Talk:List of names of European cities in different languages

message: This page was subject to a deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages. It was subsequently deleted by User:Mackensen.
There had been no consensus for delete (majority keep), thus the deletion was highly inappropriate.
This page was thus undeleted by User:Zoney.
zoney  ♣ talk 10:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

message: I've added Derry to the list as a main list item. It's the official title in the Republic of Ireland (e.g. road signs) and with the city authorities (Derry City Council, City of Derry Airport). I've pointed out that Londonderry is the official British government title.
I've pointed out the status of Derry where listed after Londonderry.
Unfortunately, trying to list the city just once is not going to work - as both names are in some way official, and both in some way give offence to one of the parties involved.
Zoney 14:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derry 

message: "A number of important Mediterranean Basin cities are also included" — I can't see any non-European Mediterranean cities?? Anyone want to add Aleppo, Algiers, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Tripoli, etc? I think these are worthier of inclusion than some of the central Asian (former Soviet) cities that are in (I'd add them myself, but don't know the answers). - MPF 14:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any Australian cities have names in other languages that are more than just transliterations of the English? I suppose some cities may have names in Aboriginal languages, which would be very interesting, but probably deserves to be on a separate page. We already have a separate page for List of cities in the Americas with alternative names, so why not List of cities in Australia and Oceania with alternative names? --Angr/ 07:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should some West African names be included in such an Australia & Oceania list? Avalon 11:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there can be a separate list for Africa, and one for Asia too. --Angr/ 12:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, then perhaps Turkey should be in the Asian list, not the European one. Avalon 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "For the purposes of this article, Europe includes . . ."

message: Notice there are several cities that are named differently in Portugal and in Brazil. Moscow for instance is known as Moscovo in Portugal and as Moscou in Brazil. - PMLF 20 Nov 2004
----
Right, PMLF, and in fact both names were already there all along. I guess you didn't notice that the Brazilian Portuguese name was already listed as "Moscou (French, Brazilian Portuguese)" when you added it again at the end. I then removed the duplication. The names should be listed alphabetically. If the same name is used in more than one language, it is listed once and followed by the language names alphabetized according to the English alphabetical order.  Pasquale 21:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese

message: To me this looks less like a "places with alternative names" list and more like a list of places with their names in different languages.
Should the title be changed to infer this, as opposed to thinking places really have several different names in one language? (With the obvious exception of Derry) Selphie 13:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "This list ought by your reasoning to include the name of every major city in Europe in every one of its thousands of languages!"
which I think would make a really cool article, actually, and is a good summary of what this page should look like.  If another title would reflect this better, why not suggest one?  That said, I can certainly see the argument for removing Ashgabat.  Central Asia really is pretty far away from Europe, and it would be perfectly reasonable to have a distinct List of Central Asian cities with alternative names. - Mustafaa 23:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, it isn't common convention to include all former republics of the USSR as part of Europe.  East of the Ural Mountains is Asia.  By this definition, Irkutsk and Vladivostok belong in the list, even though it is obvious they aren't in Europe.Rt66lt 21:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Names? 

message: A month or so ago I added a bunch of Yiddish names both in Hebrew alphabet and in YIVO transliteration. Today I came back and found that someone had deleted the Hebrew alphabet forms from most (not all) entries. Why? Is there some policy against non-Roman alphabets here? Was someone offended by the presence of an alphabet they couldn't read? Was it wanton vandalism? Entering the codes for the Hebrew letters is a wearisome and time-consuming task, so I don't feel much like putting them all back. But please please PLEASE remember that Wikiquette says to avoid reverts and deletions wherever possible! --Angr 19:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yiddish names in Hebrew alphabet 

