Germany. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that it is not widely accepted that it is a "US-occupied Iraq"? Or did the definition of war itself change? Rarelibra 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already said, some lines up, that the present Iraq is widely referred to, as this page says, as "Iraq". We need not go into philosophy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused. Referring to a place as "Poland" and as "German-occupied Poland" only has the difference of the occupation part. Unless we are both approaching this where we don't see we both agree on the same point - saying "German-occupied Poland" would be more correct, but saying "born in Germany" would be totally and completely incorrect. If the connotation is necessary, then that is fine - as long as the origin remains as the home country. I just think it is opening up a can of worms, because one can plainly see the possibility to see all kinds of occupation in history. Rarelibra 20:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem usually arises if the territory of question was never reclaimed by the country. For example, consider Kresy or big chunks of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I prefer to be specific and use the relevant historical name and when possible, link the occupation/partition/whatever so that the reader gets the full picture why person A is called - for example - Polish, when in fact Poland did not exist as a state when person A was born.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mój przyjaciel, my cali poznają co Polska zawsze istniał ;) Rarelibra 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vilnius, Vilna, Wilno

Please see Talk:Operation Wilno#"Widely Accepted Historical English Name" for a discussion centering around this policy. Neutral comments about whether it has or has not been shown that Wilno is acceptable historical name in this context are appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This raises a small point of clarification. Does this guideline mean what the city was called in works written English in 1919; or what the city is now called in works presently written on 1919? These are not the same question, although they may well have the same answer. (The first is much easier to resolve.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Good question. Indeed, the second would be more relevant - after all, we are not publishing Wikipedia 1911 but 2007 :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We have already addressed this question in the case of encyclopedias: only recently published works about the world in 1919 should be taken into account. I agree with Piotrus that it would make more sense to apply this guideline also to other books. Tankred 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the guideline

The main problem is that it allows, or better to say, forces to use anachronisms. I've followed such debates as Gdans/Danzig, or Pressburg/Bratislava/Pozsony, but I was too late to join, and nor had the time for that. While the Gdansk/Danzig thing was pretty well settled, the Bratislava thing is not. We must know, before going on, that this name was invented in 1918, so, in fact, pre 1918 mentioning of Bratislava is wrong. I never understood that what is the problem with redirects. I mean, if it is about a Hungarian ruler/person/event/other, for example Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, than it should be Pozsony. If it is about a medieval Slovak person, Posonium or Presporok, or a modern (Czecho)Slovak person/event/other, Bratislava. The main problem that this declares one verion "right", while in fact, all of them are right :) I'd rather reconsider this convention, since it is settling tensions [1] between Hungarian and Slovak users. My proposal is, if I wasn't clear enough, that it is better to use proper names in texts, not the modern ones. There are a lot of redirects, so use 'em in the Gdansk/Danzig way! :) - Mat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.120.72.233 (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

It is difficult to apply modern conceptualization of ethnicity on people living in the Middle Ages. If someone was born in a Croatian-Slovak family in the Kingdom of Hungary, wrote in Latin, and spoke in German, what name of Bratislava should we use in an article about him/her? And if we describe an event, such as coronation of an Austrian monarch as the King of Hungary in Bratislava? It would be really difficult to use your rule in most cases. Moreover, if there are three people of different ethnicity mentioned in an article as going to the same town (Bratislava), one of them would go to Presporok, another to Pozsony, and the last one to Pressburg? An ordinary reader of Wikipedia would have no clue that those are not three different towns. Consistency is user-friendly and I believe the present convention is doing a good job. Tankred 01:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not an ethnic debate, only historical. In the given time, how the place was called. To highlight the problem: by this convention, the city name "Carthage" is wrong. It should be replace with Tunis. Like now Pozsony/Pressburg is replaced in many articles by Bratislava. BTW Pressburg was the english name of the city for centuries, wich is derivered from it's German name. For example historical maps, drawn in 1903. Or [2], [3], etc. - Mat

I believe the convention covers the examples you have mentioned in a way that you may find satisfactory. Carthage is a widely accepted English name in a historic context and so the convention in fact encourages its use. If you think any historic name of Bratislava is widely accepted in the English language, please initiate a discussion about it at Talk:Bratislava. The required evidence is listed at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name. If there is consensus about such a name, it will be used in the same way as Carthage, Constantinople, and Danzig are. Tankred 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I just stated that Bratislava can not be a widely accepted historical name, since it is not a historical name, and you won't find it anywere in pre-1918 documents, lexicons, or anywhere/in anything on Earth. I've just wanted to point this out. This is called anachronism. Anything, where B. is mentioned and abt pre 1918, like, Matthias Corvinus of Hungary is obviously wrong. Matthias would look at you with wide open eyes, if you ask him, where is Bratislava. - Mat

Well, but Matthias Corvinus does not read English Wikipedia. American college kids do and I think we should give comprehensible information to our readers first. You are right, William the Conqueror did not call London London. Our readers do and that is why no one questions the use of the word London in William I of England. Nevertheless, I completely agree that it is important to list all the relevant historical names in the main article about a town, so this kind of information is easily reachable for all those who are interested in how various peoples called the town in different periods. Tankred 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me just note that Bratislava is really a special case, because it was totally renamed in 1919 (although the form Bratislava was also used by Slovaks in the 19th century). So, I would not take that as an example. Secondly, if we ignore this, then it holds that in most cases there is not even a generally accepted name say in Hungarian holding for several centuries, the names did change over time and it would be simultaneously ridiculous, impractical and user-unfriendly if you had to find the correct name attested for the years in question each time (e.g. Henrich I. conquered Brecisburg in 1156, but left Posonium 4 years late ???) - but this would be exactly what the use of "non-anachronistic" names requires to do. Thirdly, unlike e.g. German, Hungarian was NOT the offficial language before the 1860's, so: (1) Hungarian names are by no means appropriate in this case just on the grounds that they are in the Hungarian language; they are especially inappropriate if they are MODERN Hungarian names (beceause then they are both in the wrong language and in the wrong form and from the wrong time); (2) we have discussed this 100 time, but I can repeat this: we would have to use "local" names depending on the prevailing nationality at the particular time (problem: nationality often unknown the more we descend in time, and even if it is known it is often disputed whether a medieval name X is say Slovak or Hungarian etc. etc.), or we could use German names (at least for the period after 1526), because Hungary was part of Austria (to put it simply) and because English sources use to prefer German names , or we could use Latin names (that would be the most correct procedure; Latin was really used in everyday life, visitors from Italy stated in the 17th century that people in what is today Slovakia speak a better Latin then they do), but Latin names are not available for all settlements and the Latin names changed over times too in many cases.... And we could continue like this forever...The current arrangement is perfectly OK. I really do not understand why people should be confused with defomed historical names in a normal text - I know quite a lot about historical settlement names, nevertheless I myself really consider it wrong when I read a normal text and have to guess which modern place some historical names are supposed to mean (this can work for really big and important towns, but for nothing else) Juro 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I presume the Cambridge Medieval History has solved this problem? One recommendation of this page is that we imitate them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We agree on that we should give comprehensible information to our readers first. That is why I started this debate. A redirect is just one click. London was called London before William I too, so in this particular case, you are wrong. - Mat

If we talk about teaching, we shoud remember, how we were teached. I mean - from obvious reasons - Inca Empire is not a redirect to Peru, where it has a section in somewhere, or a template box. - Mat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.120.72.233 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

As to London, Saxons called it Lundenburgh. William's Normans arguably used a Latin or an early French version of the name. However, present-day readers would not understand those versions and it is reasonable to use the name London even when we write about the 11th century. As to the Inca Empire, I am not exactly sure what you mean. Tankred 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This convention was not discussed by Hungarian users for example, and sometimes misused, as far as I saw. Good night. - Mat

The lengthy discussion leading to the convention was advertised not only on the Village Pump, but also at the Hungarian notice board. Unfortunately, as far as I remember, only one Hungarian user decided to actively participate in the discussion. Tankred 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case this is only a guideline not policy. Odbhss 07:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And it encourages use of "Pressburg (modern Bratislava)" for nineteenth-century references. If English historians writing about Matthias Corvinus' time do use Pozsony, so should we, as this guideline says; that is a question of fact, to which I don't know the answer. (I disagree that all the names in Matthias Corvinus should be in Hungarian; saying that "he ruled from Bécs", instead of Vienna, would merely be confusing our readership.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

False positives

I've gone into more detail on the question of false positives, having seen search results with 80% false positives quoted as decisive by certain editors. The problems here are general, and the sort of thing any intelligent editor should allow for automatically; but it probably does no harm to remind people.

The Riesengebirge is a, hopefully, neutral example; the discussion there is actually proceeding quite reasonably.

Do we want a list of deprecated arguments?

• Name X is the oldest name
• We must include the Foolandish name in the title, because Fooland claims the place in question.
• WP:ILIKEIT.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your point: do you mean a list of 'formerly accepted practices' that NCGN made obsolete?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a list of arguments in naming discussions which (like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT ought not to have any wieght in the final decision: "But WP must use the official name"; "But it the Foolandish name"; "But the river's been called that (in Fooian) since 600 BC."; "You are all conspiring against glorious Fooland, and denying their claim to the city. That's POV" etc. I'm sure we've all seen these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) something like Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. We have some arguments they don't, and conversely; so a link is not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That list of deprecated arguments is a great idea, Septentrionalis... it would save a lot of time and effort. :-) Ev 23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cracow

Recently I attempted to get an answer to this question at my talk page, maybe I'll have better luck here. If this has been previously explained elsewhere, please forgive me and redirect me to the correct explanation. The English name for the Polish city of Cracow is not Kraków. Cracow is not a variant spelling of the city, at least not in English. It is how the city is spelled in English. Yet something seems strange that this is not the version that is used in English Wikipedia. Why isn't Warszawa used instead of Warsaw? Is Warszawa an English variant spelling of Warsaw? Why don't we use Nürnberg instead of Nuremberg? Roma instead of Rome. How about Deutschland and Italia and Polska next? I would really like to know the basis for the exception of how Kraków came about. Dr. Dan 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Kraków.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Largely at Talk:Kraków#Spelling_.2F_misspelling. The only evidence presented appears to be raw google results without links; it is not up to the standards of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed, but it has not been resolved. It is an example of a complete double standard. So then the questions remain, Why Kraków instead of Cracow? Why Warsaw instead of Warszawa? When did Kraków become a variant "English" spelling of Cracow? Is an acceptable answer, This has been discussed at "Talk:Kraków"? Dr. Dan 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose a title change, the best approach is WP:RM. For what it's worth, I would probably support a title change. Surprisingly though, Columbia and Britannica have their articles at Kraków. Olessi 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Britannica and Columbia were the final arbiter of information, we wouldn't need Wikipedia. And the true beauty of Wikipedia is that errors can be corrected by us. Not the case with the other two examples. Dr. Dan 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply, in the past, Cracow was the dominant English usage, but in the few past decades Kraków has surpassed it. Both Cracow and Kraków are now correct in sense of WP:NCGN as both are "English usage"; Kraków wins the tie due to being official local name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not so simple. Ten years, five years, two years is not "the past". What does the statement, Both Cracow and Kraków are now correct in sense of WP:NCGN as both are "English usage"? And usage doen't make it English either. And the last time I checked the English language did not use the letter Ó in it's alphabet. Since, simply in the past, Warsaw did not become Warszawa, we need a better explanation here. What is the uniqueness of this situation? Dr. Dan 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused. At what point in time did the English name for the city change from Cracow to Kraków? Who made this decision? It seems to me that someone arbitralily decided to change the English language on Wikipedia. If this is the case, we are setting a very bad precedent. Is Moskva next? Dr. Dan 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the convention, a widely accepted name in English has precedence over the official name if they are different. If you believe there is a widely accepted English name of Krakow, feel free to initiate a discussion at the article's talk page, providing the evidence listed here. It would be more fruitful than to discuss your case here. Tankred 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First, Cracow is the correct English toponym for the city's name in the English language. Kraków is the Polish name of the city. Second, I think it actually would be "more fruitful" to discuss it here, since it was not resolved at that talk page. Furthermore not everyone will read Cracow's talk page, while this is the actual arena where the various viewpoints can be reviewed according to the rules. I simply feel that using English on English Wikipedia is the way to go whenever there is a realistic choice. Dr. Dan 16:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Than why don't you campaign for Vilna over Vilnius? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about Vilnius, nor what I need to campaign for. A history of your activities concerning the name of that city are another example of your attempting to use the Polish toponym, "Wilno" repeatedly on English Wikipedia in the most brazen fashion. And the recently corrected improper Polonization of that city's name and violation of WP:OR with your creation of Operation Wilno is another example of your using Polish instead of English repeatedly on this project. That problem will probably be brought up at your current ArbCom. Moving this matter concerning Cracow away from any personal dispute with you, I am trying to understand the uniqueness of Cracow being changed to Kraków. So trying again to get the scoop from someone more neutral than the Prokonsul, how and when did the English geographical toponym get changed? London is not Londyn. Munich is not Monachium. Warsaw is not Warszawa. Why is Cracow, Kraków? Dr. Dan 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not understand what exactly you are trying to do here. If you believe that Cracow is the city's widely accepted name in English, please go to Talk:Kraków and initiate a discussion about a move. The convention lists the evidence that you should use in such a discussion. That is the right way to rename an article. You cannot rename it by chatting here. Tankred 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that you don't understand what exactly I am trying to do here. Let me give you some help. Pies in Polish means dog. Dog in English is not pies. Is that clearer? Dr. Dan 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tankred that Talk:Kraków is the proper place for this discussion. A requested move would bring in a significantly greater number of interested editors than the relatively few who monitor this page. Olessi 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It may yet come to that. In the meantime while we're here, reviewing the rules set down here, and reading the template at WP:NCGN, there seems to be some kind of an exception here. Dr. Dan 17:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First you need to show us that Cracow, not Kraków, is the English name. Results of our tests - google search, encyclopedic search, publications search, show Krakow/Kraków is as popular as Cracow. Krakow is also the "official local English name". Unless you have evidence to show otherwise, please don't repeat yourself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Of interest should be also the fact that a year or so ago Kraków's city council officially declared that their "English" version of the name is "Krakow" (see for short english text and this for longer Polish. Therefore we may consider Krakow without the diactric, but not Cracow - and the ó diactric is really no big deal...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have to say that I was always under the impression that Cracow was a rather dated English version of the name, and that the modern English spelling was Krakow without the diactric. I also don't think that there is anything wrong with raising the issue here to canvass thoughts and opinions, prior to initiating an RM on the article's talk page. Skeezix1000 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's thoughts are worthy. Not wanting to date myself, I'd like to ask Skeezix1000 around when he thinks that Cracow became dated, or outdated. Dr. Dan 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore we may consider Krakow without the diactric, but not Cracow". Sorry, Piotrus, what we follow is English usage, which the City Council is not empowered to declare. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, also beware of slippery ground near Stalingrad vs Volgograd (4m vs 2m would suggest we should use S. instead of V., which of course is not the case). Anyway, the bottom line is Kraków/Krakow and Cracow are more or less equally popular in English, so it seems only logical to use Kraków as it wins all possible tie-breakers (local, official and historical names). And to kick a Warszawa/Warsaw straw man apart, obviously Warsaw is much more popular than Warszawa...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents (and my long-delayed answer to Dr. Dan, who had asked my opinion on this very question some months ago at the Wladyslaw Jagiello/Jogaila talk page): although the form "Cracow" has been the common English name for this city, and it remains a common name to this day, my general perception is that during these last 15 years or so the form "Kraków" has been widely adopted in the English language (by book authors, other encyclopedias, the BBC -at least in their TV transmissions-, even the National Geographic Magazine... also the tourism industry tends to use "Krákow", which I believe to be a major influence in the way we speak and write. — I'm relying in my general perception alone, without doing any web-searches or comparing every book close enough to this table :-) but I do feel that by now both forms can be considered as current common English usage. At the very least, that a strong case can be made in favour of "Kraków".

