Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archive 1

message: Slightly rephrased:
The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
The contents: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. Historical names, including other languages where appropriate, are to be listed in the first line of the article's contents. When mentioned in a historical context, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical name in parentheses, where reasonable.
*Support--AndriyK 21:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the exception for the changed names. Maybe that's the key ? --Lysy (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at B3 below then. I'm sure you know that the Gdansk voting was not only controversial but had many serious flaws. --Lysy (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some parts may have been problematic.  Nevertheless, an enormous majority said that it should be called "Danzig" from 1793 to 1945. john k 23:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JK, please can you not bring the Gdansk issue here. I know we could discuss this for ages and I have my arguments that I do not want to bring up now. One of the reasons of having good rules is to avoid cases like Gdansk, that did more harm than good. If you want to hear why I consider the Gdansk vote faulty, you're welcome to my talk page. --Lysy (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lysy - I am not referring to the controversial parts of the vote on Gdansk.  I am referring to the utterly uncontroversial fact that 61 people voted to use "Danzig" from 1793 to 1945, and 10 people voted to use "Gdansk".  Until you opened this discussion, nobody has ever suggested that this part of the vote was faulty, or in need of revision, although various anons (and occasionally Space Cadet) have tried to unilaterally change various individual articles.  As I said, any attempt to codify a policy (a general idea which I support), should take into account that this is an overwhelming consensus - any general rule which we should devise should be one which accommodates using "Danzig" for this period.  As to not bringing up the Danzig issue, please.  Issues relating to the naming of cities like Danzig are clearly what is at the center of this proposal, which in its original form was so clearly geared towards these names that it would have mandated talking about the Fourth Crusade's sack of Istanbul in 1204.  john k 00:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal B version 2

message: "The Battle of Stalingrad" case taken care of:
The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
The contents: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. Historical names, including other languages where appropriate, are to be listed in the first line of the article's contents. When mentioned in a historical context, the widely accepted English historical name can be used where there's no doubt about the usage. Otherwise, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical name in parentheses, where reasonable.
How about this now then ? --Lysy (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as it says, if there is any doubt, use the current official name instead. --Lysy (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal B version 3

message: The "name change" case taken care of:
The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
The contents: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. Historical names, including other languages where appropriate, are to be listed in the first line of the article's contents if they are in English usage. When mentioned in a historical context, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical (foreign language) name in parentheses, where reasonable. Only for the names that were changed (not merely translated), the historical name can be used in appropriate historical context instead.
Hopefully this addresses the concerns of Irpen, John K and Space Cadet ? --Lysy (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This most certainly does not address my concerns.  Look, a vast majority of people think Gdansk should be called Danzig between 1793 and 1945.  This was demonstrated in a vote with a very high turn out, and many Polish contributors voted for this solution (perhaps disingenuously?).  The results on pre-1793 were considerably more ambiguous, but any responsible proposal should take into account that there is strong consensus for having an article on the Free City of Danzig and not on the Free City of Gdansk, and for discussion of the city in the 19th century to refer to "Danzig," and so forth. Otherwise, this proposal is clearly just an end run around consensus.  john k 23:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I don't want to go into detail on if the vote was valid or not, as it's not our goal here. this said, the Free City of Danzig is an article about a historic state, not about a place, therefore our rules here do not apply for this particular article's title. But I see your point. --Lysy (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal B version 4

message: The weakness of version C versus B is that it is more vague and much more relying on supporting definitons. The challenge then is to provide these definition and keep it simple at the same time. I think this is doable, but has to be approached carefully. I'd not be  abandoning version B altogether for now, though (even being aware of its "Gdańsk" weakness). As for C2, here's what needs to be clarified:
#widely accepted English name - definition needed
#current local official name - definintion needed
#modern English language academic literature devoted to the topic - define "modern". "Academic" and "devoted" also seem a bit vague.
#:Academic seems fairly clear to me - "written by people with PhD's in the requisite field, and/or published by an academic press or in an academic journal."  "devoted to the topic" is relatively vague, but I see no problem with it being vague.  I'd say that "modern" should also remain vague, but the last 25 years or so would seem about right. john k 00:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To the side note: I think it's not practical :-( --Lysy (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What happens if the name is not present in modern English usage or is used very scarcely ? --Lysy (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting definitions

