Jump to content

Talk:Rak Škocjan

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

Requested move 2 March 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– English keeps original names in Latin alphabets, also nearly every other Wiki have their articles listed as Rakov Škocjan. A09 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pages with content, such as Rakov Škocjan, are ineligible to be new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. "Rakov Škocjan → ?" has been added to this request to satisfy that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Rakov Škocjan and Rak Škocjan are two different things. Rakov Škocjan is the name of a settlement, whereas this article is about the area (valley and park) with the base name Škocjan and modified by the name of Rak Creek (expressed as the adjective Rakov -a -o) to distinguish it from other areas sharing the name Škocjan. The premodifier is no different from Mariborsko Pohorje > Maribor Pohorje (cf. Maribor Pohorje Ski Resort) or Blejski Vintgar > Bled Gorge, or even Ljubljanski grad > Ljubljana Castle. Doremo (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some move; either the Rakov Škocjan (village) or Rakov Škocjan, Cerknica [sl] as in sl.wiki -- it has a population of 10 people, and the nature reserve is the obvious primary topic. The translation process where we ended to this contrived name, as explained by Doremo, is downright weird. From WP:UE: If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. While using "Maribor" and "Ljubljana" as adjectives for the two major Slovene cities indeed does not lose accuracy, doing the same for the obscure Rak (creek) does not. No such user (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above is reasonable; however, WP:UE also states "For lesser known geographical objects ... follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type". If we were dealing with, say, Rakov grad, Rakovo jezero, or Rakova dolina one would presumably readily write Rak Castle, Lake Rak, or Rak Valley. One can also say that Rakov in fact lessens "greater understanding" because it will not as easily be associated by English speakers with the river named Rak. At any rate, judging individual cases by perceived obscurity (even Maribor is very obscure to most English speakers) leads to potential inconsistencies: for example, Lake Bled and Lake Bohinj (because I've head of Bled and Bohinj), but Lake Družmirsko and Lake Dupeljsko, or similar (if I haven't heard of Družmirje and Duplje). The "type" in this case is a proper noun left-modified by an attributive adjective derived from another proper noun; for example, the type Tetbury Avon, Colorado Rockies, Tux Alps, etc. (the loss of German -er in the last case is analogous to the loss of Slovene -ov). Doremo (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're trying to say, but if we were to name articles about Slovenia then we should name Maribor as Settlement in NE Slovenia, if it were so obscure to English readers. IMO we should keep original names and not transcript/translate them to title that is convenient to English readers (like Rakov Škocjan to Rak Škocjan or even even a more extreme case, Rakov Škocjan to Rak Schkocjan ...) A09 (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to write Schkocjan? The Slovenians spell the name of the river as Rak, but nobody spells anything as Schkocjan. Doremo (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we should not invent translations: most books name the valley simply [1] "Rakov Škocjan" untranslated; it is not so obscure to qualify as a "lesser known geographical object", since is listed in many travel guides and natural history books. On the contrary, most books translate Blejsko jezero as Lake Bled or Bled Lake. No such user (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the principle at WP:UE ("For lesser known geographical objects ... follow the translation convention ..." and "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it ..." etc.) appears to suggest this. If it didn't, we'd be left with, say, Lake Dobličko or similar (south of Dobliče) simply because no books contain the name Lake Dobliče even though it's obviously a lake named after Dobliče. Doremo (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inherently wrong with Dobličko lake; both "Dobliče" and "Dobličko" are equally opaque for an English reader, and the latter at least has the advantage of being faithful to the original. There are many Slavic toponyms in the form Adjective + landform (jezero/vrh/planina/whatever), and you cannot always deduce what the adjective stems from. For example, what was si:Ivarčko jezero named after? There's possibly some Ivarec or Ivarek around – I bet that you, a native speaker, don't know that (answer: it's Ivarnik)? Attempting to translate toponyms into English may reveal the etymology but can hamper searching. For example, translating street names is near-universally considered a bad idea, and for landforms it is just a tad more acceptable. I don't think the Wild Lake is a particularly good title for Divje jezero. No such user (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Ivartnik? It's on the map right next to the lake. Doremo (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good catch (too tiny font for my failing eyes). But you had to look at the map just like I, did you? My point was: that one should not be called Ivartnik Lake, nor the other one Dobliče Lake. Just as we don't have Kranj Mountain or Uršula Mountain. Note that I'm not saying "never translate" but "when in doubt, don't translate". No such user (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The palatalization t > č isn't particularly surprising; there are other examples (e.g., Muta > mučki, Vrata > vrački, etc.). More disturbing (although equally opaque) for an English reader is probably d > j (e.g., Bled > blejski). Kranjska Gora and Uršlja Gora are names of settlements, not geographical features. Doremo (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist comment. This request seems to need more participation to build consensus. Will anyone please notify, or suggest for notification any other WikiProjects that would be interested? The WP at the top of this page has had this RM in their Article alerts section since about day one, 2 March 2023. If there are other talk pages where this discussion can be listed, let me know. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I find hybrid names such as Prešernova Street or Trnovski Forest or Rakov Škocjan in stark conflict with good grammar and style. There can be exceptions if the origin of the adjective is opaque but this is not such a case. The English language has its principles of naming places (as explained above) and we should observe them rather than subjectively argue what is more and what is less known. We've followed this convention since years ago and it has functioned well. In addition, as per Doremo, this is in line with the provision at WP:UE. --TadejM my talk 08:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rak_Škocjan&oldid=1201361883"