I could give a short list of the practical and personal reasons for which I prefer the good old "Cracow" and wouldn't hesitate to use it if it were up to me alone :-) but considering the main criterion of "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", I feel that with every passing day "Kraków" archieves at least "more parity" with "Cracow". It may have already become the undisputed common usage of certain demographics. In any case, I think that the issue is not a clear-cut one. - Best regards, Ev 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you EV, for your courteous and civil (although as you acknowledge, somewhat belated response to my earlier query). So that no one gets the wrong impression here regarding my problem with the minor adulteration of the English language by using Kraków, a non-English description of the English geographical toponym Cracow (not a "variant spelling" of the name) on English Wikipedia, I say at some point the line has to be drawn. The last 15 years is a paltry time frame to say we must change the English language to suit an agenda, or a whim. At least not against 500 years of evidence to the contrary. In this regard the French have it right. They say Cracovie, and try to keep the purity of their language. I suspect that any resolution by the City Council of Cracow to the contrary, would not be any kind of grounds for France to make such a change as is proposed here. I still contend that the rules at WP:NCGN don't argue for Kraków vs. Cracow (which interestingly has lost the bullshit English "variant" spelling in the lead, as it has been removed). It also seems that a disproportionate amount of non-native English speakers are arguing that the change is valid. Dr. Dan

Personally, I agree with you, Dan, on "preserving the traditionally-used names instead of adopting foreign ones". I get somewhat angry each time I see a Spanish-language book mentioning "Regensburg" instead of "Ratisbona" (luckly, I haven't seen so far any instance of "Kraków" instead of "Cracovia"). I wouldn't like the English and Polish languages dropping "Seville" and "Sewilla" to adopt "Sevilla" either. I believe that languages loose part of their richness, and cities part of their sentimental, romantic appeal, whenever their traditional names are replaced by the "original/foreign" ones.

But whether we like it or not, languages do change and evolve, and usages do change, sometimes very rapidly. The Peking example comes to mind, with "Kraków" appearing to be in the process of becoming just as English as "Beijing" (although I don't really know whether it has already become more common than "Cracow"). We can actively advocate to keep the traditional usages, but in other forums, not here. Wikipedia's role, as established in its policies and guidelines, is to passively reflect the current usage, instead of actively advocate for one of the different options.

Finally, you're right, there is a disproportionate amount of non-native English speakers in too many naming controversies, including myself :-) At least in the articles referring to "non-English topics", the systemic bias of editors often seems to be an "anti-English" one, with editors busy trying to "correct wrong, unfair, horrible, biased English usages". See Shatt al-Arab for an extreme example *sigh*. - Best regards, Ev 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kraków is a vibrant, living city and Wikipedia must describe it under the name which is most commonly used in English today. In this light it is completely irrelevant what name was used for it over the last 500 years. Wikipedia is not a historical encyclopedia, instead it endavours to be the most modern and up to date encyclopedia on the planet. Balcer 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Who's disputing that Cracow is a vibrant, living city? As a non-native English speaker you should read WP:NCGN, before you tell us what Wikipedia must do here. What the English language is, and has been for five hundred years and longer, is very relevant in this discussion. What is irrelevant, is what the City Council of Cracow has decided about its name, and what Volgograd is called, in so far as this matter is concerned. Most of all, Wikipedia endeavors to be accurate, and somehow this error "has fallen through the cracks". Kindly remember that on the English Wikipedia, English is the preferred language to be used. That's pretty simple and forthright. Isn't it? Dr. Dan 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the City Council decision is not that relevant (except as a form of tiebreaker, maybe). Clearly both Cracow and Kraków are used (with or without diacritic). Either of the versions would be acceptable, and there is no reason to get worked up about either one. As references for both will be found, I suppose it is just a matter of personal preference which one should be decisive. The one which convinces me is the Blue Guide to the city, published as Blue Guide Kraków. If the most respected publisher of travel guides uses that version of the name, I think we are on safe ground using it also. Balcer 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also belatedly, please never ever bring the strawman of Stalingrad/Volgograd or Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg to the Gdanzig-type issues. There is no disagreement between anyone on what to do in cases when the city was actually renamed. In such cases everyone knows what name to use in which context. The issue at hand is the cities whose name never actually change. Vilnius remains Wilno in Polish. Kiev remains Киев in Russian, Київ in Ukrainian, Kiew in German and Kijow in Polish. Cracow has always been Krakow in Polish, Krakau in German and Cracovie in French. So, we are discussing the Englishness of the name that are all contemporary, not the usage of the obsolete name. --Irpen 03:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, considering the argument whether Cracow is or is not an obsolete name getting replaced in English usage by Kraków.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And who made it obsolete? The City Council of Cracow? The City Council of Volgograd? When did it become obsolete? When you make that kind of a broad statement, please back it up with something more substantial than what you have been giving us here. Dr. Dan 16:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I and others have added to discussions various counts - from Google to encyclopedias - as required by the rules. You, on the other hand, have failed to present any evidence backing your position. As you might have noticed, Wikipedia runs on proof (WP:V), not demagogy - so if you plan to reply with another long and evidenceless argument, don't expect to sway anybody's opinion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So then, you have made it obsolete? You and "google hits" have made the English toponym for Cracow obsolete? This is your evidence? And now I have to provide evidence to satisfy you that Cracow is not the English name for Kraków? Before it was the City Council of "Kraków", that decided (according to you) that it should no longer be Cracow. And of course the fact that a travel guide title calls it, Kraków, complete with the diacritic Ó makes it the correct English version of what the name should be. Really now? Dr. Dan 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since major encyclopedias (Britannica, Columbia, Encarta) have their articles about the city under Kraków, it is not at all blindingly obvious that Cracow is in fact the most correct name. So yes, if you want to make the case for Cracow, providing some evidence would be appropriate at this point. Balcer 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cracow is the English name for the city, Kraków is not. Kraków is the Polish name for the city with two k's and a nice little ó. I think what would be most helpful is to establish when the metamorphosis of Cracow into Kraków took place. I mean a concrete time frame. Does anyone know? Dr. Dan 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While I am hoping to get an answer to the time frame of when the English name got changed, perhaps someone can tell me where I can find the four towns in the U.S. that the disambugation link at the article on Cracow mentions. I am unable to find any such places like, Krakow, Illinois, Krakow, Nebraska, Krakow, Missouri or Krakow, Wisconsin on any maps. What counties are they in? Dr. Dan 15:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of pure curiosity, I checked. Found three places: Krakow, Wisconsin, Krakow, Franklin County, Missouri and Krakow, Nance County, Nebraska. Krakow, Illinois is a song title. None seem notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. Balcer 23:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr.Dan, you might want to consider asking this question in the talk page of the relevant article, not here. --Lysy^talk 15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, I intend to do that but I think that above thread entitles me to bring it up here as well. I want the people who monitor geographical English names to get an idea of what's going on. Dr. Dan 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Lysy perhaps you have an idea as to when Cracow was changed to Kraków in the English language. An aproximation would be sufficient. Dr. Dan 22:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As surely you are aware, there is no governing body for English language. Looking at book usage per publication date, per Google Books results I presented before, shows that while Cracow was more popular until mid-20th century, the usage of Cracow and Krakow/Kraków has reached similar levels in the second half, and recently Krakow/Kraków is gaining a slight advantage. Coupled with the fact that this is the name used by encyclopedias and many reliable publications, and supported by the city authorities themselves, I cannot see any good reason to prefer the traditional but now obsolete Cracow.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree that "Cracow" is an obsolete name, I feel that this discussion is simply going in circles. If Dr. Dan wishes that Kraków be moved to Cracow, he should initiate a move request to gauge the opinion of the general community. Olessi 00:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cracow Again

In so far as the impression that I have obtained from this discussion is that Cracow has been appropriately changed to Kraków in the English language during the last thirty years or so, would it be correct to change any reference to the city on Wikipedia, say prior to 1975, to Cracow? Would this be more "historically" correct? Would this be confusing, or the right thing to do? Dr. Dan 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In so far as no one has objected, I intend to make the correction of changing Kraków to Cracow in the English Wikipedia prior to 1975, as it would seem to be in logical consistency with the efforts of Polish Wikipedians concerning other geographical toponyms. This date would more or less coincide with the supposed change that has been claimed to have occurred in the English language during that time period. Dr. Dan 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please present your arguments at Talk:Kraków. That is the right place for a discussion about whether Cracow is a widely accepted historical name of the city in English for the period before 1975. Tankred 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, you claim on your user page that you are particularly fond of your contributions at WP:NCGN. What exactly is the purpose of this page if not to iron out difficulties regarding unresolved matters concerning geographic names? I would like to think the talk page here will get a more general and neutral audience concerning the matter than at Talk:Cracow. More specific issues like a name change should be addressed there. BTW, what is your personally feeling about using Cracow prior to 1975? Dr. Dan 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I tried to encourage you to use Talk:Kraków. First, you will get input from frequent editors of Kraków. Second, this talk page is mostly used to discuss the convention, not all the particular cases of its application. That is why the convention itself recommends the use of the main article's talk page (Talk:Kraków in this case). If you would like to attract disinterested discussants, you can leave a short message here, linking to the talk page with the main discussion. As an example, please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Bratislava. By the way, I do not know the case of Kraków/Cracow well enough to support either of the options, but I will be more than happy to look at your arguments at Talk:Kraków. Tankred 20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we go there, may I ask you what your familiarity with the English language is that you can make a statement here like I do not know the case of Kraków/Cracow well enough to support either of the options. Are you a native English speaker? If not, may I inquire what your native language is? Dr. Dan 00:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Official name takes precedence over the local name?

Currently the policy is not clear on that, just stating 'this or this'. If there are no objections, per recent precedences, let's amend this and make it clear.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy actually says "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name", but it would be perhaps better to move it from Things to remember to the main part because it is difficult to find it. I support your idea of amending the convention. Tankred 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See, from paragraph 1. "If neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem being 'A or B' allows arguments of 'A or B?'. We should clearly say 'A first, B only if A is not there'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectively seems adequate to me in explaining whether we use the modern official name, in modern articles, or the local historic name, in historic articles. But I've spelled it out a little; if anyone thinks it needs more tweaks, fine by me.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

The imput of users & administrators familiar with move request procedures will be much appreciated at the administrators' noticeboard. See:

• Requested move to Shatt al-Arab
• At what point do guidelines trump straw polling?