message: Wow, I'm impressed with how well you folks are tackling a hairy topic.  I would have thought a guideline on something so potentially fraught with difficulties would be impossible, but you seem to be working out all the kinks.  Since this is so generally applicable, will you expand the scope of the RfC once there's a draft of the guideline?
Comments:
# Perhaps "first line" should be changed to "lead paragraph".  In some cases where a place has a very long list of English and other-language names, Cyrillic, and transliteration, I have moved the entire list in parentheses to the bottom of the lead paragraph.  This avoids breaking up a short lead sentence with a very long list, is still easy to find, and it still seems to be obvious what it is.  It does reduce the prominence of alternate names a bit, so it may not always be acceptable.  In some cases the nomenclature goes into a separate paragraph; see my clean-up of Crimea.
# Although it should be self-evident about all style guidelines, since this is so detailed I would still add a note that says these are just suggestions, and exceptions are acceptable.  Sooner or later we'll find that 'unique' situation where the guideline's not quite right, and I'd hate to have someone slavishly quoting it at me.
# Transliteration, etc.  Not core to the discussion here, but some points to keep in mind, and perhaps issues to be resolved elsewhere:
## The difference between English/anglicized names and transliterations: Kiev Oblast, Kyivs’ka oblast’.
## The difference between common transcriptions and precise transliteration: Zaporizhia, Zaporizhzhia; Khmelnytsky, Khmel’nyts’kyi
## I've found it useful to use a conventional loose transcription in article titles and bold name, but a more precise letter-for-letter transliteration next to a Cyrillic name.  Sometimes they may seem redundant or differ only by an apostrophe, but this makes clear the difference between the two, and makes clear what the native names are (because most English-language readers can't read Cyrillics).
## It would be nice to choose a common system for transliterating all Cyrillic languages, for the academic transliterations.  It should be a disciplined system that indicates both Cyrillic spelling and speech.
## And if we did that, then in many cases Cyrillic would be redundant, and could be left out.
—Michael Z. 2005-11-8 17:16 Z
As for me, I totally agree with the "lead paragraph" or "lead section", and that these are just guidelines. Good to follow, but there may be exceptions, where justified. As for the transliteration, no doubt it's an issue, but personally, I would prefer to keep it out of scope here for now, as it may be quite difficult to stay focused. --Lysy (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, I'm sorry, I'm busy this and the next week, almost on a wikibreak. I would appreciate if someone would take it over now. Otherwise I'll be able to get back to it only later ... --Lysy (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments 

message: Good. I have archived all the old proposals, and left E-3 only so that we can focus on it. --Lysy (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-3 

message: I see that Any archaic usage names in the list, as well as names used before the standardization of English orthography should be clearly marked as such is still in there.  Would any object to removing mention of names used before the standardization of English orthography?  It is my feeling that such names should never be included at the beginning of the article, because to do so would be to both severely escalate the number of names that need to be listed, and to drown out the actually significant names in a sea of spelling variants. john k 19:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only for the record: I think "Vilna" was a Jewish, not Russian name. --Lysy (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Many good points - could you make your own version of the proposal, so we can compare how it works in practice? I wouldn't mind droping the encyclopedia's count (technical problem) and settling only on Google Scholar or Books. For example, Google Books for Vilno/Vilnius/Wilno shows quickly that there is little difference between Vilno/Vilnius (about 14k hits each), so that Vilnius should be used as SWAEN (cause it is also the modern local official name), while Wilno (2k) has a good case for Poland-related contexts. Usage of Gdansk and Danzig is made clear by comparing Gdansk+Solidarity vs. Danzig+Solidairyt (10:1 for Gdansk for modern era) and Bismarck for partitions (1:15 for Danzig for that period). Two other tests I tried were Mieszko (1:1) and PLC (2:1 for Danzig), so they would require some more digging, but would probably give us in few minutes the same results that the several week long Gdansk Vote did. As for the examples in general, I just listed some of the first things I thought about - and I am pretty sure other experts can add new and fix the old.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I was suprised myself the results fit so well. But then, from time to time, some things in life just work as they are supposed to :) And after our, our 'common sense' is shaped by the books and arrticle we read, so there may be something to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm... 