message: This is a great topic, but I see two big POV holes in it.
Firstly, there seems no easy way of consistently determining what is the current English name for a place. For example, someone who writes "Marseilles" is likely also to write "Lyons", whereas someone who omits the final "s" on one is likely to treat the other in the same way. The dominant spelling will also vary as to whom you survey: my musical background would make me automatically spell the place currently listed as "Mechelen" as "Mechlin". Is there any way of having a consistent policy on what appears in the left-hand column?
Secondly the use of the word "former" for certain names is horrendously politically loaded. The most obvious case of this is Constantinople/Istanbul. The use of "former" here to describe the Greek-derived names (apart from the one in Modern Greek itself, where there really isn't another common name) is a Turkish-sympathistic POV. Suffice it to say that any nationalistic POV inherent in an instance of the word "former" doesn't look like NPOV to me. It may therefore be a very good idea to avoid using "former" for names of cities which lie in a territory disputed in modern times. Phlogistomania 01:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:To the first point, I would say the simplest way of deciding what name should be used in the left-hand column is to use the name of the Wikipedia article on the city in question. If the main article is at Lyon and Lyons is a redirect, use Lyon. As for "former", I'd go by English usage. Today it's called Istanbul in English; formerly it was called Constantinople in English. That has nothing to do with pro-Turkish or pro-Greek sympathies, it's just a fact about English. It's no different from saying that Peking is the former name of Beijing, which has nothing to do with a change in hands from one ethnicity to another. --Angr/comhrá 05:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The main feature of each should be the name of the city in its native languageSomething like:
 English          | Native           | Other
 Florence (Italy) | Firenze (Italia) | Firenze (etc.)
-St|eve 21:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformat 

message: Why should cities in Asian Turkey and Russia, Cyprus, and the Transcaucasian and Central Asian former Soviet Republics be listed here?  Listing Samarkand as a European city is absurd. john k 06:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage 

message: I have posted an extensive Explanation about the usefulness and purpose of this article on Mikkalai's talk page, should anyone be interested.  Pasquale 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On the usefulness and purpose of this article

message: I am deleting the Japanese for london.
First it is unverified as implied by the entry having ??? and I also find it difficult to take the entry seriously as it is merely making fun of the fact Japanese have difficulty pronouncing 'L's and therefore a 'le' sound comes out as 'Ru' and as they have not used japanese characters. the entry comes accross as some character trying to make a joke. So I am deleting it
Dondilly 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops. Of course! Silly me, I hadn't thought of it. Thanks for clarifying that, John.   Pasquale 18:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: London

message: I don't know if this is the right place but.... Anyone know the modern or usual name of "Kamenskoe" or "Kamenzkoe", probably in or near the Ukraine? Folks at 137 16:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kamenskoe

message: While editing, enthusiasm overcame me and I added New York, Beijing, Kolkata & Mumbai. Not exactly in Europe! Before I delete is there any equivalent home for them. Mea culpa. Folks at 137 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mea culpa

message: When it isn't?  I just removed Jerusalem (which is in Asia, not Europe) and then found where "other cities of the Mediterranean Basin are included".  If that's the case, either non-Europe needs to go, or the page needs to be retitled.Rt66lt 21:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confident that I am interpreting the wishes of the vast majority of users and contributors to this page by reversing your changes, Rt66lt. This page has been around for a long time and it has always used an extended interpretation of the term Europe to include the Mediterranean basin and the former Soviet republics. There are many reasons for this: historical, political, etc. Historically, the cities of the Mediterranean basin have been as familiar to Europeans as any European city, which explains the existence of many European language variants for their names. The same cannot be said, say, for cities in Japan or Indonesia. Politically, there are many ways in which the former Soviet republics and other countries such as Turkey participate in European political institutions (e.g., OSCE and others). But whatever the reason, this page has worked just fine this way, so there is no reason to mess with it. Besides, you had only removed a handful of cities that are technically not in Europe, leaving most of them in the list, which didn't seem right, because it was totally arbitrary. So I thought it best to reverse your changes for the time being.   Pasquale 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whis is this page called "Names of European cities in different languages"?

message: I added the Oxford and Cambridge in Chinese, because they are well-known cities which have their name translated by way of the meaning and not the sound. 203.218.141.99 14:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese 

message: Does anyone know how to say Prague/Praha/Praga in French? JesseRafe 14:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "Prague" in French as well as English. Olessi 14:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I thought as much to begin with, because of the -ue spelling, but that doesn't hold true for The Hague - I guess I could've just gone to the Francais version of the Prague page - something someone could do for any of these cities actually.... JesseRafe 04:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prague in French? 