Thanks already. - Best regards, Ev 23:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

Editors interested in this page may be interested in the proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight change

I changed sentence "should be replaced with: (known also by several alternative names)" into "could be replaced with: (known also by several alternative names)" because this sentence rather should be possibility than obligation. Readers of Wikipedia are able to find "Name" section by themselves, so I do not think that they need guidance for this. PANONIAN 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a guideline; and should avoid being prescriptive; but I think that we should, for neutrality, indicate that a place has substantially common alternate names in the first line. When the place has at least four, as in the sentence considered, this becomes even more important. We should not prescribe the exact language used; and, since this is a guideline, it can be overruled for good reason - and those good reasons should probably be included here. This is how guidelines develop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see I left the automated edit summary for an undo; but in fact I rewrote. (If this is about Bratislava, I don't think the paragraph applies there. See Talk:Bratislava. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bratislava

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of historical names of Bratislava. If you would like to participate, your comments are welcome at Talk:Bratislava. Tankred 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've cross-posted this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography as well. MikeGogulski 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

United States Board on Geographic Names

Why is the United States Board on Geographic Names not used to resolve names for geographic names? It is very obvoius. This may put the majority of conflicts to sleep. Please read the article, before arguing. Solarapex 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't do official names against English usage, here American English usage. For municipalities, we usually follow the Census returns, which are presumably BGN, but that's a practical matter. It is comparatively rare, in fact, that the BGN name is not American usage, even when it is silly or unintelligible (the consistent lack of apostrophes in such names as St. Marys River being perhaps the most pathetic example); but our policy is clear.

Correspondingly, there are quite few American conflicts. To use BGN for foreign names, save perhaps as one source, would be to privilege American over Commonwealth English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I will add that experimenting with the GEOnet server shows that it has a fairly severe bias towards local official names in foreign countries; Frankfurt am Main, for example. This does not seem helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Iwo Jima

There is at present a discussion on Talk:Iwo Jima, where the Japanese government has just changed the local official name, which has revealed some unclarities in this page. I have made some clarifications, in accordance with the consensus there to keep the page at Iwo Jima, at least for now. I'm sure my phrasing can be improved; if anybody disagrees altogether, please look at that talk page, and discuss the matter below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Hungary

There is a disagreement at Talk:History_of_Hungary#Multiple_names on whether a short list of cities in the History_of_Hungary#Kingdom_of_Hungary_in_the_Middle_Ages_.281000_-_1526.29 section should include modern local names (which are also widely accepted in English in the modern context) or local historical names (which are not proven to be widely accepted in English) or both. All comments will be welcomed at Talk:History_of_Hungary. Tankred 09:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this what this rule is intended to do?

On Template talk:History of Manchuria, this page is given as the justification for the following logic: since it says "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it ... If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used", if it is the case that the current accepted English name of this place is "Northeast China", then it follows that the term "Northeast China" must be used to refer to this region throughout its entire history, except in articles and templates that deal exclusively with the period of time when it was known as Manchuria (supposedly 1635 to 1945). In other words, when discussing the period before 1635 and the various kingdoms and tribes that once existed there, it must be referred to as "Northeast China". Is this an example of what NC(GN) was intended to mandate?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe part of the problem here is the claim that "northeast China", so capped, is a widespread English name for Manchuria. We should make clear that WP:NCGN deals with proper names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As you will have discovered from that page's talk page, the assertion that "Northeast China" is a proper noun. It also seems to be more common in (English) print than you'd think. Even if this is stipulated, though, I still don't think that "Northeast China" is an appropriate name for the region prior to 1635 at the earliest.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This edit shows a editor arguing that this guideline does not require that the article on a geographic place be titled with a proper noun. It does appear to be true that this line of argument was not contemplated when this page was drafted; but that was because it seemed obvious to us that our names should be proper nouns. I propose, in about 24 hours, to add language to that effect.

Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Péninsule Courbet or Courbet Peninsula

Courbet Peninsula The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) indicates that if there is an English name it should be used. I noted that, among other places, in the Wikipedia article on the Kerguelen Islands in the Geology section Courbet Peninsula was used. Normally foreign words for gulf, mountain, river, etc. are used in geographic names with the English equivalent, e.g. Surma River and Lake Baikal. It is only when the foreign name has become embedded in English usage that they are not translated, e.g. Rio Grande. Therefor I have moved the article Péninsule Courbet to Courbet Peninsula. Another good example is that these islands are the Kerguelen Islands not the Îles Kerguelen. --Bejnar 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How far should it go though? Should Ulan Bator be called "Red Hero" or Canberra "Meeting place"? I could point to less extreme examples in the Mato Grosso, or Hokkaido ("North Sea Circuit") Certainly in the case of Kerguelen toponyms, the French forms appear in the atlases I have at home. --MacRusgail 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your examples are in translating non-geographic words. The words that are to be translated are the words that geographically categorize the geographic feature, like mountain, river, hill. I found several references in publications in English to Courbet Peninsula. There was also one instance of the use of Courbet Peninsula in the Courbet Peninsula article itself, and one in the Kerguelen Islands article. Now I am not saying that where there is a common English usage, such as Rio Grande, that that shouldn't be used. However, I am saying that Wikipedias policy and the perceived comfort of English speakers is served by using the English word for "words that geographically categorize the geographic feature". The classic anti-example is Torpennow Hill (now in Cumbria), which if literally translated yields Hill Hill Hill Hill. But the principle expressed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) remains valid. Other examples: Imja River not Imja Kosi or Imja Khosi, Chu River not Chu Chai, Mount Nyainqentanglha not Nyainqentanglha Shan. --Bejnar 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lysy's edits

I object to Lysy's edits of today, except the removal of whitespace. Let me explain.

• Lysy removed the following paragraph:

"No reason to use an unrecognizable name"

• This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users. It is not determined by any government, British, Commonwealth, American, or foreign. One of the things to communicate about a place is its local name; but referring to a place by a name literate anglophones do not recognize, as has sometimes been suggested, does not help anybody.

  • I do not claim this is the best possible wording; but I am tired of the argument: The government of Fooland has decreed X, so it must be English usage. I have seen several editors making these arguments; they should be here.
    • Now This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government. One of the things to communicate about a place is its local name; but there is no reason to use a name unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists. Does Lysy, or anyone else, object to these three assertions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

      Well yes, I disagree with the last statement. There may be reasons to reveal the local name even if it's unrecognizable, depending on the context. One of the purposes of encyclopaedia is to educate, regardless of whether it is English, Russian or German. The "there's no reason" assertion is an opinion, and certainly a disputable one. --Lysy^talk 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

      We should always mention the local name; but I object strongly to the position that we should force education down the reader's throat. How about In general, we should not? It would be helpful to have an example where there is an "established English name" by our definition and the article should not use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

      I think you misunderstand the sentence, then. It's not about that English names should not be used. It's about "no reason to use foreign name". I feel that we agree as to the principle, it may be just the wording. Let me try. --Lysy^talk 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Most places have established English names"

• Removing "Foreign names should be used only if there are no established English names; most places do have established English names. " Berlin and Paris are established English names, as stated below; in that sense, there is an established English name for most places.
  • I've added that the established English name is often identical with the local name. Is there objection to the assertion that Berlin is the established English name for Berlin? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    Now, while the previous statement was disputable, this one is simply false. Most places do not have established English names. --Lysy^talk 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    Berlin is not the established English name for Berlin? Does anyone else think this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    Berlin and Paris are not the "most places", there are many more that you've never heard of. And please try to stay level and not ask rhetoric questions like "Does anyone else think this?". This is not a talkshow. --Lysy^talk 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    No, in parliamentary terms, the question was a request for a second. Most places notable enough to have a Wikipedia article are discussed in English; most of them, therefore, have the local name as established English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    Oh well, I may be more an inclusionist than you are but I believe that every tiny village, lake or valley in the world will eventually make it into the English wikipedia. Most of these were never heard of in English. I only object to the "Most places have established English names" statement. I don't think it is true and I don't think it is needed. I'd rather not add it for the sake of being terse. --Lysy^talk 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    I've tried rewording; I do think we need to say something, or we get the argument "Florence isn't an established English name; it's French." argument, which I have seen (it may have been about Nuremberg). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    I know that "most of the notable places" sounds awkward, but it has a different meaning to "most notable places". Do you see this difference ? Any idea of how to circumvent this ? Or maybe there's no need to ? --Lysy^talk 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    I don't hear the difference. "The most notable places" would mean "those places with greatest notability"; but "Most of the notable places" and "Most notable places" both mean "the majority of those places wnich are notable"; which is, I think, true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Tweaked again. If Lysy hears a difference, others may. I trust the present language is unambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"neither widely accepted English name nor widely accepted historical English name"

• Restoring " If neither of these apply, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used."
  • Neither of these means: "if there is no widely established English name, and no established historical name". It is better to say so; see Talk:Iwo Jima, where the sentence was taken out of context, and the sentence read as unconditionally endorsing the modern official name (changed last month to Ioto). 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "neither of these" was clearer, more accurate and more concise. The wording that you suggest opens space for speculations, but I can live with it, although I don't understand the purpose of the change. --Lysy^talk 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See this edit, and the conversation of which it is part. ExplodingBoy is attempted to use this sentence, as it then was, to support the local official name, and ignore the widespread English usage of Iwo Jima. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. He just removed the first sentence, to which the first part of the "neither of these" applied. How about "neither of these exist" instead of "neither of these apply". This would be clearer then. --Lysy^talk 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have the sentence self-contained, so it can't be quoted out of context like this. But I suppose this could wait until it happens again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see flaws in both approaches. I've changed it to "If neither of the names exist" but it's still not quite what it was supposed to be. The previous version was more accurate but open to gaming. Let's wait and see if this is misused/misunderstood again. --Lysy^talk 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried these English names; which at least avoids gaming by claiming we mean this policy only applies where no local name exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing Gdanzig Gdilemma - more instructions for use of names in historical context needed

I think the project page should give a better authoritative overview for the use of place names in historical context as it seems it focuses too much on modern use and does not help enough for articles covering history. If there already is such an overview, list etc. elsewhere, please point me to it.

Luckily, it is widely accepted that the Romans did not destroy Tunis, but Carthage, and founded a city they called Augusta Treverorum, not Trier. But that was 2000 years ago, and history had many twists and turns since.

Less consensus can be seen when the city called Danzig and/or Gdansk is concerned, even though the famous and very helpful vote settled much of it, e.g. "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively". Yet, disputes go on, as some editors try to squeeze in Poland [4] or Prussia [5] or Royal Prussia or whatever in seemingly every biography the city is mentioned - and these are many, as the List of famous born Gedanians covers only those born there, and not those who once worked [6] [7] or traveled there. Even a stub which has seen few content additions other than edit warring two years ago is not spared [8]. When a link straight to the History of Gdańsk itself was demanded rather than sneaking one's pseudohistorical theories into almost every article with a link to Gdańsk [9], a compromise proposal [10] was not accepted either [11].

Is it necessary to add the country every time a city is mentioned, to make sure nobody associates the wrong country with a city name, like Florence, Italy to make clear that Firenze in Italia is not a French city? Or should the link to the city article be enough, especially in controversial cases? Also, can/should/mustnot the Danzig vote be applied accordingly to other places, e.g. Allenstein/Olsztyn or Frauenburg/Frombork especially during the life of Nicolaus Copernicus? There are already lists like List of cities and towns in East Prussia and German exonyms where the dates of name changes could be added. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues here:

1. Gdańsk is now part of Poland. Should we say so in fifteenth century biographies?
2. Prussia was part of Poland in the fifteenth century. Should we say so in fifteenth century biographies?

It is not clear to me, and Matthead and Space Cadet may not agree, which question is at issue. (My view would be that there is a stronger case for stating #2 than #1.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To put it short: Let's start with making a policy that pacifies biographies and ends edit wars, see also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). My point regarding bios is: focus on the person, don't use it as a platform to discuss politics or to promote patriotism. Don't state the obvious, and neither put emphasis on details that are disputed (and Danzig/Gdansk and its affiliation surely qualifies as such, for example your #2 case is 66% wrong). Many bios seem to "rest in peace" on Wikipedia relying on "ignorance is bliss", but some became edit war battlefields, or like Curicke above, never had the chance to outgrow stub status due to constant flak.

For comparison, I picked randomly an entry from Category:People from Warsaw and found that in Wanda Landowska ("was a Polish (later a naturalized French citizen) harpsichordist"), no country is mentioned next to a city name. It says "Landowska was born in Warsaw", not "Landowska was born in 1879 in Warsaw, Russian Empire". She later studied in Berlin and Paris, yet no mention of the countries involved (BTW, I choose not to comment on POV etc. in the last section). If there were Russian, German or French counterparts to the editor you have chosen to mention, then Russia, Germany and France would have been written all over this bio (and many others). Next pick, Ludomir Rozycki, same story, a stub about a "Polish composer" born in 1884. Both articles somehow forget to state that those persons were born as subjects of the Russian Czar. Without further inquiry I dare to say that most other bios of people born in the same time and place probably are written in the same way, with the prominent Marie Curie being the exemption to this rule due to international attention. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My answer to Septentrionalis' question is 1) don't care and 2) certainly yes. I prefer to give detailed explanation of place of birth and nationality, so I'd say that Lewandowska artucle should mention she was born in the Russian partition, Russian Empire, same for Różycki. The Russian partition is an especially interesting (and confusing) issue, since Congress Poland, in theory at least a somewhat autonomous country, by late 19th century became nothing more then a group of Russian gubernyas, unofficially known as Vistula Country - but there was no formal documents about 'degradation' of the Kingdom into some lower level entity. I plan to create articles about partitions and their administration structure soon, hopefully that will ease some of the related problems.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out that Piotrus edited one of the articles, and all he did was introduce Polish spelling Różycki.[12]. So much about "give detailed explanation of place of birth and nationality".-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then how about adding to paragraph 3 in the lead: It is not necessary, and may be seen as tendentious, to add (for example), the present location of the place; all that is in the article linked to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings, I can imagine cases where this is useful and others where this is purely tendentious. I'd suggest to give it some more thought first, and examine a number of individual cases first, as this is quite widespread and helped avoiding many revert wars in the past. --Lysy^talk 07:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not insist on "tendentious". But I really see no reason, when saying "Strassburg, now Strasbourg" to add that it is now in France; that's in the linked articles. Some examples would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fork

Isn't Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) a fork? I think we should merge this policy here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the interminable argument on the talk page first; we don't want to import that. It covers some areas we don't; and we cover a lot it doesn't. Is there overlap? Do the two contradict? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Street names

See the current discussion on Talk:Vossstrasse about using English spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Talk:Wilhelmstraße. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Free City of Kraków

Would any watchers of this page not already involved with the quarrel here please come and help observe. If this requires any changes in this guideline, please propose them here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chance

I've added a note about Scholar Google and Google Books searches that could well be chance. This is what I do myself, and it seems so obvious to me that I had not considered including it; but not everybody has statistical training. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source

The discussion on Talk:Myanmar has turned up an assertion by th BBC that they use Burma because it is most recognized by their audience. The possibility of a reliable source actually weighing in on these matters had not occurred to me; but, by WP's principles, we really should prefer such a statement to any other. If you disagree, please explain why. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"A name is a proper noun, not a description."

