Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 1

message: The problem is when there is no anglicisation of a term, the anglicisation is really bad, or the anglicisation has fallen out of favour (for political/historical/cultural reasons). Also, there may be two, or a number of competing anglicisations - which may lead to a preference for the most locally appropriate term.
All in all, you'll have to put up with, and expect, some non-English terms. Besides, as noted above, there's plenty of non-English terms have been absorbed into our vocabulary. (Coup d'état isn't exactly English!)
<B>zoney</B> ███ <B>talk</B> 19:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anybody would object to using other names if there is no anglicisation, or it has fallen out of favour. These days you won't find many people insisting on Peking rather than Beijing, and I don't think Wikipedia should. It also doesn't mean that our preferred usage is set in stone for all time. In twenty years time it may be that most English-speakers understand 'Kolkata' rather than 'Calcutta' (sorry if I have the spelling wrong for the first). DJ Clayworth 19:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with anglicisations 

message: (I have posted a nearly similar paragraph on Talk:List_of_colleges_and_universities -please tell me politely that this double posting is wrong if it is ; I shall learn through my mistakes)
I had thought of editing some pages related to French universities and institutions, and I feel that some coherence should first be given to the choice of name to be used for each of these.
Reading this discussion page (notably the paragraph about parliaments or political parties) I am rather more puzzled than I could be before.
If I browse through various pro country university lists, I can only discover that there has been no common policy as what to do with university names, e.g.
* for Germany or Italy, the English name is systematically used, with a redirection from the local name ;
* for Belgium, the English name redirects to the local name, as well in French speaking or Dutch speaking Belgium ;
* in French speaking Canada, there are entries for University of Montreal and for Laval University, but on the other hand for Université de Sherbrooke and Université du Québec ;
* in France, the Grandes Écoles like École Polytechnique seem systematically described under their French name, while universities proper seem to be ordered under their English name (e.g. University of Poitiers) (very few are already in the Wikipedia).
The page List_of_colleges_and_universities_starting_with_U is a special mess, with its mix of translated names (e.g. "university of Modena") and native names (e.g. "universita degli Studi di Pavia").
I think that some more precise instructions should be precious to future editors.
--French Tourist 21:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  English names or local names for universities ? 

message: I don't see how these guidelines aren't followed for Tucson... the only thing that seems to be missing is a redirect at Cuk Ṣon. I'll leave it to Node ue to make one :) --Joy [shallot]
:The native name is not given on the first line of the article, as prescribed. --Node 06:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know a lot of people who are native to Tucson who call it Tucson, but ignoring that, the O'odham placename is given in the first paragraph, which has been my suggestion for all of these locations: giving the non-English placename a line in the first paragraph, explaining its significance (most people won't understand why Cuk Ṣon is listed after Tucson, or why Vaṣai S-veṣonĭ is listed after Scottsdale with little context.)  The RFC (as found on the Tucson talk page) in Tucson wound up in favor of including the name as a line in the first paragraph.  This is precisely what is prescribed, as "The body of such an article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all of the other names by which the subject is known, so those too can be searched for." (This was how it was when an anonymous user, presumably node, placed the Tucson statement).  I feel this should be applied to many other place names in the area, as mentioned on Talk:Tucson, Arizona, but node_ue has run a successful campaign of reversion-until-I'm-too-tired-of-it-to-care.  His inclusion of this false information in this policy is just another example of the frustration.  Anyway, I'm removing it, since it's wrong, as I've explained.  kmccoy (talk) 23:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tucson