Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names)/Archive 1

message: Note: so far this is only a suggestion.
===There is no English name===
1. Use the current local name as the aricle title, e.g. Gdansk.
2. Create redirects from names in all other languages which were important in that place's history, e.g. Danzig --> Gdansk.
3. List all the alternative names in the first paragraph of the article, e.g.
: Gdańsk (formerly known in English by its German name, Danzig, ...)
4. In other articles list the 2-3 most important names when the place is mentioned for the frist time, then use only the current name.
===There is an English name which happens to be same as in one of the important languages in the place's history===
1. Use the English name as the aricle title and note which language it comes from, e.g. Cologne (French).
2. Create redirects from names in all other languages which were important in that place's history, e.g. Köln --> Cologne.
3. List all the alternative names in the first paragraph of the article, e.g.
: Cologne (French; German Köln,...)
4. In other articles use the English name.
===There is a separate English name===
1. Use the English name as the aricle title, e.g. Warsaw.
2. Create redirects from names in all other languages which were important in that place's history, e.g. Warszawa --> Warsaw.
3. List all the alternative names in the first paragraph of the article, e.g.
: Warsaw (Polish Warszawa, German Warschau,...)
4. In other articles use the English name only.
Kpalion 03:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion for a consistent naming convention of disputed places

message: 1. Use the English name as the aricle title, e.g. Warsaw.
2. Create redirects from names in all other languages which were important in that place's history, e.g. Warszawa --> Warsaw.
3. List all the alternative names in the first paragraph of the article, e.g.
: Warsaw (Polish Warszawa, German Warschau,...)
4. In other articles use the English name only.
Kpalion 03:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: There is a separate English name

message: May I suggest a compromise solution, which is consistent with the Wikipedia naming convention:
* English Wikipedia - English name of the city Szczecin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Stettin and Latin Stetinum are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
* German Wikipedia - German name of the city Stettin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding Polish Szczecin and Latin Stetinum  are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
* Polish Wikipedia - Polish name of the city Szczecin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Stettin  and Latin Stetinum are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
Mestwin of Gdansk 17:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Szczecin]] is the English name of the city 

message: May I suggest a compromise solution, which is consistent with the Wikipedia naming convention:
* English Wikipedia - English name of the city Gdansk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
* German Wikipedia - German name of the city Danzig is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding Polish Gdańsk, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania  are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
* Polish Wikipedia - Polish name of the city Gdańsk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
* Kashubian Wikipedia - Kashubian name of the city Gduńsk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Polish Gdańsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
* Latin Wikipedia - Latin name of the city Gedania is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Polish Gdańsk and Kashubian Gduńsk are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
Mestwin of Gdansk 20:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, any more than I would want Ireland, Kingdom of Ireland, Irish Republic, Irish Free State, Éire, or Republic of Ireland to have a single name.  Your changing Free City of Danzig to Free City of Gdansk reduces your credibility --Henrygb 01:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Gdansk]] on [[Gdansk]], second proposal 

message: I'm throwing in another datum about proper English usage, in respect to the name places under dispute: what my dictionary says. This is an old, hallowed means to settle arguments -- at least in the US -- & I hope it puts to rest this assumption that native English speakers are pushing for German names when we are insisting on the names we are familiar with.
Said dictionary is the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, published by G. & C. Merriam Co., & copyright 1974. In the Geographical Names section in the back it reads:
*Gdansk or Danzig
*Oder or Odra
*Poznan or Posen
*Szczecin or Stettin
*Teschen or Tesin or Cieszyn
*Wroclaw or Breslau
*Warsaw or Warszawa
Where the name listed second appears in this gazetter (e.g. "Odra"), there is a redirect to the primary name. The use of the redirect indicates that the names are listed in order or preference or familiarity to the English reader.
Even though I'm more familiar with "Stettin" & "Breslau" as the names of towns, because my dictionary says the Polish names are more accepted, I would acquiese to their forms over my familiarity. However, Oder is listed first as the most familiar name of this river -- which is why so many English speakers react quite vociferously when an obvious non-native insists that "Odra" is the preferred form. And I suspect that people consulting the British, Canadian, Australian & New Zealand equivalents would find results that are similar. (And I hope they are shared, whether they agree or disagree.) -- llywrch 21:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper English usage 