What is this sentence doing at the end of point number 1 on this page? On a page like this, I think it is important to explain something concrete about how to apply such a principle. Can anyone say what that sentence is supposed to mean, as regards article naming? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to remove the sentence, and see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See #Is this what this rule is intended to do? above: Northeastern China is a description, not a name. But the argument seems to have gone away, so we may not need it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian borderlands

Common edits like this have convinced me that we need a clear ruling on whether we should use Lithuanian or Polish names for the settlements of that period (note that in some cases, German and English names exist too). The area in question includes primarily the settlements in modern Lithuania; but modern Lithuanian naming was not dominant throughout much of the history of the region. The periods we should discuss include:

• in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, until Union of Lublin in 1569
• in Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, from 1569-1795 - ex. of articles affected for this and previous period: see {{Voivodeships of Lithuania}}
• under partitions of Poland, from 1795 to 1918
• in interwar Second Polish Republic, 1918-1939 - ex. of articles affected: Vilna offensive, Wilno Voivodeship (1923–1939)
• during WWII - ex. of articles affected: Operation Ostra Brama, Ponary massacre
• for the last two periods - Lithuanian SSR and modern Lithuania - we should most certainly use modern Lithuanian names

The main issue is whether modern Lithuanian names are applicable for history of the region which:

• Lithuanian language was not used by nobility or in writing until late 19th / early 20th century
• while much of the peasantry in GDL used Ruthenian language, particulary before Union of Lublin
• tbe region was polonized during times of PLC and contained Polish speaking majorities and minorities until WWII

Hence, it would appear to me that for most of that period, if no English name (ex. Vilna) exists, this convention would recommend using a Polish name, followed (on first use) with Lithuanian/Ruthenian in parenthesis. I wonder if we would need another Gdansk vote to end this constant name changing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problems I see in these discussions is that existing English names are ignored. Gene Nygaard 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am all for using Vilna in historical contexts. What other English names are there? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We could start with Cracow. Dr. Dan 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is outside the topic of this discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really P.P., when the Cracow issue was being debated (and still unresolved), you had no problem dragging Vilnius (and myself) into that melee. Dr. Dan 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is a Polish editor, P.P., arguing to use English "historical names" regarding Vilnius, while at the same time arguing against using English "historical names" for Cracow. Really now? Dr. Dan 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an off-topic, I think the English use the phrase "stop beating the dead horse" regarding such persistance to already solved problem and answered issue.

As to Lithuanian-Polish borderlands-perhaps it would be good to apply double naming rules like those in Gdańsk vote ? What do you think ?--Molobo 10:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more eager to find out whether WP:ENGLISH is still an official policy of Wikipedia?--Lokyz 11:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The currently applied policy is apparently "Use our native names, which we claim to be part of English, and English for all other names". For some time[13], the article on Cracow started with "Kraków, English exonyms: : Krakow, Cracow. From that, I conclude Kraków is the English endonym. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Application of WP:NCGN

Hello. I seek help with application of this naming convention. Two users are constantly reverting the name of a town from “Piešťany“ to “Pöstyén (today Piešťany)“ at Victor Vasarely. Pöstyén is properly listed among archaic names in the main article on Piešťany, as asked by this convention. At the same time, Pöstyén is not a widely accepted English name of Piešťany in the historical context and neither of the two users has claimed that. Neither is this name consistently used in English sources about Victor Vasarely. There are only nine pages (in English and outside Wikipedia) using Pöstyén in connection with Vasarely[14] while 65 pages (with the same criteria) use Piešťany[15]. Despite the convention and the rare use of Pöstyén in English sources, User:Hobartimus and User:Squash Racket keep reverting the article to the version non-compliant with WP:NCGN. If ignored, this violation of WP:NCGN is likely to be followed by other similar actions because User:Hobartimus has attacked WP:NCGN several times, referring to it as to just “suggestions, advice and the like”. What can I do to enforce WP:NCGN at Victor Vasarely? Can anyone help me in this case? Tankred (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Tankred, next time please drop me a line if you mention my name wikified at a specific discussion, thanks.

The problem is that in most Hungary-related articles usually after a lot of Hungarian placenames suddenly Slavic placenames show up which is obvious after the Treaty of Trianon. Having those names there is OK, but to keep consistency of the article I think we can also use the Hungarian names there. Should we force every single English/American reader to learn about the Treaty of Trianon to fully understand a Hungarian biography? If other English language sources don't have a problem with that, why should Wikipedia be an exception?

I was not here when this guideline was negotiated and the amount of 'evidence' you should present for every single name is ridiculous. An encyclopedia's main goal is intelligibility and this 'one and only widely accepted' name usage doesn't help that in a historical context. Squash Racket (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We base our decisions on one question: what name is now used in English about the place in that historic context. As an immediately parallel example, present writing about nineteenth century Brno usually calls it Brünn. Our six methods are merely suggestions how to answer this; any one of them should do, unless by chance they disagree; so we don't need vast amounts of evidence, just a little research. In this case, the equivalent of method 3 would be a standard encyclopedia of modern art; I see there is also a biography by Holzhey, in English, published neither in Hungary nor Slovakia. What does she use? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gdańsk/Danzig

This guideline has been mentioned at Talk:Gdańsk#Heading with regard to if only Gdańsk or both Gdańsk and Danzig should be in bold in the article's introduction. Olessi (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Header

At present, this begins with three paragraphs of instructions, elaborating on the quite simple underlying principle: If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it. If it is spoken of by several different names in different historic contexts, use them. (examples, say, Saint Petersburg and Istanbul) Our purpose here is to ensure that our article names are understood by the general reader, not by specialists. By following English usage, we avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.

Why not put something like this on top? I've seen "ought to be called" cited several different places, outside the specific context we now use it. Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Krakow or whatever

It is wrong to use a diacritical mark in the article title. I have a question for anybody not Eastern European who wants the mark there: What is the mark called? No fair looking it up. Off the top of your head.

This is the English-language Wikipedia. To use a diacritic in the page title is blatantly, spectacularly POV. I, a born-and-raised American, have been aware of the city since childhood, when it was called "Cracow", by the way. I'll accept the new spelling, but not the mark. <allcaps>The English alphabet doesn't have that letter.</allcaps> It's that simple. Do we want Wikipedia to be politically correct or literately correct?

I'm picking on Krakow (see?) only because I want to go there, and I happened to look it up, but the same goes for many, many placenames in Wikipedia. We should just bite the bullet and transliterate, whether the natives like it or not. NPOV forever! --Milkbreath (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See Łódź for a town currently spelled on English Wikipedia with 75% non-English letters. Even if only Latin letters are used, the way they are arranged is often, hmm, hard to memorize. If you would look for a Polish city west of the Oder River, beginning with S, what will you type into search engines "Off the top of your head"? Sczeczin, Szcezcin, Szczecin, Szczeczin or simply Stettin? The current naming of Cracow is frequently questioned by native English speakers, and others, especially when Krahkoof (as its pronounced by Poles, roughly) is used in historic context. For Danzig/Gdansk, a solution has been found, while Krakau, Austria, a name by which it was also known in English in the century under Austrian rule until 1918, is barely mentioned in the article, as it is removed as soon as it is added. Feel free to file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but don't be surprised if many English speakers miss the poll, while numerous locals show up to vote "oppose". -- Matthead  DisOuß   00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"when Krahkoof (as its pronounced by Poles, roughly)"

The original name of the city is not pronounced this way.--Molobo (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not in English. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia rules permit the use of diacritics and currently there are tens of thousands of articles with diacritics in article title. English Wikipedia is a modern and the only global one from all Wikipedias, permission to use diacritics reflects that. "I don't like it." is not an argument, as well as desire of rare revisionists to turn all Central European place names to German ones from the 19th century. If there is a diacritics-free redirect, there is no problem with the use of diacritics in title. No one compels you to write diacritics yourself. We have redirects for readers/users who are not able (or willing) to write them. -- Darwinek (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Permit, yes, in certain cases, though I'm hard pressed right this second to think of a case where they'd be OK. We native English speakers don't even know what the marks are. Are we expected to learn the Cyrillic alphabet and kana, too? I'd like to, but I don't want to have to just to read my encyclopedia.

English Wikipedia is just that—English. Just because it happens to suit the purposes of one group or another because of its popularity is no excuse for them commandeering it.

You are perceptive. I actually don't like it. But I didn't say that, and you are right that it doesn't matter. I said it's not English, and I said that I don't like POV.

You reveal your POV with your "German" comment. What's the difference what language the English standard name came from? (And, anyway, English is a Germanic language.) And if there are "revisionists", what do we call their foils? I'm not a revisionist or any "ist", I'm a native English speaker who sees political action groups trying to force their alphabets on me. I have no political stake in this matter. I couldn't care less about the ancient European animosities that underlie the issue and that lead proponents of these bizarre spellings to mount an effort to advance their orthography over their tribal enemy's. I simply want the English Wikipedia to be written in English, and English doesn't have those diacritics. The redirects should go the other way. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well put. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know your reactions when someone would like to touch and de-diacriticize Lithuanian articles. - Darwinek (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My reaction usually is objecting to rare revisionists to turn all Lithuanian place names to Polish ones from the 19th century (sic). Dr. Dan (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plain and empty words as always. Are you able to mention some example of that behaviour? - Darwinek (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want EN Wikipedia to be full English, just leave it, because it will never happen. There was a poll here about the use of diacritics, back in 2005, if I remember it correctly. 58% of users were in favour of diacritics. Since 2005 thousands of new users joined, mainly from non-English countries. Therefore such poll will always lean "against English", as you would say probably. It is only a matter of time when pro-diacritics group in the poll would reach 3/5 constitutional majority. Reason no one from 2005 started that poll again is simple. Proponents of diacritics are satisfied, because general community and WP leadership accepts them. Opponents of diacritics fear starting that poll again knowing they would lose again. They just from time to time issue some silly request for move which is always denied by the rest of the community. This is the democratic process, and to quote Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is a tyranny of a majority over the minority." As for your further grievances, if you want to start article about some person with diacritics, no problem, others will add them, that's the community work. I also don't like boxing it just to Central Europe, 90% of the countries use diacritics, also Germans do. That German remark wasn't aimed at you but at user commenting below you. There is no politics with proponents of diacritics, it is just the common sense. Politics is often behind opposers. Again if you don't like it, you should deal with it and your feelings, because there's no way one single Wikipedian can change that general preference and acceptance here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I don't take your pronouncements about the fate of Wikipedia as the word of God, won't you? I'm flabbergasted at the unabashed nationalistic rivalries this issue stirs up. I'm even more flabbergasted at the way people can openly wave their flag at the vanguard of their mass of steely-eyed supporters, declaring the glory of their POV and happily mustering their troops to vote away their enemy's POV. This encyclopedia is supposed to be NPOV, remember? This question is not about Lithuania vs. Poland vs. Germany vs. Who-knows-what-jumped-up-duchy. The issue is English language. Learn it, love it. It doesn't use diacritics. How about everybody disarm? Let's have a Strategic Diacritics Limitation Treaty, where we phase out diacritic weapons and live together in peace.

We have people here in the US who like to distort English for political or other personal purposes. They have achieved much. Perhaps their greatest success (the real estate agents this time) is changing "house" to "home". They have been working hard to eradicate the generic pronoun (feminist types), but they've only succeeded in crippling style a little. Great strides have been made in the area of euphemism, only there it's two steps forward, two steps back. That bunch have job security. Yeah, I don't like it when a group tries propaganda on me. I'd have expected the Central (I'm learning) Europeans to feel that way even more than I do. It's ugly and cynical and it insults my intelligence and it makes me feel threatened. I like the truth and NPOV.

