Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in various languages[edit]

Doubtless, these lists contain a very useful information, but this is a classical, clear and transparent as a shot of vodka, case of wiktionary.

Suppose I am reading about Andorra, and I want to know its name in French. How the heck would I know where to look for? Now, look at Poland article. Its "Name" section links to wikt:Poland, and everything is nice and clear.

NOTE I consider this vote invalid, because the main opponent, Pascuale stuffed talk pages of his colleagues with a call to skew the vote, and I reserve the right to repeat this nomination. mikka (t) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary to wait a fair amount of time after an AFD ends with a "keep" result before renominating. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. While there is no "official" period of time that must elapse before a renomination is made, many people consider a period of six months to be a minimum. A renomination made within a few months of the original AFD is likely to be closed early as a "speedy keep". There is no policy or guideline that a user may not inform other users of an ongoing AFD. On the contrary, there are several WikiProjects and notice boards designed to inform users of, among other things, AFDs on articles that may interest them. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty aware of the rules and contrary to some heated opinions I am not a troll. I will renominate only if I decide that the vote was skewed by Pascuale. His position that all of us voting here are voting just besause "we like or don't like it" is deplorable. Unlike those who "like it", I provided serious arguments why these pages are wrong place. mikka (t) 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It is only fair to warn long-time users and contributors to a certain page that that page has come under attack. This is not skewing the vote, as I had no idea how those users would actually vote. Surely, we don't want an article's fate to be decided by people who have just stumbled into it for the first time and didn't like it! The users and contributors I warned are in no way "my colleagues" any more than any other Wikipedia users, but are indeed users who have repeatedly contributed to that page. (And, in any case, at least eight "Keep" votes so far are from users I have not contacted and whose names I have never heard, while at least one that I contacted -- Aecis -- has voted the other way. Check my user contributions for confirmation.) I am in no way "the main opponent" here. I simply consider myself responsible because I unwittingly alerted this attacker to the existence of these pages, which he has then IMMEDIATELY nominated for deletion. Is this not troll behavior? Where are the administrators when you need them? Pasquale 21:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, nominating a page for AFD when one believes it belongs at Wiktionary instead is not troll behavior. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to offer a little unsolicited advice to both aggrieved parties and hope it is taken in the spirit it is given. (With love, kindness, and pixie dust) I have often gotten into a tizzy over certain articles and as a result, have come to the conclusion that the emotional expenditure is just not worth it.
It's not worth raising your blood pressure, or upsetting you, or ruining your evening. It's not worth ruining your digestion, or your after-dinner cocktail, your birthday, or whatever is happening in your real life. Don't let the users' behavior on the Wikipedia get to you. Because it doesn't matter.
That's right - it doesn't really matter, that much, does it? I would hate to lose this information to the Wiktionary, but really, what does it matter? If you think it SHOULD be in the Wiktionary, and it stays in the Wikipedia - what difference does that make to your life? You might never have run across it. Take this pent up frustration and go for a run, or volunteer at a hospital, or hug your kids. Do something worthwhile and uncontroversial.