message: I don't think the proposed lead para guideline is very practical. In the case of a place with multiple foreign names (e.g. London), this could lead to a dozen or more names being listed. It doesn't seem to lend itself very well to the issue of places with multiple official names, like the Swiss capital Berne or the Belgian capital Brussels. I think it also begins to run up against the Wikipedia is not a dictionary directive, as we shouldn't be in the business of compiling lists of alternative names for places. Fortunately, Wiktionary provides a good way to list alternative names without cluttering up Wikipedia.
I'd like to propose the following alternative:
:The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative official names in the local language or languages. In some cases, a place may have two or more official names; these should be listed in the alphabetical order of the languages (e.g. "Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3", etc). Foreign language names should not be added to the article, but should be added to a relevant Wiktionary entry and crosslinked from the article. For instance, Wiktionary:London is the appropriate place to list foreign names for London, as in this example: "London (see Wiktionary:London for the name in other languages) is the capital of the United Kingdom and England."
Also, I think this guideline needs to refer (and perhaps defer?) to the existing Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines. There's a good deal in there on disputed names, such as Gdansk/Danzig, which seems to be directly relevant to the subject matter of this guideline. -- ChrisO 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if this would be practical. Many non-English wikipedians are quite protective of their foreign names, and one of the reason this proposal is being drafted is to satisfy them with a win-win situation (you can have yours and I can have mine). Adopting your version, which would remove all foreign names, would be more of a lose-lose situtation. And while nationalistic feelings are unencyclopedic, the fact is that many (academic and otherwise) sources do use non-English names, so having them searchable and visible on Wiki is useful also from an encyclopedic viewpoint.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Piotr on this. —Nightstallion (?) 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.... .dave souza, talk 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are places like Nakhichevan that historically changed hands so many times that there are too many foreign names or renditions of the name to be included in the lead. Currently the name is listed in the lead in 4 different languages, and the list is not complete. The same is true for many other places in South Caucasus. I think there should be some comprehensive policy with regard to inclusion of foreign names. Grandmaster 09:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead proposal: not very practical?

message: To progress towards consensus on whether there is a requirement for politically contentious foreign language names not used by the inhabitants to be stated as alternatives in the first line of an article without any explanation of the controversy, I have endeavoured to set out my understanding of the issues at Talk:Falkland Islands#Assessment and recommendation. It appears that this proposed guideline needs some clarification to have effect in any similar debates. ...dave souza, talk 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is  a "foreign lanquage name"?

message: While I have no intention of meddling in Eastern or Central Europe, the proposals for generalizing the proposal beyond its initial scope require me to comment.  The ordering of the names by language name (in English, I assume) is counterintuitive for ancient sites. Chronologically would be the better choice for several reasons: 1. Cities were often renamed for an emperor or other luminary; and renamed by successors for themselves, often multiple times; 2. It's often impossible to tell whether a given name (in transliteration) is Greek or Latin; 3. Many areas fell were named in a native non-Greek; then in Greek (classical); anew in Greek (Hellenistic), then again in Latin (during the Empire), then yet again in Greek (under the Byzantine Empire), then in Arabic or Turkish, or both, then by Crusaders, then often in another language (often Modern Hebrew, French, Italian); what may be the "standard English" version attaches often to one of these, but not necessarily so (e.g., "Antioch" which differs from the Greek "Antiocheia" & Latin "Antiochia"); and for places in scripture, a Biblical name (often in Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic) is also in contention.  So we should have:
* English Name (Arabic: ----; French: ----; Greek: ----- and ----- (also Latin); Hebrew: ----- (Biblical) or ----- (Modern); Latin: ---- (also Greek) and -----; Turkish: ----)
* when we find that the Biblical name dates from 1000 BCE; the Greek ones from 700 BCE & 300 BCE; the Latin one from 100 CE; the Arabic from 700 CE; the Turkish from 1200 CE; and the Modern Hebrew name from 1950. Is this far fetched? See Mopsuestia, Adana and Acre, Israel for different handling of similar situations.
*Also, I assume by foreign language name it is meant that some language associated with the place or those who ruled, occupied, built, or had an important connection with the place.  E.g., we wouldn't be putting the names of Athens, Rome, Paris in Indonesian, Estonian, Icelandic, etc., in the 1st paragraph. Right?
Carlossuarez46 21:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordering

message: * This group of editors may have an interest in a currently proposed move being discussed at Talk:St Mark's Square --Dystopos 13:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: St Mark's Square → Piazza  San Marco

message: Three separate votes concerning the names connected with administrative division of Poland are ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Województwa vote, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Types of administrative districts, and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Names of offices. Ausir Ausir 15:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative division of Poland 

message: I think there should be a clarification on the relevency of foreign language name and when they should be used. Some may use such a policy to abuse. I don't think having the chinese term with chinese characters of Canada in the lead on the Canada article is relevent. The uses of foreign terms should be etymologicaly justifiable, if they are not, they should be justified by the notability of the term used during the period covered in the article. This is generally what is done in historical publications. Those should crealy be two conditions. Fad (ix) 04:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I would suggest we define a relevant foreign language name either 1) used by at least 10% of sources in English language 2) used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevency of foreign language names

message: Perhaps it is time to do a straw poll and see what the community thinks about our work so far?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure a straw poll is the right thing, but some way to revive discussion might be good. I'll start in the section below :-) Kusma (討論) 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll? 

message: I like the spirit of this proposal (use English name if there is one; when there isn't or when in doubt, use modern local name). Actually, I think the proposal is good, but we should get rid of the rigid definitions. For example, I don't like the way the proposal uses other encyclopedias (for example, a single mistake in any of them could make someone wikilawyer that a place doesn't have a swaEn). It is also impossible to determine the context of use in Google Scholar and Google Books articles by a simple search. Additionally, we don't really know how good the sample Google has is for determining modern usage. Something like "75% of relevant Google Scholar hits" also can't be tested unless you have an excellent library that gives you access to all of these indexed papers (remember, you have to check them all to determine the context). 
The reliance on numbers and simple web searches looks easy due to "fixed rules", but life is too complicated for them to be applied. Common sense should be used instead of the Google test. Kusma (討論) 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am somewhat afraid of the common sense. The 'all encyclopedias' is perhaps too strict, a 75% of encyclopedias might be better. As for the common sense, it is already covered by WP:IAR - how would you incorporate it into the guidelines? I do agree that we should have a way to avoid those people who put the 'letter of the law' above the 'spirit of the law'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <;;;font color="green">Talk</font> 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And encyclopedias are not the ideal choice of reference in any case; encyclopedias (especially their article titles) are subject to the same forces of political correctness to lean over backwards to use local names, even when these are contrary to English usage. (Oddly, the translations of London suggest that only the English wikipedia has this problem.) Septentrionalis 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only the English Wikipedia uses local names. The German Wikipedia uses Polish names for almost all cities in Poland, although most cities in Poland have German names, and many of them were indeed German cities until 1945. However, this reflects common usage by e.g. German news source, which tend to use local names with only few exceptions (like Warsaw). The use of German names for cities that once belonged to the German or Austrian Empire and now belong to other countries is not politically correct in Germany, and often considered nationalist or revanchist. Kusma (討論) 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So are academic publications. I still think that we need rigid guidelines, just like the 60%+ in RM or 80%+ in RFA, otherwise some conflicts will not end, with people quarreling over what is majority or such. However I do agree that the swaEn might be to rigid: what about one of those changes: 1) lower encyclopedia to 75% 2) change 'If at least one of the two conditions is not satisfied' to 'If both of the two conditions...'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions using other encyclopedias and Google Search 

message: A pet hate of mine is the needless revival of archaic English-language names to describe modern places. Some English names have dropped out of use during the last hundred years, and we should recognise the fact - for example, nobody speaks about Corunna when talking about the modern city of La Coruña. 
The word Corunna was certainly used by 100% of British speakers for centuries. But not any more. 
I would like the naming conventions to make it explicit that Corunna, etc, should never be used for the name of the article. Even though there are thousands of old texts that use the name Corunna. That modern English usage should take precedence, ie "if modern English sources tend to use the local name, that should be the page name, never the archaic English name". Jameswilson 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The archaic issue 

message: I would rather see archaic spelled out, three extra characters for a clearer meaning. Rich Farmbrough 18:27 13  August 2006 (GMT).
:Agree. --Lysytalk 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - "Arch." could also be taken to mean something else. -- mno 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arch vs. archaic