I'm puzzled by something. All this country-to-country rivalry seems to leave out the UK and the US. Isn't that a bit studied? Or are there no festering resentments there? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

They may rear their ugly head in 2014. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a Central European issue for me, it is just for several hate-mongers who attack place names only in that region of Europe. What about French, German, Norwegian, Spanish, Mexican, Canadian, Japanese, Turkish, Swiss or Swedish place names? That's right - nothing, because no one ever wrote here any complaint about place names with diacritics in these countries. English language doesn't use diacritics (or at least did not used till US annexed Hawaii), English Wikipedia is more progressive and does. No question about it. Disarmed. It is funny that disagreements with diacritics sometimes come from country which have most revolutionary experts for language changing. See for example great George Carlin performance on "soft language", you can catch it on YouTube. - Darwinek (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I heard, Zurich was Swiss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And what about Neuchâtel, Münsingen or Thônex, to name some. I didn't say nothing about Zurich. - Darwinek (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You asserted that this problem did not arise with Swiss (or Turkish) placenames. Zurich/Zürich is one of the best-known problems of this kind; İstanbul came up on this page quite recently. Please take a wider look; there is a whole world of Wikiproblems; it's not just Poland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the middle position, which we now state, that we use diacritics when English does. The example we cite is Besançon; Besancon would look bizarre. This makes it a matter of fact: what do English speakers actually use? The place to present evidence is Talk:Kraków. My bet would be on Cracow, not Krakow; certainly not Krakau, in any period. Cracow is not German; it's Latin, adapted from Cracovia.

If I would have to choose from alternatives to Kraków, I would prefer Cracow, as you say. Besides, middle position is not an answer. Well, it is in the case of capital or large cities, but not in the case of backward, forgotten villages in Romania and eastern Poland. - Darwinek (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The mark is an acute accent in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead horse. The issue has been debated time and time again. Vote has been made, the issue is over, I doubt that after such intense debate something changed--Molobo (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can but it is unlikely in this case. - Darwinek (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But so far mostly only former opponents of the name have been active here, while its supporters are not, so I don't see any signs of that. I myself don't consider this to be productive or new discussion. Cheers! --Molobo (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This dead horse again? Until it can be shown that the consensus has changed, it is OK to use the diacritics. EOT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Late, but I can't resist pointing out the demonstrably false straw men, like "the English alphabet [sic] doesn't have diacritics" (stupid Webster's and OED, eh? List), that a mark with an obscure name is not "English" (Ellipsis, solidus. Permil. Pilcrow!), that removing diacritics from Latin letters in a proper name makes it "English", that "diacritics are blatantly, spectacularly POV" (wtf?), that English-language Wikipedia is written for people from particular countries, and the lurid prose about how the One World Government is insinuating diacritics into our moms and apple pies.

Gentlemen and ladies, even in the days of our granpaws only about a third of English was English, and the only English letters are futhorc. However, I would suggest that the language is not in danger.

You may also enjoy "A Campaign for Pure English," 1920, NY Times, wherein dangerous exoticisms are lamented including media, repertoire, questionnaire, and agricultural laborer. —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 21:19 Z

What English ?

If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it. What English ? English is spoken all over the world and most of the people who speak English are not even native speakers. There's nothing like a "universal" English usage. It will be different in USA and different in Germany. English wikipedia is an international project, not limited to Americans only. --Lysy^talk 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. ...most of the people who speak English are not even native speakers. This is demonstrated on these talk pages every day, and unfortunately often in the articles too. What's particularly dissapointing is their resistance to being corrected when they need to be. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why we have many Wikipedias; each should read what she can best understand. Different varieties of English are covered by WP:ENGVAR; those who write or read a pidgin will be best served by the Simple English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Names in the lead

Part of definition: "one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place"
In Hungary, the lead may contain Hungarian, German, English, Latin, Croatian, Serbian, Rusyn, Yiddish, Armenian, Slovene, Slovak, Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Romani etc. versions by these standards. This definition doesn't really work at countries with a long history. I think only forms should be mentioned in the lead that may appear in English language sources and other forms should go into the list of alternative names. This may mean Hungarian, German, English, Latin versions with possibly a few exceptions (if any) which would look more acceptable. Right now the lead at Hungarian places does not really reflect the importance of those versions mentioned, it looks like an odd dictionary. Hungary was partly occupied by the Ottoman Empire four hundred years ago, so now many Turkish names are put in the lead. I think that is strange.
It reads "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this place exclusively or in decisive numbers"? Then the definition should be modified. Squash Racket (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The common sense says that not all the groups are equally important. If there is one Chinese family living in Gyor, it does not make much sense to include the town's Chinese name. But since the town used to have a large Croatian minority, the lead should include the Croatian name. Please do not remove it again.[16] Your restrictive definition would lead to the removal of many alternative names from articles on places in Central and Eastern Europe and that would make many users unhappy. The only result would be a series of unnecessary edit wars. I urge you not to remove alternative names from articles about places in Hungary (as you are doing right now). If I understood your point well, you do not like having too many names in a lead. WP:NCGN recommends putting them into the special "Names" section placed right after the lead in case there are more than two alternative names. I think this is a much safer solution than to remove non-Hungarian names.[17][18][19][20] Tankred (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now, in 2008 I wouldn't be so sure about the number of Chinese and the number of Croatians living in Győr, there are a lot of unregistered Chinese immigrants in larger Hungarian cities nowadays. When it comes to Slovak names you seem to be an inclusionist, when it comes to Hungarian names you are a deletionist[21][22][23][24]. We are talking about the definition itself here, because I think the problem lies in WP:NCGN. Or we should write an etymology section for bigger cities like the one made up by a banned user recently copied into an article from the German Wikipedia? I would also like to know what is your opinion on disputed cases. Right now you place Slovak versions into the lead of Hungarian placenames, because of the heavily disputed connection between the Balaton Principality, Great Moravia and modern Slovaks. We don't really need Hungarian, German, English, Latin, Croatian, Chinese, Serbian, Rusyn, Yiddish, Armenian, Slovene, Slovak, Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Romani etc. versions even in a separate etymology section. These really belong into the list of alternative names.

I think the present version of the definition leads to trouble. If we only included names in the lead that have at least a chance to appear in English language sources or change the definition in the way I suggested above, we would have cleaner lead sections. Squash Racket (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Names can change

It was the clear intent of this guideline that names can change; that we should use Byzantium, Constantinople, or Istanbul, depending on what period we are talking about. But there is an argument at Talk:Duchy of Pless, involving an editor who denies, in principle, that this guideline implies that use of a name for a town in 2008 does not decide what name we should give the same place in 1908, or 1408, and the other way around.

I propose to add some such language, probably as a note to general principle 3. Comments by third parties? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text:

This means names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1400 or 1900, or the other way around. For more examples, some of them involving changes within the twentieth century, see below. (linking to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Examples). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My fear is that some users will refer to these words while putting random archaic names into articles. If we add a text along the proposed lines, it should also clearly state that only names widely accepted in English (in the historical context) should be used. Tankred (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a lot of similar problems when it comes to post-Trianon placenames in Central Europe in historical context, so I think the change is needed. To avoid edit wars in the future I propose that both the modern and the historic name might be used. Squash Racket (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your fear seems to me motivated by the ongoing discussion about Hungarian names in the former Kingdom of Hungary. You are going to be make almost impossible for a historic name of lesser importance to be used. But anachronism is not better in the case of a small Central-European market-town than in the case of Byzantium/Istanbul. Zello (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked to expressly include widely accepted historic name and a reminder that many towns (in most of the New World; in Scandinavia; those places in England which do not go back to the Romans) should have the same name in all periods. If this language is actually abused, we can fix further if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Montréal-Est, Quebec

If you look at Talk:Montréal-Est, Quebec, you'll see that a move to the English name "Montreal East" was turned down back in 2006. The English name is still used, and certainly was widely used at one time, and one can still find numerous examples. Am I right in thinking this with the naming conventions in these guidelines, such a move might have a better chance today? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the evidence. See the section on Widely Accepted Names for the sort of evidence we encourage. The question is: what does English normally use? (For example, I believe English does use Trois Rivieres, Quebec; we do not automatically translate (but I'm not sure we should hyphenate).) On the other hand, the arguments of WP:Official name that were used last time have much less support. Bring the encyclopedia articles and other reference works. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Yes, I would not think to translate Trois Rivieres, as Three Rivers is simply no longer used by anyone, as far as I can tell. I will continue to proceed along the lines you suggest. So far, all my changes have been non-controversial, I am happy to report. I should also mention that I've been active in creating and tweaking article names where French is the preferable option, so I have no particular agenda here. This can be a charged issue in Quebec, as you might well imagine. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

This page makes no recommendation on infoboxes. I have been bold and said that names should be included in infoboxes iff they are included in text; but what do other people think? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello everyone. I would like to ask for help with a new user. He/she replaced all the English geographic names in a high number of articles about Slovak artists and politicians by Hungarian geographic names (see [25] for the list of the changed articles). After I encouraged him/her to read WP:NCGN and changed the articles back, he/she did it again, with an edit summary "WP:IGNORE - anachronisms fixed, deleting this is vandalism". He/she also wrote me a nice message on my "mentality", based on some e-mail he/she has received from an unknown user.[26] Can anyone else explain him/her this convention and fix the articles please? If I try it again, it will just lead to an edit war because User:Rembaoud has already expressed his unwillingness to communicate with me. Thank you in advance. Tankred (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the above sections Application of WP:NCGN and Names in the lead before dealing with this. Longstanding issue. Thank you.

I have read this new user's message on Tankred's talk page and for the no communication part:

Maybe you should have tried to talk to me before you deleted everything.(...)If you want, you can WP:RfC or WP:AC or something similar.

Squash Racket (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted part of sentence

I deleted (commented out) the statement that "most places which are notable... have established English names..." since this seems to be clearly false (any village anywhere is notable, but established English names - in the sense the phrase is apparently used here - exist only for a relatively small number of towns in non-Anglophone countries).--Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding, which the clause in question was intended to prevent. I don't see how to clarify it further, save by example: Pisa is the established English name of Pisa (Italian Pisa), just as Rome is the established English name of Rome (Italian Roma). It is places like Merano/Meran which may not have an established English name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies for thinking this change was undiscussed; it took me a while to see this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The section in question is:

most places which are notable, in Wikipedia's sense, do have established names in English

Please read the defining clause. If they are notable, they are discussed. If they are discussed in English, and most villages which are discussed at all in RS are discussed in English, the question becomes whether English usage is consistent. Most often it will be consistent, because it will consistently use the local name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a clause on places which have notability, but are only mentioned in non-English sources. I think Kotniski underestimates how rare this is; Every commune in the South Tyrol is mentioned in dozens of English sources, even on-line; many of them are advertising, but some are reliable sources in our sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How about every village in China?--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most villages in China are not notable; mention in a Chinese census is not enough. Even the non-notable ones have probably been mentioned in English; there are works on the individual Chinese provinces, for example. It suffices to have a generally accepted form among these mentions, which is likely to happen unless Chinese usage is inconsistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find the notability guidelines on places; I'm sure it says somewhere that all villages are considered notable (at least, it used to, and every little place in the U.S. has an article, so I guess the same would apply to other countries if anyone could be bothered to write them). Anyway, we obviously understand "established" differently - I take it to mean more than just appearing in a few scattered sources.--Kotniski (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the functions of this sentence is to define what we mean by established name in this guideline; but the only purpose for that is to say use it. If the Chinese name for a village is Yuanfu, and every English source uses it, where's the problem, even if there are only three? (Such cases consistute the asserted majority.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• It may be that the Chinese WP will differ on what is notable; they probably should. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, found what I was looking for, hidden away here. Well I don't consider this particularly important, I just think the statement as it stands is inaccurate; it might be misinterpreted backwards to mean that if places don't have English sources then they're not notable, which would lead to a very Anglo/US-centric view of the world. Just eliminate the word "most" and I'll be happy.--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Even with the parenthesis, which says explicitly that notability can be established on the basis of non-English sources? I'll see if I can strengthen it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with the new version.--Kotniski (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The addition of Welsh placenames to English places

(I've also included this message on WT:V, and I would welcome further opinions about the issues I raise.)

There is currently a discussion ongoing (its latest phase is on User talk:Jza84#English exonyms) about adding Welsh places names to places that are in England. Most of these places are close to the English-Welsh border, but not all of them, and so in some cases, it is reasonable to consider adding the Welsh names. However, there is some disagreement between myself and an editor about verification of the facts added when one wishes to add a Welsh name to an English place. I maintain that to add a Welsh name to an English place one needs two kinds of verification (a) an appropriate reference (say, to a suitable dictionary) that can confirm that the added Welsh name is accurate, because we have had disputes or incorrect names added previously (e.g., Hereford, as can be seen from its edit histories and discussion page, though there is at least one other place which I cannot find just now); and (b) some justification, appropriately verified, as to why the addition of the Welsh name to a particular English place is reasonable (for example, if a place in England was frequently used as a stopping point on an old droving road by Welsh farmers that it gained a Welsh name that it was used and by which it was known by in Wales, and if this can be verified by means of a suitable citation, then it should be used to justify the addituion of the Welsh name in a suitable place within the article for the English place.) Of course, sometimes one single source could serve both purposes. I maintain that these requirements are merely a working through of the normal wikipedia requirements for verification and citing sources of any non-obvious factual information that is added to an article. The one person who is objecting to this has said in a previous discussion that this is an unfair extra burden to be placed on the addition of Welsh names. I would like some advice about this from others. The present discussion can be viewed for a bit more information. If previous discussions are needed, I can search them out if requested. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made some revised suggestions at User:Ghmyrtle/Sandbox 2. I am conscious that this may not give as much rigour as some might like - though personally I tend towards flexibility rather than rigidity of approach - and also that it tends to focus on the Wales/England issue, which has been my main concern and has generated many words on many talk pages. I haven't changed Jza84's suggested usage table, simply because I'm undecided how useful it would be (although I'm very grateful for the stimulus it has offered). All comments and thoughts welcome. I'm copying this message to various pages, but I suggest that further discussion should be coordinated at the WP:UKCITIES talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Widely accepted name changed by authoritative governing body

Hello. After a recent discussion at Talk:Bangalore to move Bangalore to Bengaluru, it is pretty unclear from these guidelines (and the ones present at proper nouns and conflict) as to what should be done for an article name, when the local governing body changes the name of the city. After being involved in the discussions for Bangalore, I feel that a specific policy needs to be in place for this. Current guidelines are ambiguous with each side stating a different part of the policy and hence, maintaining what the guidelines state. Here are the points, presented for lucidity on the issue:

1. The English name of the city has been changed. Please see Chennai, Mumbai, Kolkatta, Kochi for examples. These used to be the regional names of these cities - but the local reigning government decided to change them to represent the name of the city in the English language. Since English is one of the official languages of India, this has been widely accepted.
2. Google returns more hits for Bangalore than Bengaluru. But this would be obviously true since the name has only been changed about 4-5 months back. However, the article on the Republic of China could have been named Taiwan. That is the more widely known name. Honestly speaking, till today, I never knew that China was split into PRC and RoC. I discovered that Taiwan's official name is RoC only because I was reading through our naming conventions on what to do when conflicts exist. And Taiwan is the more widely accepted name - by miles - according to Google hits.
3. Bangalore is more common than Bengaluru. Again, this would be obviously true since the name change is recent. I remember that when Madras was changed to Chennai, it took quite a few years for it to become prevalent.