message: No sources are cited, making these translations apparently Original Research.  Tagged until sources for translations are cited.--Isotope23 16:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles themselves through their interwiki links provide the sources for the vast majority of these. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I can see.  I randomly followed about 8 links.  2 had maybe 1/3 of the translations listed (though not sourced or cited) in their main articles.  The other 6 had no translations in their main article space.  Tag should stay up until some sort of external sourcing is established and either added to this article or the main article spaces.--Isotope23 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What better source than the matching article in each of the other languages? Try this: Click on Aachen (the second entry), then click on each of the 41 languages listed on the side panel (including Simple English). The title of the article will give you the name of the city in that particular foreign language. It's not rocket science, is it? Is that still not good enough? Are we going to have to start tagging every proper name, maybe every English word, lest it should be perceived as "Original Research"? Do us a favor and remove those tags, will ya?   Pasquale 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: First off, not all of these are listed in interwiki links... Some have no article in the language listed.  Secondly, WP:RS states "wikipedia can not cite itself as a source".  Can you advance any logical reason why that should be ignored in this case?--Isotope23 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people have already started adding interwiki links in form of asterisks, that should be sufficient. Please bear in mind that WP:RS are guidelines not laws, and at least to me, it seems that a list of names of cities in different languages should be sufficiently sourced by providing interwiki links. I really hope that wikipedia still has a place for a list like this, I really find it extremely useful (and in a printed encyclopedia, you could expect this to be in an appendix, but not necessarily in a dictionary). Crix 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, WP:RS is a guideline not a policy... and you make a good point there.  Please bear in mind that I'm not trying to argue removal of this list; I think that has already been decided by the AfD/DRV that took place in the last few weeks.  I just want to see some kind of sourcing here. I'm satisfied with the system that is being put in place right now with the asterisks...  I'll remove the tag for now and check back over the next several weeks on the progress of the sourcing.  I think any entry that does not have an interwiki entry should be removed to the talk page pending some sort of verification (I don't mean "missing an asterisk", I mean no interwiki page exists).--Isotope23 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been adding these links and was proceding alphabetically, then it seemed more efficient to move geographically, so it's been a little bit helter-skelter, by the way, we can all help.  You'll also note that there are some without links, if these don't get sourced after we have the rest all sourced, they'll be commented out as unverifiable until someone can find a source. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: I was wondering if we should remove all the Latin names, since any European city of note has a Latin name (if not classical then mediaeval or neo-classical), we would end up having to add one or several (some cities have several Latin names, like Hamburg: Hammonia, Hammapolis, Hammaburgum, Hamburgum) Latin names to each and every one of them. There is a list over at Latin names of European cities that covers these names pretty well, I think. Crix 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so I would suggest deleting all the Latin names, maybe except for those that were existant in the Roman era. Crix 14:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin names 