message: I wonder whether the initiators of this discussion can summarize the proposed changes. The discussion itself is not very lively, so in my opinion, there is no reason to lose more time waiting for more comments. Clear naming guidelines are desperately needed, as can be documented by this recent edit war for instance. I think we should accelerate the whole thing a bit. Tankred 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we've in general come to a guideline that is acceptable for everyone. I think that we can move to wrap up discussion and put this forward as a policy/official guideline, or however it's called. -- mno 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still feel that this guideline is very difficult to follow.  The acronyms are difficult to understand, and though I've read the guideline several times, I still can't get enough of a sense of it to even try to rewrite it.  It badly needs a very simple and clear summary at the top, written in simple non-acronym English. --Elonka 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so too. Would you be able to draft such a summary ? Then I think it's time to seek wider acceptance as someone already tried to label the proposal as "inactive" recently. --Lysytalk 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you can help us draft such a summary it would be great. Please note that the policies itself often get rather technical, but their lead and 'nutshell' versions are important. The  template is very useful for that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: I have suggested a nutshell wording, feel free to discuss it here and adjust it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, IMHO. I'm only having problem understanding "should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists", probably because of the double negation. Could you elaborate on this here ? Maybe an example would suffice. --Lysytalk 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, double negation. I meant that non-English version can, obviously, be used, if there is no English version :) Perhaps that's not important - feel free to correct or remove it from the 'shell.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's fine. I don't see why I had problems with it before. Still, maybe a native speaker could have a look at it (with all respect to you and your English :-) ) --Lysytalk 15:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutshell proposal

message: Isn't archaic name (mentioned in point 2) the same as 'widely accepted historical English name'? Archaic is not defined well, and it may lead to some confusion - I suggest we try to merge those two concepts, so we have one less term to worry about.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess an archaic name is a tad too broad. One could argue that the name of Posna, which was in use up to WWI, yet is barely ever known by modern English speakers is archaic. Others could point out that the name of Vilna is archaic as well, since a majority of post-1990 writers use the name of Vilnius. This indeed needs to be put in a more precise way. //Halibutt 10:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the second thought we could dump the archaic name altogether, as it might become yet another problem, with people arguing whether  the name is archaic or not. We could do fine with just the category of historically-used names. //Halibutt 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the proposal but could you include an additional example demonstrating the archaic point more clearly. For example, in modern contexts, the modern local (Polish) name "Podlasie" should take precedence over the archaic English form "Podlachia" as that name is not used in modern English sources. Likewise "La Coruña" not "Corunna" or "Srem"/"Syrmia". 
Please note that this is a separate question from spellings which originated from different local languages such as Saragossa/Zaragoza, where the English adopted one local name (Aragonese) and then switched to another local form (Castilian Spanish). I am referring only to (C18/C19?) English inventions which have since died out. The previous naming conventions didnt mention the archaic point and therefore were not robust enough to prevent people reinventing these obscure names for article names. 
This is needed because even when it can be demonstrated that a Google search yields no UK/US references whatsoever to the archaic name in a modern context, eg for "Podlachian Voivodeship" (discounting mirror-sites), some people still refuse to abandon it, on the grounds that "English names take precedence". We do need to make clear that that doesnt include antiquated English names. Jameswilson 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm aware that this creates another potential point of contention, but still believe that is should be properly addressed. Only leave out archaic if we are unable to come up with a good definition. --Lysytalk 05:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification needed: archaic and historical

message: I have noticed that while majority of cities already follows this convention (more or less, see #Lithuanian exception? post), capitals seem to be almost always an exception (see Warsaw, Kiev, Moscow, Vilnius and others). Some of those have generated entire archives of discussion, with consensus usually being that foreign names should not be used in their lead - although as far as I can tell this was not because of encyclopedic reasons, but because some people felt that it is 'offensive' to have names of former conquerors/rulers/whatver in the name of their capital. The question to consider, therefore, is do we want to make an exception of capitals - to sooth the feelings of some of the more nationalist-minded editors - or are we going to enforce this, capital or no capital?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for making exceptions for capitals. We are here to create an informative encyclopedia for English speakers, not to worry about offending sensitivities. There are some articles which discuss alternate names in a separate paragraph (such as Tallinn); I consider this acceptable, as long as it is near the lead. Still, I prefer having the most relevant names in the intro for consistency with other articles. What I disagree with completely is removing or burying historically relevant names (which I believe has currently been done at  Vilnius). Olessi 17:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the note on the proposed use of Names of European cities in different languages in cases when the list in the lead would be too long, above at "Lithuanian exception". --Lysytalk 23:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital exception?