So, the question right now is, do we follow the official naming authority for the city? Or do we rely so heavily on Google hits? If we do rely on Google hits, then why isn't the article on the RoC called Taiwan? We could always disambiguate the actual island with Taiwan (island).

Please keep in mind the following:

• There is still a little controversy as to whether the name change has been accepted by the Central Government of India (it was proposed and officially passed by the state Government of Karnataka)). This came up during the discussion and we're thinking of proposing necessary inclusion in policy guidelines, before the name change becomes fully official and we editors have a go at it again. :)
• Bengaluru (when fully official) will be the English name of the city. It won't be just an anglicised version of the Kannada name. Renaming Bangalore to Bengaluru is the equivalent of (hypothetically - please, no offense intended) renaming London to Londres. (Please let us not get into a discussion of this won't happen ... I'm just stating a hypothetical example.) If such a change were to occur, wouldn't the article on London have to be moved to Londres ? aJCfreak yAk 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not stright away. English names for things are largely decided by general use and due the number of english speakers around theses changes tend not to be sudden. So the civil authoritys may anounce a sudden change but it may well take time for that change to be accepted by the english speaking community if at all.Geni 14:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But then why do we use Republic of China instead of Taiwan? Honestly, as mentioned earlier, I didn't even know that China was split into the PRoC and the RoC. And I'm sure there're quite a few people out there with the same uninformed ignorance (as can be seen from Ghits). Also, when the body that has the authority/jurisdiction over something changes the name, shouldn't we change the corresponding article on Wikipedia? What if a company was renamed? Recently, the Hindustan Lever Limited company was renamed to Unilever. The corresponding WP article was changed in a flash - before I could even get to it. However, I'm sure the majority of the English-speaking Indians would have still referred to the company as HLL. In such scenarios, wouldn't it make WP a more reliable source if we represent the modern, correct name for the city/entity/organisation? aJCfreak yAk 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out one crucial fact in the case of Bangalore/Bengaluru - the common usage rule really cannot be applied here. I mean, think about it. A case like Munich, where both the names have existed side-by-side throughout the ages is different from a case where the word Bengaluru has been newly added to the English dictionary. It would not have widespread usage, it would not have more Google hits - simply because the whole English speaking world at large has been calling it Bangalore for a coupla centuries maybe, and this change is sudden. The change would take time to "catch on" with the English speaking world. But the point here is - when the name of the city is no longer Bangalore, shouldn't we rename the article? We could start off the lead by saying "Bengaluru, formerly Bangalore, is a city in ... " (And yes, I really think RoC should be Taiwan. Lemme finish with this discussion first :) ) aJCfreak yAk 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, precisely because most English speakers are still using Bangalore. This will (presumably) change in time; but but we are waiting for the time when most English speakers adopt the new name - if that ever happens. The RoC is partly an error, caused by a vociferous nationalist movement, but it is partly the defensible wish to distinguish between the government and the island; some of the Indian name changes are also nationalism, and contrary to policy and the wider consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the Republic of China is a bit more complicated, in that Taiwan isn't just a synonymous, but more commonly used name. The ROC administers both Taiwan Province and a bit of Fujian, as well as Taipei and Kaohsiung, which aren't part of either province. It's also not identical with Taiwan island, since while that includes Taipei and Kaohsiung, it doesn't include Penghu County, Kinmen, and Matsu. And finally, on paper, the ROC claims a much larger territory, including mainland China and Mongolia.

Also, calling the ROC "Taiwan" is really taking sides on a political issue that's unrelated to the naming dispute as such. As Michael Z notes below, this type of fact-intensive situation is unsuited to a convention. --Xiaopo (Talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Names of Indian cities as Measured by Hits on Google:

• Calcutta- 11,700,000 hits
• Kolkata- 12,100,000 hits

• Madras- 9,260,000 hits
• Chennai- 19,800,000 hits

• Bombay- 24,200,000 hits
• Mumbai- 36,200,000 hits

• Bangalore-25,800,000 hits
• Bengaluru- 416,000 hits

I think we see why Chennai and Kolkata and Mumbai retain those names and why Bengaluru is still not the common name of the city in the English language Nikkul (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to make a specific policy that adequately covers this, because each and every case is different.

Relevant factors may or may not include things like whether the place name is related to the name of a people, the official status of the government's name change, who else recognizes it, which English-language news agencies adopt it, whether English is the official language, an official language, or not, whether the change is a new name, an alternate name, a name from a different language, from a different language register (e.g. Myanmar and Burma are actually the same name in the same language, believe it or not), or simply an altered orthography, etc, etc.

People are very attached to their place names, and there will often continue to be lots of discussion about them. —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 19:23 Z

Thanks Michael. In reply to Nikkul, I'd just like to say that this discussion is not to decide whether Bengaluru is the common English name - we all know that Bangalore is the common English name; rather, we'd like to discuss the possible requirement of overlooking the "common English name" rule when the current governing body renames it. Obviously, Ghits aren't going to reflect that much. Mumbai being renamed in 95 and Chennai being renamed in 96 have a headstart. Kolkatta just seems to be catching on now. :) aJCfreak yAk 06:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're so keen on Ghits for deciding WP's naming policies, then why don't we rename the Thiruvananthapuram article to Trivandrum since Thiruvananthapuram has 2,170,000 Ghits, as compared to 2,390,000 for Trivandrum. And this renaming happened in 1991, according to the article itself - sufficient time for the new name to catch on. aJCfreak yAk 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guideline you are discussing. This page strongly disapproves of Ghits, and requires a supermajority of English usage against a local name. If we acknowledged Google on Trivandrum, it would support the new spelling; I suspect it is borderline. In any case, I strongly oppose acknowledging the whims of governing bodies before English as a whole does: for more, see WP:MOSTRADE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New naming convention

A new naming convention for places in Slovakia is being discussed at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Proposed_naming_convention. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Since these new rules might be later regarded as a precedent by non-involved editors (remember the Danzig/Gdansk case?), I think you will find this ongoing discussion and a poll interesting. Tankred (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Permanent editwars in biographies related to Danzig/Gdansk or Königsberg

The Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote clearly states:

• "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively"

There are often edit wars in biographies of Category:People from Gdańsk which consist mostly of additions/removals of Royal Prussia, Polish, Polish Crown, Poland, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the like. See the edit history of e.g. Reinhold Curicke - the bio itself is only a stub with three short sentences! Others typically affected are Philipp Clüver, Reinhold Curicke. These articles and their talk pages are mainly editwar battlefields about the city's Polishness or lack thereof. Actual content is often collaterally damaged - besides, who wants to expand an article which is likely reverted anyway? Even people born outside of the city (see List of people living or working in Gdańsk) like Edward O'Rourke are affected, or Andreas Schlüter whose place of birth is uncertain. Or Gabriel Fahrenheit, who left as a teenager and spend most of his life in Amsterdam. Do we have editwars whether the use of Holland or Netherlands is appropriate?

So, what I request is a policy that prevents edit wars in bios. The most simple solution in controversial cases is mentioning/linking only of the city (with proper naming), so that its history and affiliation can be looked up if of any interest to the reader. Often the history of a birthplace is of low importance to a bio (Nazi leader Rudolf Hess was born where?) or adds more confusion than necessary (John McCain born where? Imagine future centuries of edit wars whether he was Latin American or Latino!) No nationalities/citizenships/ethnicities should be stated, which are often selected/added/removed based on OR or wishful thinking. For example, Copernicus is often claimed as Polish based on citizenship as subject of the Polish King, as is Fahrenheit [27], while Marie Curie, clearly born as subject to the Russian Czar (as most 19th century Poles), is of Polish nationality and later French citizenship.

A striking use of the Danzig double naming policy is for Category:People from Königsberg, where Królewiec is often added, based on the history of Ducal Prussia from 1525 to the late 1600s. The Swede Johan Baazius the younger has absolutely nothing to do with Poland, yet "Königsberg University (Królewiec University)" was were he studied, according to Wikipedia.

So please let's:

• define a clear policy
• enforce it strictly

-- Matthead  Discuß   22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

...Copernicus was obviously a Polish astronomer, who disputes that and why?--Supparluca 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See Double Naming rules which require double names in cases of shared history. It works both ways Matthead, Królewiec was an important as a fief of Poland and shares history. Your claim is also one sided, you forgot to mention how often the country of birth is removed for no reason and with no explanation in many of those articles just as well as citizenship. Often the articles become a battlefield for POV trying to present a city as German and deletion of any information about the fact that it was located in Poland. Nobody ads that Fahrenheit was a Pole. However he was born in Poland and Polish citizen by birth. This is encyclopedic fact. I have nothing against giving his full citizenship in later life--Molobo (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"It works both ways"? Like Königsberg (Królewiec), but not Warsaw (Варшава) or Cracow (Krakau)? I dare everybody to pick a random figure from List of Poles. Many of the entries there were born in Russian Empire, Austrian Empire, Prussian Kingdom, German Empire, and are anyway introduced as "was a [[Poland|Polish]]", without mention of any country or citizenship. I dare to say that country of birth was never removed from many of these articles - it was never added. Where might "Alois Friedrich von Brühl (Polish: Alojzy Fryderyk Bruhl; 1739 – 1793)" have been born? There is a lot of work to do in your own back yard, Molobo. Like explaining how "Daniel David "Dan" Rostenkowski (born 2 January 1928 in Chicago, Illinois)" fits on that list. Or Andrey Vyshinsky. Or "Josef Zieleniec (born on 28 May 1946 in Moscow) is a Czech politician". Back to your own personal contributions, though. Molobo, please explain these edits, in which you removed the German name of the place of birth, as well as the German province, from bios of people born before 1914:

1. 21:04, 19 April 2008 Maksymilian Ciężki‎ (No evident shared history, the double naming rule requires a shared history first to include alternate name)
2. 21:03, 19 April 2008 User talk:149.225.55.178‎ (←Created page with 'Violation of Double Naming rule. Your edits violate the double naming rule. Only in cases of shared history we add alternate name. We don't use that in cases where...')
3. 21:02, 19 April 2008 Józef Chyliński‎ (No evident shared history, the double naming rule requires a shared history first to include alternate name)
4. 21:01, 19 April 2008 Edmund Charaszkiewicz‎ (No evident shared history, the double naming rule requires a shared history first to include alternate name)
5. 20:56, 19 April 2008 Marian Rejewski‎ (No evident shared history, the double naming rule requires a shared history first to include alternate name)
6. 20:55, 19 April 2008 Elżbieta Zawacka‎ (No evident shared history, the double naming rule requires a shared history first to include alternate name)

After your edit, the infobox of Marian Rejewski showed "born 16 August 1905, Bydgoszcz, Poland", rather than "Bromberg, German Empire". User:149.225.55.178 quite correctly added Gosslershausen (Jabłonowo Pomorskie), West Prussia on 20:20 19 April 2008 to Józef Chyliński, after which you made the edits listed above, reverting, and adding "violate the double naming rule" remark to the IPs talk page. That is failure to respect the vote, not only in regard to double naming, but also in regard to its last point, "In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.". For comparison, a few hours earlier, you hade made these edits:

1. 18:40, 19 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Bogusław Radziwiłł‎ (please respect the double naming compromise)
2. 18:35, 19 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Peter Crüger‎ (double naming, country of residence)
3. 18:33, 19 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Christoph Hartknoch‎ (english name of the book is well established, double naming)
4. 18:31, 19 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Christoph Hartknoch‎ (he wrote about history of Poland as well hence he is not only prussian historian, just historian will be neutral, a illustration of Kopernik his hardly a notable information)
5. 18:29, 19 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Christoph Hartknoch‎ (please see double naming rules)

Thats how "It works both ways" when Molobo is editing. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a personal questions post them on my talk page. Warsaw was controlled by Russian Empire while Kraków was part of Austro-Hungary, the double naming rule only applies to German-Polish topics, so Russian and AH topics are not covered by it. In similar way the double naming rule doesn't apply to Polish-Ukrainian topics or Polish-Lithuanian topics and is not applied in them. Note that Poles born under Russian Partition are given Polish names in location of birth not Russian ones. I don't see why it is a problem with people born in Poland Prussian/German partition ? --Molobo (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gdanzig rule applies only to that unhappy city. This page applies everywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I was not involved with the Gdanzig vote discussion, so I can only offer my own interpretation of it. The "Other locations" discussion began with:

The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

To me, this suggestion largely follows WP:NCGN, which advises the usage of a "widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context ... followed by the modern English name".