message: This question seems to me to be the key question here.  After all, nobody (well, a few people, but who cares about them) is suggesting that we just call these cities "Danzig" and "Stettin" throughout their history, up to the present.  Clearly, "Gdansk" and "Szczecin" and so forth are the current English-language names of these cities, and should be used for all references to them at present.  However, it remains equally true that the current standard in English is also to use the German names when referring to these cities' earlier history.  I'm not sure why this is so unusual.  Numerous cities are known by different names throughout their history.  Istanbul is called "Constantinople" before 1930 (or thereabouts).  The various Dalmatian cities are generally known by their Italian names (Fiume, Spalato, Ragusa, and so forth) when discussing them before the foundation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in 1918.  French and English cities are frequently known by Roman names (Eburacum, Lugdunum) when discussing them during the Roman period.  St. Petersburg is called "Petrograd" from 1915 to 1924.  Bratislava is usually called "Pressburg" before 1919.  "Lwow" is usually used for Lviv before 1772 and between 1918 and 1939, at least (and sometimes for between 1772 and 1918).  "Laibach" for "Ljubljana" is also common.  We use old colonial names as well - Leopoldville/Kinshasa, Salisbury/Harare, and so forth.  Mumbai is still frequently called "Bombay" in the west, and is certainly still called that in historical references.  So I'm not sure why there is a problem with Wikipedia just following conventional English usage and using different names when referring to cities throughout history?  Certainly in some cases it is necessary to do this.  Discussing the 900 day siege of St. Petersburg, or the Battle of Volgograd, or the crowning of Friedrich III of Brandenburg as King in Prussia in Kaliningrad just wouldn't make sense.  Neither would talk of the ancient Greek foundation of Istanbul on the Bosporus, or of the fall of Istanbul to the Turks in 1453.  (And Constantinople/Istanbul, by the way, could easily be described as a "translation" in much the same sense as Gdansk/Danzig).  Or of the great Gothic victory at the Battle of Edirne in 378.  I think discussion of the Free City of Gdansk is just as bizarre and out of place in English.  So, would someone please enlighten me as to why it's so much better to use a single name, even when that is not the standard English usage? john 22:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is that we should use Lviv and Vilnius when writing about all historical and modern city event, despite the fact that my Polish friends just love the Polish names of the cities, Lwów and Wilno respectively. - Mestwin of Gdansk 01:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: English for those would be Lvov and Vilnius, though the currently preferred by locals Lviv should be mentioned prominently outside historic contexts. Jamesday 00:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: It might be relevant to compare with the usage in wikipedia articles on capital cities in the neighbourhood: Helsinki (formerly known under its Swedish name Helsingfors), Tallinn (formerly known under its German name Reval), Oslo (formerly known under its Danish name Christiania), Saint Petersburg (formerly known as Petrograd and Leningrad) and Vyborg (formerly known under the German and Swedish spellings Wiburg/Viborg) – or other cities which have been under German laws for some of its history, as Flensburg/Flensborg, Bratislava/Pressburg and Strasbourg/Strassburg. In the main articles, the historical names are used rarely. --Ruhrjung 13:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that Vyborg reflects normal English usage - that one I expect to see as Viborg. The rest look right to me, with the first you gave being the usual English version. Jamesday 00:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Worse, the ones objecting don't seem to be native English speakers so much as people with an agenda inmporting their disputes here. Not the best people to make claims about what normal English usage is. Jamesday 00:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is it appropriate to use multiple names for cities in articles? 

message: See also discussion at:
* Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Polish_cities%2C_etc_archive
Mestwin of Gdansk 00:57, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation 

message: It is nearly impossible to create ONE article that pleases both sides. There are just a few possibilities to solve this dispute forever:
1. Bilingual names everywhere (e.g. always "Gdansk/Danzig", "Szczecin/Stettin", "Wroclaw/Breslau").
2. A technical preselection of the preferred name. A command like  #SELF would insert the preferred name of the city from the REDIRECT page. The server software could be extended with an IF-clause: #IF #SELF="Gdansk" THEN WRITE "Szczecin" ELSE IF #SELF="Danzig" THEN WRITE "Stettin" ELSE IF ...
3. Two different articles for disputed cities that give a slightly national POV (simply choosing one name is already a national POV). Contributors need a common goal if they want to write a good article. Creation of two different articles would create two competing, but not opposing groups. Whereever a separation in two different articles is not possible, links should show both articles (e.g. Schopenhauer was born in Gdansk/Danzig). Readers could choose which article they want to read. Deleting OR REDIRECTING articles of the other side should be regarded as vandalism.
4. If you have another idea to avoid a national bias when using disputed placenames, please add here.
Please regard these ideas carefully, as the permanent edit war discourages many users. Two competing articles need just a little bit more storage, but they could reduce conflicts that makes the whole project a madhouse. Remember that this project lives from donations and nobody wants to donate any cent for an institution that makes his contributions a subject of permanent edit wars. Two different articles for such a disputed issue could create a willingness to donate that exceeds the costs for additional storage by far.
This encyclopedia has many special interest pages (e.g. special arms), so a few  number of competing pages for the same issue should be allowed. If not, you should try to insert a technical preselection as quickly as possible in order to make such disputes as invisible as possible.
 --80.134.126.118 17:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions to solve this dispute forever