message: I think the Sorbian names need a clean-up, maybe there's room for an own list. Here are all entries from the list with Sorbian contents and my comments.
:1 - Important city in Lusatia. Bautzen and Cottbus are the two centres.
:2 - Major German city. Some of them were founded by Slavic people (sometimes Sorbs, sometimes other people).
:3 - No relevance at all, population is less than 1000 and there were no important historical events.
:4 - Semi relevant cities, next to not notable when it comes to world politics.
I'd delete at least the category 3 entries and maybe even the category 4 entries. Cities in category 4 are Lusatian cities, like next to every village they have a German and a Sorbian name, some of them have (due to slightly different alphabets) two different Sorbian names. Than there are sometimes different names in Polish or Czech, mainly because they are located near the border. Since it's a en.WP standard to use the domestic name of a town (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote) it wouldn't make sense to write down every town near a border with different names on both sides of the border.
Categories 3 and 4 are comparable to Finnish cities with alternative Swedish names.
Category 4 is notable enough for an own list with Upper/Lower Sorbian, German and maybe Polish and Czech names. The English name would mostly be the one of the state in where the town is, here Germany.
Bautzen    	1    	Budyšin (Upper Sorbian), Budyšín (Czech, Slovak), Budyšyn (Lower Sorbian), Budziszyn (Polish), Baucen - Бауцен (Macedonian)
Berlin     	2    	Barlīn (Arabic), Barliń (Lower Sorbian), Beirlín (Irish), Berlien (Limburgish), Berliin (Estonian), Berliini (Finnish), Berlijn (Dutch), Berlim (Portuguese), Berlín (Catalan, Czech, Icelandic, Slovak, Spanish), Berlin (Russian, Croatian, Danish, German, Hungarian, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian, Macedonian, Serbian, Slovene, Swedish, Turkish, French, Walloon), Բեռլին or Berlin (Armenian), Berlin - בערלין (Yiddish), Berlīne (Latvian), Berlino (Italian, Esperanto), Berlyn (Afrikaans, Frisian), Berlynas (Lithuanian), Berurin - ベルリン (Japanese), Verolíno - Βερολίνο (Greek), Bereullin - 베를린 (Korean), Berlin - ברלין (Hebrew)
Chemnitz   	2    	Chemnitz (German, Finnish, Romanian), Kamienica Saska (Polish, traditional, not used anymore), Kamjenica (Sorbian), Saská Kamenice (Czech); Karl-Marx-Stadt (German 1953-1990)
Cottbus    	1    	Chociebuż (Polish), Chóśebuz (Sorbian), Chotěbuz (Czech), Cottbus (German), Kottbus (archaic German)
Drachhausen	3    	Drachhausen (German), Hochoza (Lower Sorbian)
Dresden    	2    	德累斯顿 (Chinese), Dresden (Dutch, Finnish, Portuguese, German, Swedish, Turkish), Drážďany (Czech, Slovak), Dresda (Italian, variant in Portuguese, Romanian), Dresde (French, Spanish), Drésdi - Δρέσδη (Greek), Drezda (Hungarian), Drezden (Serbian), Drezdenas (Lithuanian), Drezdene (Latvian), Drezno (Polish), Drježdźany (Lower Sorbian), Drezden - דרזדן (Hebrew)
Görlitz    	1    	Görlitz (Afrikaans, Dutch, Finnish, German, Romanian), Zgorzelec (Polish), Zhořelec (Czech), Zhorjelc (Upper Sorbian)
Hoyerswerda	4    	Hoyerswerda (German), Wojerecy (Sorbian)
Kamenz     	4 (1)	Kamenz (German), Kamjenc (Upper Sorbian)
Kolkwitz   	4    	Gołkojce (Lower Sorbian), Kolkwitz (Niederlausitz) (German)
Leipzig    	2    	萊比錫 (Chinese), Lajpcig (Serbian), Lajpcyg - Ляйбцыґ (Belarusian), Leipciga (Latvian), Leipcigas (Lithuanian), Leipsic (older English), Leipzig (Finnish, French, German, Romanian, Slovene, Swedish, Turkish), Lipcse (Hungarian), Lipsca (old Romanian), Lipsía - Λειψία (Greek), Lipsia (Italian), Lípsia (Portuguese), Lipsk (Lower Sorbian, Polish), Lipsko (Czech, Slovak)
Löbau      	4    	Löbau (German), Lubij (Upper Sorbian), Lubiniec (Polish)
Lübben     	4    	Lübben (German), Lubin (Lower Sorbian, Polish)
Lübbenau   	4    	Lübbenau (German), Lubnjow (Lower Sorbian)
Potsdam    	2    	波茨坦 (Chinese), Podstupim (Lower Sorbian), Postupim (Czech, Slovak), Potsdam (Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Swedish), Poczdam (Polish), Potsdama (Latvian), Potsdamas (Lithuanian)
Schmogrow  	3    	Schmogrow (German), Smogorjow (Lower Sorbian)
Spremberg  	4    	Grodk (Lower Sorbian), Spremberg (German)
--32X 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'accord for cat. 3, would go for inclusion of cat. 4 though. Hoyerswerda btw is a name that has reached a certain degree of infamy outside of the country, so I don't see a reason not to include it. As for your argument re WP guideline: as is expressly stated on top of the page, the purpose of this list is nothing more than to provide names of cities in other languages, devoid of official, political or historical consideration (as far as this is possible). And of course you are more than welcome to create a separate list encompassing all Sorbian proper names, maybe you could check the German wikipedia if they already have such a list and work from there. Crix 12:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is what I found: :de:Liste deutscher Bezeichnungen obersorbischer Orte, you could copy it and Anglicise it. It seems that the name of the page is somewhat misleading, it should be :de:Liste von obersorbischen Ortsnamen since it has the Upper Sorbian names for Lower Sorbian places as well as some places that were never Sorbian. Crix 13:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorbian names 

message: The discussion about Sorbian above brings up larger questions as this list continues to grow.  Should there be any limit to this list?  Should the list be split by country?  Should there be thresholds for inclusion in the list?
Some possibilities are to limit the list to cities that have more than one alternate form or to limit it to cities of a certain population size.  Please comment.  -  AjaxSmack  06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well I think a certain size such as > 50K is a good mark. However, in case of historical significance I would also opt for including smaller cities, that's why I have been adding comments when including them, such as "site of famous battle", "part of the Décapole". Crix 09:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limit the list?