The "Other locations" discussion concluded with:

For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

The criteria for a location that shares its history with Germany and Poland is not clarified. However, that conclusion clearly states that "commonly used names" should be used; that "commonly used names" refers to usage in English should go without saying, since this project is in the English language and is written for English language readers. By the time the vote had been summarized in template form, however, the text had been changed to:

For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

There is no mention of commonly used names, only to a vague shared history. Interpretation of the template text has led to rather spirited editing in the past (i.e. including Drezno for Dresden).

As a native English speaker, what makes sense to me is using a system that follows the current WP:NCGN guideline: historic English name followed by modern name, i.e. Stettin (Szczecin) (for 1597, for instance). That formulation makes sense to me - use the name commonly used in English when talking about the city in 1597, and include the modern name. That formulation matches with the "beginning discussion" and the "concluding discussion".

However, the "template phrasing" says nothing about a "commonly used" qualifier. This has led to disputed phrasing like "Gumbinnen (Gąbin)" for someone born in 1886, although that town had last been within a Polish fief in the 17th century. For someone born in the 17th century, I don't really see the relevance for the reader of including the Polish name unless it is commonly used in English (as per WP:NCGN and the Gdanzig vote discussion) or is the modern name for a town. For a hypothetical 16th century person from Marienwerder/Kwidzyn (now in Poland), it makes sense to phrase it as "Marienwerder [historic English name] (Kwidzyn) [modern name]". For a hypothetical 16th century person from Tilsit/Sovetsk (now in Russia), it does not make sense to me to phrase it as "Tilsit [historic English name] (Tylża) [since it was within a Polish fief]", simply because Tilsit was part of the Duchy of Prussia, a fief of Poland. It seems silly to include Tylża because that name has never been widely used in English. What makes sense to me is "Tilsit [historic English name] (Sovetsk) [modern name]".

In conclusion, the Gdanzig discussion about how to treat "other locations" largely followed the current WP:NCGN recommendations by emphasizing names that are commonly used in English (whether historical or modern). However, for reasons which are unknown to me, the summarized template form omitted the important phrase "commonly used", which has contributed to the ongoing dispute over the vote's meaning. I don't feel particularly ambitious enough to reopen the can of worms about how to deal specifically with the city of Gdanzig, but it makes sense to me that "other locations" should follow WP:NCGN. Olessi (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That is extremely biased, since Poland was gone for over a century and Polish language was discriminated, Polish books banned it is obvious that Germanised versions of Polish towns and cities will be more widespread. The above stance for some strange reason decides to ignore this, although I can't imagine Olessi doesn't know about this fact as he was involved in editing articles about this subject. Using criteria as "commonly" used name is to vague and too biased towards Germanised forms to be accepted. The above demand would press for widespread usage of Germanised forms. Why I don't know. Can Olessi explain ? I might also add that I have yet to see Russians demanding that places in Russian partitioned Poland like Warsaw be double named with Russian names like some are demanding in regards to partitioned Poland under German rule.

"Interpretation of the template text has led to rather spirited editing in the past (i.e. including Drezno for Dresden)."

Double naming rules apply to German side as well as Polish. Double naming rules apply to German side as well as Polish, this often forgotten, for example in articles abut Królewiec.

"Stettin (Szczecin) (for 1597, for instance). That formulation makes sense to me - use the name commonly used in English when talking about the city in 1597, and include the modern name."

Olessi. Szczecin was the original name, only later Germanised into "Stettin" when we are dealing with historical period when that name is not yet germanised why should we manipulate history by presenting the city in that period as already with Germanised name ?

--Molobo (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My interest in this matter is how historical topics are discussed in the English language, my native language and the language this project is written in. Wikipedia is to reflect what verifiable reliable sources write about. If the sources commonly use one name over another for a certain time period, then that is how the information should be presented here. WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NCGN make it clear to me that in an English language project like this, historical English names should be used when appropriate. Wikipedia's goal is not political correctness or refighting historical battles, but representation of reliable sources.

For centuries, Szczecin was known in English literature as "Stettin", and as such that is the name which should be used when discussing certain historical periods. For the modern era, "Szczecin" is most commonly used, and as such should be the term used for that time period. If sources usually use the name "Szczecin" in a 12th century context we should reflect that; if sources use "Stettin" then we should reflect that instead. How and why a name came about is irrelevant for whether or not we use it; if it is the name most commonly used in a certain context, then that is what we should use. Constantinople is the most common name used for the city in 1453; if English usage changes so that "Istanbul" becomes the primary usage regarding 1453, then WP should reflect that, but not beforehand. Wittenberg was officially renamed "Lutherstadt Wittenberg"; that official name has not caught on in English, so it is still known simply in English as "Wittenberg".

The common name of Warszawa in English, in both historical and modern contexts, is Warsaw. If other towns in Russian Poland were commonly known in English by a non-native name, then NCGN should be applied when applicable. Königsberg and Koenigsberg are how that city is known in historical context in English; it has not been commonly known as "Królewiec" in English. What is relevant is the common historical name (Königsberg) and the modern name (Kaliningrad). Olessi (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For centuries Szczecin was Szczecin, I see no reason to disinform the readers that it was Germanised earlier then it was. You are not intending to use English names Olessi but German names that are used in English-speaking world. As to Królewiec/Konigsberg you claimed not long ago it is not the same city as Kalinigrad to press for splitting of that article into two city articles so that Konigsberg would have its own article.The most common name for the city of Koenigbserg is Królewiec. You are not seriously arguing that in XVII century the second most common name for the city was Kalinigrad and not Królewiec ? Kalinigrad after all, as you yourself argued is a different tale. Now you changed sides. I am sorry but such flip flopping doesn't seem serious and doesn't support your position. You can't change position day to day, or pretend German names are English. As for Warsaw the most common second name is Warschau I am sure. Since it was occupied by Prussia and Germany several time it shares history. Why don't you press for double naming in this issue ? Or is there something else behind attempts to name certain locations by German names then double naming rule vote(which btw ignored numerous votes against it) ?--Molobo (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Königsberg and Kaliningrad were different cities, but that it is better to describe the city's history in detail in a separate article, as had already been done with New York City and Istanbul. RE: "The most common name for the city of Koenigbserg is Królewiec" — that makes no sense at all. As I wrote above, we are interested in names used commonly in English. When discussing Kaliningrad in a pre-1945 context, "Königsberg" and "Koenigsberg" are by far the most common terminology in English. "Królewiec" may have been the second-most common name for the city in the 17th century, but it has never been a commonly used name in English; some Polish-oriented writers have used the name when writing in English, but it never became widely used like the German name. The modern name, Kaliningrad, is widely used in English in modern context. There is no reason for double naming with Warsaw — its historical name in English and modern name in English are the same: "Warsaw". Olessi (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Molobo could explain, when exactly "Szczeczin was known as Szczeczin" (in the english speaking world). I think Olessi describes the situation very well and this is how it should be handled.(Pommerland (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

I must agree with Olessi also. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommendations on tests for disputed names

• Written forms vs. spoken forms? (recommend written)

"Burma" is typically used in spoken language as the name for the country (this is my experience and that of other editors, but it's hard to demonstrate). On the other hand, "Myanmar" is the more common (but not exclusive) written form. In conflicts between spoken and written English, I would recommend adding the policy that written forms in general are more appropriate as article titles, since Wikipedia is a written form.

• Who is the current local authority? (use UN as tie-breaker)

In many cases, there are multiple conflicting local authorities with different accounts. See the "multiple local names" section of this article. Burma/Myanmar is a nightmare, since both names have a lot of political turmoil and who to call the "local authority" is not so clear. I would recommend adding some arbitrary specific party in the policy as a tie-breaker if no clear authority is present and other "tests" are inconclusive. I recommend the UN simply because it's "encyclopedic" to mention the UN explicitly in the article but not "encyclopedic" to mention other encyclopedias (could also use Webster's or the OED). The pitfall is that the UN's choice may not reflect common usage, but if common usage were obvious no one would need to use that section of the policy anyway.

Disclaimer and full disclosure: Both of these suggestions reinforce using the name Myanmar for the article, which is a position I have given some support for. I believe that they are generalizable recommendations for other debates.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! these do sound like good ideas on the surface, but when we have to resort to further expanding the rules so finely, we have to consider every possible pitfall. Would adding more naming rules really resolve the dispute? Phrases like "local authority" may have their deep meaning debated ad infinitum, if, for example, a current regime is not considered to be supported by the local people.

How do you figure that the first suggestion supports Myanmar? A Google Books search favours Burma by 4 to 1, and drops to almost 50-50 counting books published after the name change in 1989. —Michael Z. 2008-05-21 23:43 z

I haven't checked it, just reporting the arguments I've seen on the page (I haven't used that particular search myself, just assuming good faith of other people commenting, apparently in error). After reading Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, I'm growing dubious of my own suggestions on that principle. However useful they might be, they're unlikely to be broadly necessary.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• More importantly, we resort to local authority only when we must do something, and English usage is completely indecisive, usually through rarity. We do so both because using what our readers will recognize is primary, and because choosing the local authority is often a POV decision. Choosing the UN, which defers on principle to the government of the member state, is permitting SLORC's POV to decide our nomenclature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

After some thought, I couldn't support this proposal. To generalize Septentrionalis's concerns:

If a name is hard to choose given all of the guidelines we already have, then it requires more discussion to find the right consensus decision to best satisfy all of those guidelines. Predetermining some arbitrary referee would just ensure that in the most difficult and possibly sensitive cases the final decision would be made without being determined by Wikipedia's guidelines. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 20:47 z

Multiple local names, proposed change in wording

In summary, generalize the policy to include all cases where the "common English usage" test and "local official use" test both fail to provide a clear result.

• Current version (The italicized section would be removed):

There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.

• Proposed version (the bolded words would be added):

There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names and none of the tests above indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.

Might also consider adding that the arbitrary test should be agreed on by those who are disputing the case or selected by an uninvolved admin, though that may be redundant with standard policy. Just reading through, the Communes of South Tyrol example is extremely unusual and specific, has dubious value, and should probably be dropped from this section.

Just FYI, I was reading the policy in discussions about Burma/Myanmar. This particular section doesn't apply there without some very strange interpretation, but the wording in the section seems arbitrarily restrictive.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, in these exceptional cases we could "zoom out" and use the name in the language of the country where the place is located.--Supparluca 08:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this; the South Tyrol is a perfect example of why we do not, and should not, do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Somedumbyankee's proposal would simplify, but it would also change emphasis. We have this section at all to deal with this (fairly rare) case; it would also apply to much of Switzerland, but where else? This advice is for the case where there definitely fails to be enough English usage to decide the matter; Somedumbyankee's wording might encourage editors to stop looking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, another set of cases may have arisen. The Czech-Polish border is along the watershed of the High Tatra, and the peaks have names in both languages; English usage may not be decisive, and both names are local official names, although for another reason. Note that Supparluca's proposal won't work at all here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there isn't a single solution for all these (rare) cases, but a relatively simple case in which the place isn't on a border (or the most part of it is in one country, like the Soca River), could be peacefully resolved in this way.--Supparluca 08:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the change is not so much to ensure that perfect NPOV is attained, but to have a clear direction to resolve disputes in an orderly manner. If English usage is really that unclear, it invites edit wars and other nonsense. "Common English Usage" could be seen as a tip of the hat to a Western POV, but it's a reasonable way to resolve disputes. Self-identifying usage may be acknowledging whatever government is in charge, however loathsome, but it's a reasonable way to resolve disputes. I'd prefer a third rational test to a purely arbitrary one, but I don't see an obvious candidate. Policy does not create truth, it just resolves disputes so people can go back to adding or enjoying content. WP:IAR can always be invoked if the consensus is the result of the policy is inappropriate.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The Czech-Polish border there was established 1945, before 1919 it was Austrian-Prussian border, and German was spoken on both sides until 1945. A part of the Sudetes range is called Giant Mountains in English for over 200 years, since 1919 it is located mainly in Czech state(s) and named Krkonose there, yet the article was created at Karkonosze (Polish name, since 1945), and still is there, despite several move requests. Also, the mountain known as Schneekoppe also in modern English use [28] is currently at Sněžka-Śnieżka, which is unsourced OR [29]. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, English usage before 1945 for the range seems to me to have been Riesengebirge, which will be unacceptable to both sides. (I do not seriously propose this, even though it has the advantage of neutrality. :->) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid names

Let's make this explicit; the issue referred to by Septentrionalis just above concerns articles like the following (I found these three; there may be more):

• Králický Sněžník - Śnieżnik
• Sněžka-Śnieżka
• Babia Góra-Babia Hora

These are mountains on the Polish-Czech or Polish-Slovak border. The articles are currently double-named as shown above, the article name consisting of the Polish and Czech/Slovak names connected by a hyphen. I don't like the hyphen (it should be an en dash at least, IMO), while many don't like the double-naming idea at all. There are no other established English names available. Should these articles be renamed, and if so how? Suggestions please.--Kotniski (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The hyphenated names are specifically frowned on in the policy. A couple of tests to consider:

1. Is the border contested or do the peaks clearly fall on one side of a map? If they're clearly indicated on a map, my guess is that the language of the "host country" should be used.
2. If the border is unclear and they are clearly visible from only one city then I'd use that language.
3. If they are visible from two cities, use the one with the highest population (unless one is a capital or otherwise a tourist trap or is obviously closer).