Once again, I hope not to get too preachy, but I think we often escalate conflicts just because we're in conflict, not for substantive reasons. At least, that's what I do. All the best to both of you. Danlovejoy 13:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and censure user Mikkalai for the reasons explained below. Pasquale 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Delete the entire Wikipedia - If it is legitimate for a user to advocate the deletion of a page which has cost two years of work by hundreds of people, WITHIN MINUTES OF DISCOVERING ITS EXISTENCE, and easily gain the support or benign neutrality of several other users, then there is no point for the Wikipedia to continue existing. Pontius Pilates, indeed! Pasquale 15:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The List of country names in various languages, like the List of European regions with alternative names, the List of European cities with alternative names, the List of European rivers with alternative names, and other such, is of exceptional value to linguists, historians, toponymists, and other social scientists, and should be preserved. These lists have been very popular for the past couple of years and have attracted many users and contributors, who have found them fascinating and of high educational value. I find it extremely objectionable that a Johnny-come-lately such as mikka should, upon discovering the existence of such lists, take such bold initiative as to advocate the deletion of articles he personally has no use for. This is hardly what the Wikipedia is about. I submit that mikka should be censured and, in fact, expelled from the Wikipedia. Pasquale 17:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pasquale must learn to behave in a civilized way during disagreements, or they are looking for big troubles eventually to run into. In particular, God forbid to have Pasquale as an admin. mikka (t) 18:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Angr, I hope my "lack of civilization" is not a valid reason for deleting these pages! Perhaps you, as an administrator, can clarify that point. Lack of civilization indeed! I have 16 months of very civilized contributions behind me and I have never once filed an AFD, let alone a gratuitous and frivolous one. Pasquale 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no one's lack of civility is a reason to keep or to delete a page. And indeed the number of "keep" votes cast at this point makes it extremely unlikely that there will be consensus to delete. However, filing AFDs is not uncivil behavior (I have filed a fair number of them in my ten months here). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Angr, can you please explain to me why I can't have a contiguous space below my vote, explaining my reasons, without another contributor interjecting his personal attacks on me? Would you kindly move the above injected three paragraphs to somewhere below, together with the rest of this person's diatribe, so I can have my reasons immediately following my vote? As an administrator, can you please decide this matter? I am trying to be very civilized here, but I don't know if that's true for everyone concerned. Pasquale 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to discuss one's behavior is WP:RFC/USER, not VfD. mikka (t) 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you strongly feel the articles should be kept, but the above comment [i.e. that Mikka should be censured for calling the AFD] is really uncalled-for. Mikka has been at Wikipedia for two years (about eight months longer than you yourself) and so can hardly be called a Johnny-come-lately. He's entitled to his opinion that this information is more appropriate at Wiktionary than here--he never claimed the information isn't useful, merely that it's in the wrong place. The information will be just as usable by linguists, historians, toponymists, and other social scientists at Wiktionary as it is here. Mikka has done nothing warranting censure or banning from Wikipedia. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Angr, by "Johnny-come-lately" I meant "Johnny-come-lately" to these particular lists. It is obvious that Mikka has just stumbled into these lists. He first made some remarks the other day on Talk:List of European regions with alternative names, denigrating and ridiculing that particular list. I explained to him that that list closely parallels others, such as the List of country names in various languages, the List of European cities with alternative names, the List of European rivers with alternative names, all of which he was not aware of, and so what does he do? He turns around and advocates for the deletion of all these pages, whose existence he has just become aware of. Maybe I am not a very bold Wikipedia contributor, but I would never even think of doing something like that. And, yes, I do find this behavior extremely objectionable and censurable. Frankly, I am amazed that you fail to see how inconsiderate this is. To me, it would be as if someone with no interest in linguistic reconstruction should argue for the deletion of your Proto-Celtic language article. I think it's truly insane! And, furthermore, it is idiotic to buttress this kind of argumentation by ridiculing the notion that someone just might want to know what Zimbabwe is called in Finnish (see below). Should I be ashamed if I wanted to look up all the names Zimbabwe has in as many languages as has been possible to collect in one place by Wikipedia users? Please tell me: Should I be ashamed? I stand by my above comment. I think it is extremely called-for. And as for the Wiktionary, personally, I never use it. And I truly doubt anyone would ever look up Zimbabwe in the Wiktionary. One final thing, Angr: You just added the Bân-lâm, Breton, Esperanto, Lojban, and Japanese names for Basque Country to the List of European regions with alternative names for the simple reason that the same names already appeared in the List of country names in various languages, and now you don't have the guts to break a lance for these lists which are being threatened by a wolf in sheep's clothing (namely, a vandal camouflaged as a serious Wikipedia contributor). In fact, you seem to be taking his side! I am very disappointed in you. Pasquale 21:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking any sides in this particular discussion; you may have noticed I haven't voted. (Incidentally, neither have you, technically.) I was defending his right to make the AFD, not supporting the AFD itself. Yes, I am still editing these lists because there is a good chance they will be kept. Yes, I have found these lists to be very interesting, and have been quite active in editing them. Nevertheless I can also see that what they cover is really more Wiktionary's jurisdiction than Wikipedia's. If Proto-Celtic language were to be deleted, the information would be completely lost, because there's nowhere else to put it. This information will not be lost if this AFD results in a delete; it will just be transferred to Wiktionary. You say you don't use Wiktionary; that's easily enough remedied: just go to wikt:Main Page and sign up. Finally, making personal attacks against the nominator of an AFD is not going to win people over to want to support your side. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Angr, if I haven't voted, I guess it's because I don't know how to. Where do I send in my ballot? And as for you, I know full well that you have repeatedly contributed to these lists and do find them useful, except that now you suddenly seem to have such little interest in them that you can't bring yourself to take sides. I am sorry, but that's what Pontius Pilate did. And, by the way, I am not making any personal attacks here. I am being very objective. If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I am simply reporting facts. To someone who just came across this AFD, it may not be apparent that its nominator had just stumbled into all these lists and, having found them of no use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, promptly filed a petition to delete them. This is simply an abuse and if you don't recognize it, then I simply don't understand how your mind works or what you're doing to protect the Wikipedia content. Pasquale 22:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To vote, all you have to do is type "keep" or "delete" and a brief summary of your reason, anywhere on this page. I do still have an interest in this information, but I'm willing to entertain the suggestion that it's more appropriate at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Calling Mikka "a vandal camouflaged as a serious Wikipedia contributor" is most certainly a personal attack. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree, Angr. Words, as you know, have objective meanings after all. To me, "vandal" is someone who wishes to destroy something without rhyme or reason, in this particular case, with barely any knowledge or familiarity with the object of his vandalism. You seem to think I am using words as expletives or gratuitous accusations. I am not. I am trying to offer an objective assessment of what's going on here and now. Pasquale 15:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional problems with these lists are their maintainability and duplication of information. Instead of nervous outburst, just compare

and I really have nothing more to say.

I understand that some people spent plenty of time on these and they are dear to thier heart, and I am not offended, but people really need to practice in understanding why other people have other point of view.mikka (t) 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This in probably not the place, but I would say that a much more useful would be List of historical country names, List of historical place names, etc., i.e., list of official names of the toponyms in different historical periods: under differet rule and different local population. this would be really useful for historians, toponynists, etc. In the current list, what is the use for a historian to know how Zimbabwe is called in Finnish language? mikka (t) 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maintainability isn't an issue; Wikipedia is just as easy to maintain as Wiktionary. Easier, probably, because there are more people at Wikipedia to keep an eye on things. As for "Ангельшчына (Belarusian)", I don't speak Belarusian, but it looks like several pages at be: don't consider it "ridiculous": be:1922, be:Катэгорыя:Ангельшчына, be:2 студзеня, be:Сьпіс краінаў і тэрыторыяў паводле альфабэту, be:28 лютага. (And even if it were wrong, it would be easy enough for you to correct it.) The only argument you bring up that stands is duplication, and indeed, the Finnish name for Zimbabwe can be found at wikt:Zimbabwe as well, for the benefit of anyone who needs that information. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a chance to look at the page I listed for comparison? The maintainaability 'is most definitely the issue. Also, wiktionary is a good place to talk about etymologies of the names. As for more people, don't forget there is also more articles. I contributed about hundred geographical articles (towns, rivers, mountains, etc.) and edited may not less than a thousand ones, and only recently I stumbled upon these lists. I immediately noticed their usefulness and invisiblity at the same time. mikka (t) 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Belarussian wikipedia is a playground of belarussian russophobic nationalists with archaic ideas to roll back the Russian influence in Belarussian language. I even don't bother to contribute there. "Ангельшчына" is a colloquial term, loosely translated as "land of Englishmen", a standard Slavic construction, and indeed is in informal use, but no way it is the name oif the country. Just try to google "Ангельшчына" (185) vs "Англiя" (44,900). mikka (t) 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Zimbabwe part is an polemic fugure in the context that the missing List of historical country names would be of encyclopedic value, rather than of dictionary value, and hence is relevant to wikipedia. mikka (t) 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if there are errors or non-NPOV implications in the Belarusian entries on these lists, all you have to do is correct them. The presence of mistakes in a Wikipedia article or list is not a valid reason for deletion. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this list is quite useful Also, it helped us a lot in settling a lot of naming disputes in the past. Halibutt 16:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the wiktionary argument, but these wikipedia entries are certainly useful as well. Markussep 17:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: extremely useful. Besides, I'm not sure that lists are very useful on Wiktionary. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that it is useful in here Radomil talk 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comparative analysis of names is, infact, an analysis, not a mere listing.--Panairjdde 17:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extremely useful, including useful to us in writing Wikipedia. A historical list (as at least one person suggested above)would also be useful, but gets trickier, because it is sometimes difficult to say whether two names from two differeent times refer to the same thing. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Jmabel Danlovejoy 18:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Neutral - I cannot support Pasquale's behavior on this page. Pontius Pilate, indeed! Danlovejoy 14:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - altogether this list gives the information discussed in a format different from how Wiktionary would provide it. Caesarion 18:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the only problem of the lists is that they do not contain MORE names and more variants. Juro 20:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe I can see the merits in a move-to-Wiktionary but also believe that the lists, in their present form and presenting much information in one place, provide additional value that would be lost were the information moved to wikt. -- pne (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not at all that happy with the "list culture" we've developed here, but I have to say that lists like this one can be useful indeed. --IJzeren Jan 20:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is interresting. -Pedro 20:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think these lists are quite interesting. Link, Hero of Wind 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Czalex 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful page -- no-one deserves censure, page should not be renominated until standard elapse of time (three months). Xoloz 22:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very useful page. Adam 22:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is certainly of interest to users of an English-language encyclopaedia. zoney ♣ talk 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wiktionary, per mikkalai. Aecis 00:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Merovingian, Jmabel, Caesarion, IJzeren Jan, and, oh, everyone else. Why on earth would we want to lose this information or make it less readily accessible by moving it to another wiki? Mikkalai and Pasquale, go somewhere to cool off. -EDM 05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't blame me, EDM. I did not pick this fight. I would never nominate for deletion a page, adding a broad reference to several other similar pages (which someone else has since removed), within MINUTES of becoming aware of their existence, and proposing what? The dispersal of compact information among hundreds, indeed thousands, of wiktionary pages! Imagine, for example, clicking Angrapa -- a river listed in the List of European rivers with alternative names -- in the wiktionary to find that its name is Angrapa (Russian), Węgorapa (Polish)! This is what is being proposed here. If this is not lunacy, I don't know what is. My only fault is that I am actually responsible for alerting the attacker to the existence of all these pages! Pasquale 17:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must be totally out of my old mind. I genuinely fail to understand why it is so horrible to click not in wiktionary, but right here --> Angrapa to learn Belarusian: Анграпа German: Angerapp Polish: Węgorapa Russian: Анграпа, rarely: Анграппа. mikka (t) 02:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what, Mikkalai's point above has convinced me to change my vote. Wiktionary's format is fine. If I need the country name in other languages, I will go to Wiktionary. It is unfortunate that so many people have voted "keep", when this information should be transfered to Wiktionary. Alexander 007 02:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Less accessible? The same single mouse click on a link, man! Try it: just point your mouse cursor over the word "Poland" (oops!, I mean this one:--> Poland) and press the left mouse button. mikka (t) 09:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very useful. Qertis 06:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but I just want to say that I have had many a conversation with Mikkalai, and have always found him very polite, reasonable and helpful - a Good Wikipedian, in short. While I do think that it is all right to inform people who have worked on an article about its deletion, the way Pasquale did it is completely inappropriate - at least on Avala's talk page (which is how I found out about it) he wrote that the articles have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question. I don't think that people "informed" in such a way will vote fairly, so either their votes should not count, or Mikkalai should be allowed to repeat the vote after less than six months, without such interference. By the way, I'd probably voted keep had this not happen in such a way. Nikola 09:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, Nikola, if I dare ask you the following question. Are you saying that what I wrote is not an exact description of what happened? Did you not like the tone or the substance of it? If it is the tone, I truly do offer my humblest apologies for offending your sensibilities. If it is the substance of it, then, I am sorry, with all due respect, I stand by what I wrote to the letter, because that is EXACTLY what happened. And what good is your opinion, anyway, if it is affected by perception rather than substance? You say you would have probably voted keep but now you're prepared to sacrifice a good Wikipedia page just because of my zealous tone in defending it? Pasquale 00:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to the above, and I've received the exact same message. Aecis praatpaal 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Wiktionary and Delete. After reviewing Wiktionary's format some more, I find that it is sufficient. If I want to know the name of Angola in Japanese, I will go to Wiktionary. Alexander 007 02:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep Important articles. There are no grounds for deletion request.[[User:Avala|Avala|[[User talk:Avala|<font color=#882222>&#9733;</font>]]]] 19:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_country_names_in_various_languages&oldid=1108163236"