message: Hi, my recent addition of Izmir and Ankara has been reverted by User:Crix. Even if she does not think so, I was careful enough to read the preface and check the list to see the current situation regarding the placement of Turkish cities in the list. And I should add that I do not have a nationalistic ambition or so. I'm not proposing to add every single city in Turkey to the list. I thought that it would be useful to have these two cities on the list as I see them in the European context because of their history.
The list already includes cities like Antioch, Bursa and Kayseri on the Asian part of Turkey, and what I get from the introduction ("This article also lists cities of Turkey, Cyprus, and republics of the former Soviet Union that are in Europe") was that the whole of Turkey (a country geographically both in Asia and Europe) and Cyprus (a country geographically in Asia) are within the scope, and the area corresponding to former USSR states that are geographically in Europe. I think a consensus should be reached on the way transcontinental states are included in this list. And after that, if we are not to include Izmir and Ankara, the cities I named in the beginning of this paragraph and other cities geographically in Asia currently on the list should be removed, for consistency. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I followed the precedent established on the talkpage. Although I do assume good faith here, you do not seem to have read the above comment by User:Folks at 137 thoroughly enough. It says "Turkey: the Europe article is clear that Turkey west of the Bosphorous is included, BUT suggests both inclusion and exclusion for the rest - the transcontinental nation article has a clearer definition - exclude". This is the consensus previous editors have agreed upon. Of course nothing speaks against changing this, but please let's discuss this first before doing that. So in the same vein, if Kayseri etc. are in the Asian part of Turkey, they should probably go too. Because if the Asian areas of Turkey are included, why not include Jersualem and Tel Aviv. We need to find a line, and as I'd think it best to avoid politics, why not go with the geographical definition. Crix 16:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again, I don't think the inclusion of Turkey as a whole in this list should lead to inclusion of Israeli cities. Israel is geographically not a transcontinental country and its situation is not comparable to those of Turkey, Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, in this respect. I guess the issue here is whether to include transcontinental states as a whole or not. What I understood from the current introductory paragraph and the fact that there already are Asian cities of European transcontinental states in the list led me to think they are included as a whole and to include Izmir and Ankara. I think it's also OK to take the cities by themselves (without reference to the state they are a part of) and apply strict geographical criteria for their placement on the list. The current name of the article also suggests this (it's not "names of cities in European countries ..." or something). If this is the consensus, Antioch, Nicosia and other cities in Asia currently on the list should be removed. Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the article on transcontinental nations, Israel can be regarded as such, as can be Morocco. Anyhow, so I guess it would be a good idea to move Kayseri, Antioch etc. to Names of Asian cities in different languages, if they're not already there. Crix 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be no more comments, I'm moving the cities I recognize as being geographically in Asia to the Names of Asian cities in different languages article. Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities in Turkey and other transcontinental states 