Just some ideas. Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure those tests would settle the matter in any of these three cases. I was thinking of something more along the lines of the (London)Derry solution: make an arrangement to use the Polish name for some particular articles and the Czech/Slovak in others, just to avoid upsetting any nation's sensitivities.--Kotniski (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking about upsetting any nation's sensitivities: English still uses names coined by invaders a very long time ago, like this and that one. Are the locals entitled to be offended as the proper names are ignored? -- Matthead  Discuß   21:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I had pointed out on Talk:Sněžka-Śnieżka#Requested_move_to_name_of_German_origin that Schneekoppe is anything but forgotten in modern day English use: In post-1990 Google books in English (requiring "mountain"), one yields these hits (as of today):

• 15 for Śnieżka resp. Sniezka
• 8 Sněžka resp. Snezka 18
• 15 Schneekoppe

When posting in Dezember 2007, the counts were about twice as high, with 35 for Schneekoppe, 29 for Sniezka, 18 for Snezka. The population of Poland with 38 millions is much bigger than the Czech Republic's 10 million, BTW. As these two countries/languages can not agree on a single name, I boldly suggest to use the traditional German name in use until 1945, which was in most cases well established in English during the 19th century, and even future US-President John Quincy Adams used Schneekoppe them in his report about his travels in Silesia in 1800. This reference since has been deleted by an edit warrior. Instead of using obscure local names, like 乔戈里峰-کے ٹو and Cervino-ds'Horu-Mont Cervin, we simply should use the established English name, even after political changes. Czechs and Poles have expelled the German population in 1945, and some of them loathe to get reminded about this by the ongoing use of German-derived names in English. They should learn to live with that. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly fair to compare the degree to which "Schneekoppe" has become established in English to the way Cologne and Germany have (just count how many Google hits they get). No-one's going to resurrect old German names to describe places in modern Poland/Czech Republic, even if they are occasionally used in English in historical or specifically German contexts.--Kotniski (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Very fair, actually. Romans have left Deutschland 1500 years ago, yet English still uses names derived from Latin even though there are proper names in Deutsch for places in Deutschland. That is linguistic imperialism. Only about six decades ago, Deutsche were expelled from areas they inhabited some 700 years, with the consent of English speaking politicians. People are still alive who suffered it - or did it. When non-Deutsche names unused for 1500 years are still okay for places in Deutschland, why are non-Slavic names still used 70 years ago considered taboo for Slavic countries? If Giant Mountains is rejected in favour of Slavic names, then Black Forest has to be moved to Schwarzwald also. And Ore Mountains (Central Europe) is simply the Erzgebirge. Plenty to do in the Category:Mountain_ranges_of_Germany, including rename to Category:Mountain_ranges_of_Deutschland. No more double standards. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not comparing like with like here (no-one's renaming Poland to Polska, for example). I don't think your complaints are particularly relevant to this discussion, so forgive me for not responding in detail.--Kotniski (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is our policy (or custom) to oppose double naming, although I will admit there are quite a few cases where it could solve some long term disputes and edit wars. Perhaps this issue should be discussed further, although for now I would oppose double naming - since it would create some non-standard, confusing titles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem with double naming is that the people who would be doing the disputes, move proposals, and edit wars do them anyway, only over which name gets to be first. I'm not making this up, I regret to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not, I know :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So, anyone going to make a move proposal for the three articles I listed above?--Kotniski (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do. Our article strongly implies that Babia Gora, or most of it, is in Poland; I'm not sure what to do with the other two, which are on the border (one each?). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See proposal below.--Kotniski (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think double naming, as shown above is quite peculiar and problematic. The basement for the good working naming policy for such places is ... ... nothing else than simple tolerance. There are many articles about lakes and rivers shared by several countries, I recall quickly Estonia-Russia, Finland-Russia, Chile-Argentina borders. All have only one name (the second is completely different) and it is no problem here. I am also in favour of only one name in the article title but if the community chooses to use both, screw it and let it be. Still, if someone would like to make a reasonable move proposal I will gladly participate. - Darwinek (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mother Mary's words of wisdom are always relevant. Naming disputes are a headache that adds minimal content, so if it's not a problem, it's not a problem.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Undoubling

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Here's the move proposal, then, following on from the discussion above (this has been proposed at requested moves with the discussion thread directed to here, for want of anywhere better).

• Králický Sněžník - Śnieżnik → Králický Sněžník
• Sněžka-Śnieżka → Sněžka
• Babia Góra-Babia Hora → Babia Góra

This means two Czech names, one Polish and no Slovak, which might not seem quite "fair" to those who think in that way, but: a) the Poles already have Karkonosze; b) the Czech names are presumably also the Slovak ones or at least very close; c) the Slovak name given in the article is "Babia hora" which has odd-looking capitalization for an English article.--Kotniski (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• Weak support Some undoubling is needed; but it could well be that a different one is preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason given by User:Pmanderson: undoubling is needed. But agree that other choices given might be preferable. Please bring in some English-language non-national sources to support these choices. — AjaxSmack 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support By policy we should undouble them. Polish usage is probably bigger because more English speaking tourists go to Poland (no data, just a gut feeling), but that's a lousy way to split them.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposals like this just provoke endless discussions, EVs and nationalistic tinged competition. Let it be! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What's an EV?--Kotniski (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • EV --Iaroslavvs (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Isn't that EW? Anyway, how are proposals "like this" (whatever you mean by that) supposed to provoke edit wars?--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
        • One nation's "edit wojna" is another's "edit valka" ... -- Matthead  Discuß   13:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Exactly. I'm sorry for my mistake. I forgot the fact English Wiki doesn't know the Czech term editační válka... ;) --Iaroslavvs (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support. Everything is better than a double name, but I would prefer objective choices (for example, if a place is exactly on the border between two countries, use the name of the country with the larger population, etc.)--Supparluca 07:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

... which would give Italy the upper hand over Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, for example. The Matterhorn, placed on the Swiss-Italian border, would be renamed to Monte Cervino then? A rather unpopular kind of democracy, I'm afraid. An interesting proposal to solve the naming of rivers and lakes, though, where multiple countries can be involved. With Germany having more inhabitants than Poland, the Szczecin Lagoon would become Lagoon of Stettin again. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we consider only places without clear preferences about the English name. I don't think there are many rivers or lakes without an English name that are exactly 50.000% in a country and 50.000% in another.--Supparluca 18:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for the sake of avoiding edit wars. Space Cadet (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In proportion as this discussion is unanimous, it will deter edit wars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Each case should be judged on individual basis. Sometimes double title is justified.--Molobo (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what we are asking you to do; please give reasons why these three individual changes are justified or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I understand and support the purpose of this proposal, but I think we should establish first a more logical and consensual way for deciding which of the names should we keep for the titles. Flipping a coin doesn't seem the best way for doing it, and neither does a trading mountain scheme for countries to be even. There must be a more rational solution for deciding which side of the mountain should provide the title for its article. Yet, I can't think of a good solution so I'll just abstain. Húsönd 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with You. We need ingenious, logical system to state, which name should be chosen, not to offend anybody and to avoid nationalistic quarrels. Until then I propose to leave the double naming as it is. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it might be a long wait... And in the meantime we would have these three articles offending against generally applied WP naming conventions for no particular reason. As Darwinek points out below, there isn't any nationalistic squabbling going on here, and since the proposal is fairly nation-neutral I don't expect any such squabbling to break out as a result of the move.--Kotniski (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. I just want to point out to non-Central European users to observe how the Polish-Czech relations are good here. No one here (users from both sides voted) tries to push his own nation's name as more relevant. So back to the point - this voting shows again these double-names are a problem for WP naming conventions, not for Wikipedians. - Darwinek (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral generally per Husond. We shouldn't be divvying up place names so each country gets a couple titles, we should be reflecting what reliable sources use. If there is a clear favoring of one name over another, we should use it, regardless of whether that name is Polish, Czech, or Slovak. There are two guidelines that support this: WP:UE and this very page. The only thing we should really be discussing is which sources say what. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Move to close. Since we seem to be agreed that these names should be undoubled (even those opposing have failed to give any meaningful reasons), since no-one has come up with any alternative proposal for how they should be undoubled, and since all the evidence offered has turned out (serendipitously) to support the current proposal, I would suggest the proposal be considered to have been accepted. If in future some overwhelming evidence is produced to support some other name for a particular article (an unlikely scenario), it could be renamed again. But for the moment we seem to have consensus that the single names proposed are much more appropriate than the current double names.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Please place comments longer than about a sentence here.

There are two issues apparently:

1. whether to undouble these three names;
2. how to undouble them (there are 2^3 = 8 possible combinations of single names).

For me any of the 8 combinations would (in accordance with policy and precedent) be decisively better than the doubled names we have at the moment, but which of the 8 is chosen is a lesser issue. So perhaps those opposing the proposal could say whether they:

• want to keep the double names (in which case they should justify why these three politically uncontroversial mountains should be excepted from general Wikipedia principles which even such notorious cases as Derry/Londonderry have managed to come into line with); or
• are simply opposed to this particular proposed combination of undoubled names (in which case they should propose an alternative one).

I still don't understand the assertions about potential edit wars. Some arguments in support of my choice of names follow (admittedly quite weak, but the choice of single over double names is the main point, not the specific choice of single names):

a) Králický Sněžník is more specific than "Śnieżnik" - there are other Sněžníks in the Czech Republic, and calling the article just "Śnieżnik" might mislead readers who may be familiar with some of the other Sněžníks;

b) Sněžka/Śnieżka is more important to the Czechs, being their country's highest peak, than to the Poles (and giving it the Czech name would "compensate" for the fact that the article on the range - the Karkonosze/Krkonose - carries the Polish name);

c) re Babia Góra/Babia h/Hora: the correct capitalization of the Slovak name seems to be with a small h, but that looks odd for a place name to an English reader.

Any better arguments would be welcome, but even weak ones like these are enough to support moving the double names to single ones.--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, and the only reason my support above is weak is that I could indeed accept any of the eight choices; can we please get down to discussing which of them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a time and place for citing quality sources to determine what is used most in English sources. Not raw Google counts but other encyclopedias, gazetteers, or other geographical authorities as well as media usage. "Compensation" or other similar reasons are not valid to justify a particular title. — AjaxSmack 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here are the headwords of the main entries in Webster's New Geographical Dictionary (1984): (a) No entry, (b) Sněžka, (c) Babia Góra. In the entry for b the only alternative given is Schneekoppe; in the entry for c the only alternative given is Babia Hora. Deor (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There are also historical arguments. Polish names for both Sněžka and Králický Sněžník (as well as Krkonoše!) are apparently derived from the Czech ones, since modern forms of these names originate in the 19th century, when these areas were inhabited mostly by Germans with Czech minority. They became partly Polish only after WWII and the westward move of Poland and the resettlement after the German expulsion. Qertis (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that these three articles be moved, and there was consensus to un-double their name. There was no strong consensus what name to use, but no consensus that proposed were wrong, so I went with those and added redirects from the "other half" of each double (the page is thus available at each name). Switching which single-name is the article and which the redirect to it is beyond the scope of the proposal. DMacks (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Communes of South Tyrol

This example appears to be extremely specific to this case and appears to be a "best case scenario" for when there is no established English usage. Common sense could have made these decisions, and the section appears to be WP:CREEP. "If these conditions apply elsewhere, this solution may be worth considering." Have these conditions ever applied elsewhere? SDY (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No. And given the example of Merano, the value of this solution is dubious--Supparluca 08:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The section above, in fact, discusses a similar situation: English usage is unclear, and there are two official names for mountains on a national boundary. In the South Tyrol case, Merano is part of the solution, as our text explains. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Spaces around hyphen or dash

How strongly do we feel about "Minneapolis – Saint Paul" as opposed to the current Minneapolis-Saint Paul? TCMOS, AP Stylebook and NYTM all feel pretty strongly about the spaces, because "Saint Paul" is spaced (they take the position that without spaces, you're claiming there's something called a "Minneapolis-Saint"). The hyphen vs. dash thing is a smaller issue; in fact, I'm preparing to make a case to the devs to get the presentation of that kind of dash automated so we don't have to worry about it, but both TCMOS and WP:MOS prefer the dash. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As always, we'll have redirects to the proper page from anything that anyone could conceivably type. Also, I checked the whole talk page for the article, there's no discussion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. I have now moved the page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So does Fowler; his solution was to use an = as a double-dash, but that doesn't seem to have caught on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Kiev

This page is intended to reflect consensus, and the examples are supposed to be decisions which Wikipedia has actually made. I would therefore deplore summing up in favor of Kyiv, which was roundly opposed. See Talk:Kiev/naming.

Do we need to discuss the example at all? Are there any points here not discussed elsewhere, largely under Meissen? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology of the Pomeranian regions

I would appreciate some expert feedback on Talk:Pomerania#Terminology_of_the_Pomeranian_regions - the current English naming of the Polish parts of Pomerania. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Ireland

It has been proposed that Ireland should be moved to Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland to Ireland. To comment, please visit Talk:Republic of Ireland#Proposed move. This would seem significant in terms of geographic precedent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Now referred to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force. It's very long; are there any new points of principle raised? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)