message: ===Modern local official name and modern local historical name===
These two terms need to be defined. My specific concern is the case when cities or other localities have an official name spelled in Cyrillic or some other non-Latin-based alphabet. To put it simply, there are instances when the modern local official/historical name in English does not exist.
In fact, I raised this issue earlier in the context of transliteration. But it appears to have been forgotten. Sashazlv 03:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you could propose the solution to the transliteration issue, it would be best - I don't think we have yet thought of one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on proposal F 

message: These two terms need to be defined. My specific concern is the case when cities or other localities have an official name spelled in Cyrillic or some other non-Latin-based alphabet. To put it simply, there are instances when the modern local official/historical name in English does not exist.
In fact, I raised this issue earlier in the context of transliteration. But it appears to have been forgotten. Sashazlv 03:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you could propose the solution to the transliteration issue, it would be best - I don't think we have yet thought of one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern local official name ''and'' modern local historical name

message: I think this should be reformulated. The NC should put an emphasis that the default name is the national name which (if non-Latin) is transliterated through an accepted wikiwide translit rule (which has to be agreed at WP:CYR for each language). Only when there is a provable SWAEN the latter takes precedence. Logically it would be one and the same thing as what the current text says, but this way it would emphasize, that the burden of proof for not using the modern national name is on those who advocate another name claiming its Englishness.
Besides, the definition of SWAEN ommits an important factor, that is "Modern Media Usage". The latter reflects the overall English usage much better than google books and google scholar which may include books published from dozens years ago. My guess is that google books will likely show Kharkov due to the importance of the city in the WW2; and going by that the article should sit at Kharkov. However, the modern English media usage firmly prefers Kharkiv by a wide margin (I made relevant searches a while ago). So, the media factor should be added. It is important, though, to make sure that only solid enough media is used, that is major newspapers and national TV's of the English-speaking countries, that is the media which are solid enough to have an editorial policy and editorial staff that checks journalists' submission for the compliance with the editorial style. Naturally, what The Economist or The New York Times uses is more important than what is used by some local town paper, while google news will count each hit equally. For that, I suggest to use my all time favorite Major Papers search of Lexis Nexis Academic. Lexis Nexis defines major papers as follows. "United States newspapers must be listed in the top 50 circulation in Editor & Publisher Year Book. Newspapers published outside the United States must be in English language and listed as a national newspaper in Benn's World Media Directory or one of the top 5% in circulation for the country." This search is subscription bases, by I volunteer to run it if asked.
So, I would modify the def of SWAEN as follows:
The geographic location is considered to have a single widely accepted English name in modern context (swaEn) if at least two out of the following three conditions are satisfied simultaneously:
#Out of three major English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta) at least two consistently use this name for the article title or if such article does not exist in all other articles where the corresponding location is mentioned in modern context. 
#This name obtains the largest number (75% or more of total hits considering all possible variants) of Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the world is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in modern context. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count.
#This name obtains the largest (66% or moreof total hits considering all possible variants in the Lexis Nexis academic "Major Paper" search, where the Major Papers (as per definition of Lexis Nexis are defined as follows: "United States newspapers must be listed in the top 50 circulation in Editor & Publisher Year Book. Newspapers published outside the United States must be in English language and listed as a national newspaper in Benn's World Media Directory or one of the top 5% in circulation for the country." 
--Irpen 04:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the "single widely accepted English name" criterion is that the name is in fact "widely accepted". If there are 3 criteria, and a name passes 2 and violates 1, then it's not widely accepted. If we go for 3 criteria, a trully "widely accepted" name should pass 3 out of 3. --KPbIC 04:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say two out of three would suffice. Actually, in all honesty, just Lexus Nexis alone is all we need to establish english usage. And all searches I've done in Lexis matched EB exactly every single time. But if people want to add others, fine. But we should not fall hostage to the marginal Encartha which, while an OK source, is incomparable with EB by authority. Is 2 out of three fine with others? Or everyone supports Krys on this? --Irpen 05:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable, but few minor modifications: 1) note modern context in N-L search, and 2) perhaps we should limit the sample in GP/GS/L-N to the first 10-20 - or otherwise we would have to force editors to look through hundreds of publications, if not more, in some cases, before they can present their case.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modification of SWAEN def