message: Maybe it would be useful to list the countries in which the cities are.
Lemmy Kilmister 11:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that's a good idea. The table might look something like the partial one below. Any suggestions? Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: English Name	Country	Name in the local language	Other names or former names
Aabenraa    	Denmark	Åbenrå (Danish*)          	Åbenrå (Swedish*), Apenrade (German)*, Abenra - Абенра (Macedonian), Obenrio (Lithuanian)*,
Aachen      	Germany	Aachen (German*)          	Aachen (Bahasa Indonesia*, Danish*, Estonian*, Finnish*, Gaelic* , Hungarian*, Interlingua*, Norwegian*, Romanian*, Slovak*, Slovenian*, Swedish*, Turkish*), Āhene (Latvian)*, Aix-la-Chapelle (French)*, Aken (Dutch)*, Akwizgran (Polish)*,  Ακυίσγρανον (Greek - καθαρεύουσα), Aoke (Limburgish)*, Achenas (Lithnuanian)*, Aquae Grani or Aquisgranum (Latin)*, Aquisgrà (Catalan)*, Aquisgrán (Spanish)*, Aquisgrana (Italian *, Aquisgrana or Aquisgrão (Portuguese)*, Åxhe (Walloon)*, Cáchy (Czech)*, Óche (local Ripuarian)*, Oochen (Luxembourgish)*, Aachen - Άαχεν (Greek)*, Aaxen (Azeri)*, Aachen -  אאכן  (Hebrew)*, Aakhen - Аахен (Russian*, Ukrainian*), Ahen - Ахен (Bulgarian*, Serbian*, Macedonian), Oche (Kashubian)*, Yachen - 亚琛 (Simplified Chinese)*
Aalst       	Belgium	Aalst (Dutch*)            	Aals (Limburgish)*, Aalst (German), Alost (French)*, Alst - Алст (Macedonian, Serbian), Αλόστη (Greek)
Aarhus      	Denmark	Århus (Danish*)           	Aarhaus (former German*), Finnish*, German*, Swedish*), Aarhus (Dutch*, Hungarian*), Aoerhusi - 奥而胡斯(Simplified Chinese)*, Arenhusen (former German *), Orhūsa (Latvian)*, Orhus (Lithuanian)*,Orhus - Орхус (Bulgarian*, Macedonian, Russian)
Abbeville   	France 	Abbeville (French*)       	Abbekerke (Dutch)*), Abbatis Villa (Latin), German, Romanian*),  Abvil - Абвиль (Russian)*, Abvil - Абвил (Macedonian)
That table is certainly more useful than the one in the article. I think someone should change the article to fit that style.
Lemmy Kilmister 15:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're right. But I still think that it would be useful to have a separate column for the name or names actually used to refer to the place by its own residents, as it now takes some time and effort to pick these from between the names of the place in foreign languages. Could one use a caption like "local name(s)" or "official name(s)", perhaps? Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is one contributor who disagrees with this proposal. In my opinion, if you are going to look up a European city in this list, say Trieste, Kaliningrad, or Chişinău, you already know where it is located. A lot of these cities have been part of several different countries in recent history. What matters from the point of view of this article is that they are European cities, mostly with a good deal of history behind them and with individual personalities that are not determined by the country they are currently part of. And captions like "local name(s)" or "official name(s)" are redundant, because, when applicable, these distinctions are already covered under each entry. (One more thing: can we please remove the unsourced warning? We discussed that a long time ago and decided against it, then someone put it back in there, ignoring the previous discussion.)  Pasquale 01:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this idea as well, and Atilim Gunes Baydin's suggestion. I also think a demonym column would be good. Jake95 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries 

message: This list is growing large to the point of being cumbersome and is likely to continue to do so.  To prevent it from becoming too large to be of use, please consider the following ideas to limit the list.
1. Limit the list to cities with more than a certain number of alternate forms (e.g. 2, 3, 4) not including non-Latin alphabet languages (e.g. Russian, Chinese, Hindi) or languages that translate all toponyms (e.g., Latvian, Lithuanian) since these languages would automatically push every city over any threshold.
2. Limit the list to cities with more than a certain number of inhabitants with exception for historically important places where alternate names are important (e.g., Oświęcim, Ypres, Pompeii, Bakhchisaray)
Such limits would not require the deletion of any information currently in the article.  The names that don't fit the established criteria can be put into individual country, region, or language lists like Place names in Irish, List of traditional Greek place names, or List of cities in Switzerland.  For an example and further discussion, see Sorbian names above.
In the long term, this will keep this list at a managable size while providing more space for special cases of extensive bi- or triligualism (e.g. Wales, Transylvania, Basque Country, Belarus)
Below are two polls to generate discussion and gauge opinion.
-  AjaxSmack  05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ===Proposal #1: Limit cities by numbers of names===
====Support====
# Support limiting the list to cities with more than two alternate forms not including non-Latin alphabet languages or languages that translate all toponyms (e.g., Latvia). -  AjaxSmack  05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Execute an edit and the first line is "This page is 252 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."  (Certainly the split if > 50 KB guideline is a little low for lists but there are computer/internet issues in some parts of the world.)  The article is not going to get any shorter and can potentially expand infinitely in the future (see below) so the motive for a poll was to put the idea out there and stimulate discussion.  Having individual country articles does nothing to limit accessibility.  -  AjaxSmack   06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the point of wikipedia is to inform the reader? That makes accessibility top priority. If the only problem is a warning message, then - tough, not a real problem. I accept that loading might be slowed but I have more problems when the servers are busy. Folks at 137 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested split proposals

