Talk:Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743)

message: Please read these United Nations toponymic guidelines for Finland: . In essence: "In foreign languages, names of monolingual areas should appear in the form they have in the official language of those areas (for instance fi Iisalmi, sv Mariehamn), unless there are no other established names in the languages in question. In bilingual areas, the names in the majority language should be preferred (for instance fi Helsinki, Turku, Vaasa; sv Jakobstad, Nykarleby, Pargas, Ekenäs.)" This recommendation is not changed by the fact that in Finland Finnish only gained an equal status with Swedish in 1892. The article is CONTEMPORARY and so the UN guidelines are recommendable even when dealing with matters of the past. NOTE: the name Vyborg has been used correctly here (Russian ortography, not the Swedish one, Viborg, or the Finnish one, Viipuri, although at the time in question the city's "official" name was Viborg). Clarifer 14:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the UN use its own recommendations. Wikipedia has its own naming conventions. As the most general rule, we use historic names: for instance Kaliningrad is always called Konigsberg in pre-1945 contexts and Gdansk is always Danzig. I don't see why we should make an exception in this particular case. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In historic articles the same names should be used that are used in the literature devoted to history of these events. As pointed out above, no one uses "Kaliningrad" in historic books about pre-1945, even the modern books. As per the same rule, the historic names should be used in Wikipedia for an articles that write about the past events, rather than the modern town's history. See for instance Treaty of Åbo article in Britannica. --Irpen 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not logical usage and results in historical multiplicity (I.e. many stories for one thing). There is no sense in writing e.g. about Irish history and use Irish toponyms for pre-English time periods, then suddenly - in the same article - switch to English names and then again use Irish names for later toponyms. What is usually done is a) use the contemporary name and b) state how and why the toponym has changed throughout history. Let's take the city of Vyborg. There's absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever to first start to talk about Viborg, then suddenly switch to using the name Viipuri and lastly suddenly start talking about Vyborg. See any history book for this. What is usually done in such a case is a) constantly talk about Vyborg (the current name) and b) state that the city was founded as Viborg and was also once known as Viipuri. In this particular article, the toponyms should be determined by the current usage and this is NOT against the usual way to write a history article (quite the contrary). As to Kaliningrad (history again and UNDERSTANDING it). The toponym is new compared to Königsberg and the two have never existed side by side. This is totally different with Irish/English or Finnish/Swedish toponyms. All of the toponyms used in this article have Swedish and Finnish names which are about equally old. The only difference is that Finnish language didn't have a similar degree of officiality as Swedish did during the time in question. And no, I do not agree with writing two histories for Istanbul and Constantinople either as they are the same thing. They should be merged into ONE history for ONE ENTITY. And here Wikipedia is tested. Clarifer 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, now that I've read both the Istanbul and the Constantinople article through I see that indeed, in the article on Istanbul the Greek history has indeed been included as is proper so neither article is completely hopeless... Clarifer 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly so. The Istanbul article says "See Constantinople for a more detailed history before the Ottoman Turkish conquest of 1453. ". It is customary in wikipedia to split long articles into shorter ones. For example, we have Imperial Russia, RSFSR, Russia, although it is the same territory (under different politics). `'mikka (t) 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I read the naming conventions articles and couldn't find anything that would settle the disagreement here. I still disagree in a multiple of ways. Using anacronistic (not modern) toponyms tends to make things more complicated in certain cases and does NOT help the reader to see the historical perspective (e.g. using Vyborg in 'the Castle of Vyborg' in an English article makes the article more objective, serious and trustworthy than using Viipuri or Viborg) no matter of the time period. I can see how Constantinople is used in historic contexts as the name Istanbul is a recent one and there was a period in time where the place was not at all known by that name. The same logic holds true for Gdansk-Danzig and Kaliningrad-Königsberg (this is a question of historical events and understanding them). Using the Swedish place name in a contemporary English text of Finland's geography is not a similar case. I repeat: In the context of Irish and Finnish place names BOTH (when talking about municipalities) are equally old and have been used side-by-side for centuries. The only difference between these municipal names is that one language enjoyed more officiality than the other. Indeed, in the case of Finnish place names the naming convention should be based on the municipal majority language (as recommended by the UN) and NOT the fact that Finnish wasn't an official language of Finland until 1892. What is your argument for using the Swedish place names in Finnish (and Swedish) history in a non-Swedish non-Finnish language environment? Clarifer 11:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish place names in a contemporary English text 

message: of the war itself is hattujen sota (War of the Hats), Lesser Wrath, in Finnish pikkuviha was the Russian occupation period during the war. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish name 

message: I must say I was very surprised when I read this article with all placenames in Finnish. Of course I have read all the text above but I still can't see why we for example have Lappeenranta instead of Villmanstrand which was the name used at the time. And it also becomes even more confusing when we have an article named Battle of Villmanstrand. When talking about the pre-1809 time I thought it was custom to use the Swedish placenames in English literature. After all it was part of Sweden at the time. That's also why we say Battle of Kircholm and not "Battle of Salaspils" (like Battle of Stalingrad and not "Battle of Volgograd"). You can also compare with placenames in Ukraine that we can say have a similar history. For example we have Battle of Lwów (1675) and not "Battle of Lviv". Of course the city is called Lviv today, but it wasn't known as that in 1675. Närking (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple. Things that STILL exist such as cities are dealt with current naming conventions (Finnish derived place names are mostly older in Finland although the Swedish names were once the only official ones). Things that are no longer such as old peace treaties or battles are dealt with their contemporary naming conventions. Clarifer (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said this is for some reasons only the case with articles related to Finland. Read the article about Battle of Stalingrad and you will find that Volgograd is just mentioned in the beginning telling that Stalingrad today is known as Volgograd. Närking (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of setting the pre-1809 names in Finland in Swedish as it makes chronologically far more sense. After all there was no Finland (as a nation, it existed merely as a region) at the time, just Sweden. Of course their names in other languages should be noted as per WP:PLACE. Problem really is that there seems to be relatively little English literature on the topic, most being in Swedish, Finnish or Russian with all three using their own nomenclature. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange naming