message: ====Support====
# Support limiting the list to cities with more than two alternate forms not including non-Latin alphabet languages or languages that translate all toponyms (e.g., Latvia). -  AjaxSmack  05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal #1: Limit cities by numbers of names

message: # Support limiting the list to cities with more than two alternate forms not including non-Latin alphabet languages or languages that translate all toponyms (e.g., Latvia). -  AjaxSmack  05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Oppose. Unless I've misunderstood, this is ridiculous!!. If I want to know the current English or another name of Tarnowitz or Moldvahosszúmező or Kale, I don't care if there's only one or two options: I still need to know. If we limit the list to cities with more than two alternate forms, ie, exclude those with just two, then there's little change and little impact, apart from removing several Welsh and Irish placenames - and you don't annoy those people, believe me! Folks at 137 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: The usefulness of a list like this is that it's complete. An arbitrary limit or grouping is unhelpful. It's said to be cumbersome: I've used this list by searching on a name - no problem at all. It's also likely that most contributors are only aware of one or two versions, so the addition of new places would be inhibited and an unlisted place with enough names to qualify might never be added. An example: I know that the French version of London is Londres, but that's all I know so I don't add this to the list. Someone else knows the Greek version, but nothing else, so also doesn't add it - and so on. This is worse the more versions are required. Also, looking at the list, I could circumvent the qualification by trawling for various languages that are not particularly significant - although it's useful to have a load of versions of Sarajevo (given the fragmented language map of the Balkans and the city's multi-ethnic heritage). On the other hand, to list the Azeri version of Dublin seems obscure, particularly when it's "Dublin". Folks at 137 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ====Support====
# Support limiting the list to cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants with exception for historically important places where alternate names are important -  AjaxSmack  05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Execute an edit and the first line is "This page is 252 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."  (Certainly the split if > 50 KB guideline is a little low for lists but there are computer/internet issues in some parts of the world.)  The article is not going to get any shorter and can potentially expand infinitely in the future (see below) so the motive for a poll was to put the idea out there and stimulate discussion.  Having individual country articles does nothing to limit accessibility.  -  AjaxSmack   06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the point of wikipedia is to inform the reader? That makes accessibility top priority. If the only problem is a warning message, then - tough, not a real problem. I accept that loading might be slowed but I have more problems when the servers are busy. Folks at 137 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal #2: Limit cities by population

message: # Support limiting the list to cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants with exception for historically important places where alternate names are important -  AjaxSmack  05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose. This requires further discussion. Which alternate names are important and which are not ? Also the size of an "important" city may differ country by country and region by region. What seems a big city in the Baltics could be considered a small town in East Asia. Finally, we would end up with separate lists for "big towns", "small towns" etc. which does not seem to make much sense. --Lysytalk 06:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: In what way is the list cumbersome? Please make the case for change.  The point is to be accessible to readers. Folks at 137 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Execute an edit and the first line is "This page is 252 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."  (Certainly the split if > 50 KB guideline is a little low for lists but there are computer/internet issues in some parts of the world.)  The article is not going to get any shorter and can potentially expand infinitely in the future (see below) so the motive for a poll was to put the idea out there and stimulate discussion.  Having individual country articles does nothing to limit accessibility.  -  AjaxSmack   06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the point of wikipedia is to inform the reader? That makes accessibility top priority. If the only problem is a warning message, then - tough, not a real problem. I accept that loading might be slowed but I have more problems when the servers are busy. Folks at 137 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Here is an alternative split proposal. If this article really must be split because of its size, then it can be split by subregions, i.e. geographical areas within Europe, e.g. British Isles, Continental Europe, Scandinavia, Iberian Peninsula, or whatever (these are just examples). Compare the way the former List of Latin place names in Europe was split into several articles, e.g. List of Latin place names in Continental Europe, List of Latin place names in the Balkans, etc. Of course, the problem with these subdivisions is that, in many cases, they are ill-defined. But one could start with the obvious ones, e.g. separating the British Isles from Continental Europe, for starters, and then continue, only if necessary because of size.  Pasquale 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dividing by regions is an option but dividing by country avoids most definition problems you cite. -  AjaxSmack   07:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't agree. Country boundaries move - geographic don't. Into which national lists would we place, say, Strassburg, Stettin, Breslau, to name but a few? The change in spellings often coincides with political change and could justify multiple entries for such places. Fewer lists = fewer disputes. Folks at 137 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the current country location -- Stettin in Poland, etc.  Of course, country boundaries change occasionally and there will always be Görlitz/Zgorzelec cases but check out the effort to get some editors to accept that Ankara is not a European city and you get an idea of what vague regions might entail.  There has been only one significant boundary change in Europe since the birth of Wikipedia. -  AjaxSmack   05:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: After consideration: Split based upon current national boundaries sounds like the least bad proposal, although some supra-national groupings might suffice, eg, Benelux, Scandinavia, Baltics, even Germany with Austria(?). Maybe try it on one grouping as a trial. Folks at 137 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative split proposal 

message: 1. If the English name is merely a transliteration from Cyrillic with the "ь" ("soft sign") omitted, then why should the other version of the transliteration be considered as a different name? Examples: Bilohirsk - Bilohirs'k (Ukrainian); Homyel' - Homiel (Belarusian). Both are simply two ways to transliterate the same name from the same language!
2. What is the point of entries like Berlin - Berlin (French, German, etc.)? It really is the way towards a table with all cities in all languages.
3. In the Russian language, a foreign city's name is normally a transcription into Cyrillic (Aix-en-Provence - Eks-an-Provans, New York - Nyu-York). It is therefore possible to enter a Russian name for EVERY city in the list. Do you think it would make sense?
4. Shouldn't there be some formal criteria established for cities to be included? For example, only cities with more than 50000 inhabitants, or administrative centres, or other places of historical value?
5. And the fact is, one can find a city's Wikipedia article, choose the desired language in the left column, and have the city's name in that language. 
--Ivan Volodin 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more questions 

message: This is what many of you have been talking about. Comments? --Ivan Volodin 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly an original idea and I liked the matrix-like character. I think that could be the way to go with. But I think you should not create test articles in the main namespace. You could do that as a test page under your username in the user namespace. Please see Wikipedia:Namespace and Wikipedia:User page. And the way you sorted languages just seems arbitrary to me. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone has already moved it there! --Ivan Volodin 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree that languages could be sorted in another order. My criterion was the total number of Wikipedia articles. Could also be alphabethic or by country populations. --Ivan Volodin 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ivan Volodin/Names of European cities in different languages B|What about this version?]] 

message: It is not an European city. The deleted line is saved here:
| New Orleans 
| La Nouvelle-Orléans (French), 新奧爾良、纽奥良 (Chinese), Yeni Orlean (Azeri), Nueva Orleans (Spanish), Ngọc Lân (Vietnamese)
pabouk 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted New Orleans 

message: At the risk of starting an argument, I'm not at all sure that using the titles of the interwiki articles is the best way to ascertain the names of cities in non-English languages. The French Wikipedia article entitled Göteborg begins with the words "en français Gothembourg." Which I think tells the real story. --Tkynerd 16:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gothenburg in French? or, How not to establish the foreign-language names of cities 

message: This list (and similar) are related to the scope of proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioned

message: Why is this identified as "English name", especially in cases where there are a number of English names that have been or could be used at the names of the articles, and especially when that name uses a redirect to pipe to a spelling different from the one at which the current article resides.  Note in particular that Wikipedia:Naming conventions provides:
*In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that title name, nor that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. 
Furthermore, in many cases, the article title is not the most common English name. Gene Nygaard 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, it's just because this is the English-language Wikipedia, i.e. an English-language encyclopedia! The alternative would be to display the local name in the first column, but how many English-speakers know that the local names, say, for Bucharest, Lisbon, and Warsaw are, respectively Bucureşti, Lisboa, and Warszawa? And what about languages that do not use the Latin script? Is the first column going to show Москва for Moscow and Αθήνα for Athens? And maybe 東京 for Tokyo and 上海 for Shanghai? And how would you then alphabetize these entries? I am sorry, but if your strong objection were to be taken seriously, it would be a recipe for disaster.  Pasquale 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong objection to first column being "English name"