message: ===Quality of online searches? Gazetteers?===
As far as general principles go, F is fine but, except for the Britannica/Columbia test, there still seems to be a reliance on quantity (e.g. Google searches) over quality (i.e., more encyclopedic usage).  For most cases, this poses no problem but for more obscure locations where there are few English references (i.e., a small 'n') the reliance on search engines does not reflect English usage.  Many encyclopedias don't have entries for more obscure region names a few false positives in Google can obscure the better form.  As I asked before, what about gazetteers? (The old-fashioned book kind like the Columbia Gazetteer or its more extensive predecessors, the Columbia-Lipincott Gazetteers, available in most English-language libraries)? Gazetteers and encyclopedias inject a degree of quality into determining English usage that Google does not possess.
Examples of my concerns can be seen in non-geographic terms such as catty and tael which are unknown to the vast majority of English speakers (even in the Orient) and would probably flunk Google tests but are nonetheless the correct terms.
A geographic example would be Budjak where non-English forms (e.g. Bugeac) show up in English Google results either as false positives (Romanian language pages) or in English articles that use the Romanian term because the knowledge of the region is obscure among English speakers.
Another example of problematic reliance on search results is Pomerelia.  There are claims that his region should be properly called "Eastern Poemrania" in English (apparently a translation from Polish).  A search of print materials on academic search engines such as JSTOR or ABC-Clio Historical Abstracts shows “eastern Pomerania” usually used as a descriptive (with a lower case “e”) while Pomerelia is used on several occasions to describe both the duchy and the region and is the term used in the translation of Polish and German article titles.  In many cases “eastern Pomerania” does not refer to Pomerelia but to the eastern part of the Duchy of Pomerania (i.e., Farther Pomerania) an entirely different region.  Google Books searches of Eastern Pomerania and Pomerelia reveal similar results.
Perhaps a greater reliance more quality sources such as gazetteers would help ameliorate some of these problems.
-  AjaxSmack  05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I think. --Lysytalk 07:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on proposal F -- (2)

message: As far as general principles go, F is fine but, except for the Britannica/Columbia test, there still seems to be a reliance on quantity (e.g. Google searches) over quality (i.e., more encyclopedic usage).  For most cases, this poses no problem but for more obscure locations where there are few English references (i.e., a small 'n') the reliance on search engines does not reflect English usage.  Many encyclopedias don't have entries for more obscure region names a few false positives in Google can obscure the better form.  As I asked before, what about gazetteers? (The old-fashioned book kind like the Columbia Gazetteer or its more extensive predecessors, the Columbia-Lipincott Gazetteers, available in most English-language libraries)? Gazetteers and encyclopedias inject a degree of quality into determining English usage that Google does not possess.
Examples of my concerns can be seen in non-geographic terms such as catty and tael which are unknown to the vast majority of English speakers (even in the Orient) and would probably flunk Google tests but are nonetheless the correct terms.
A geographic example would be Budjak where non-English forms (e.g. Bugeac) show up in English Google results either as false positives (Romanian language pages) or in English articles that use the Romanian term because the knowledge of the region is obscure among English speakers.
Another example of problematic reliance on search results is Pomerelia.  There are claims that his region should be properly called "Eastern Poemrania" in English (apparently a translation from Polish).  A search of print materials on academic search engines such as JSTOR or ABC-Clio Historical Abstracts shows “eastern Pomerania” usually used as a descriptive (with a lower case “e”) while Pomerelia is used on several occasions to describe both the duchy and the region and is the term used in the translation of Polish and German article titles.  In many cases “eastern Pomerania” does not refer to Pomerelia but to the eastern part of the Duchy of Pomerania (i.e., Farther Pomerania) an entirely different region.  Google Books searches of Eastern Pomerania and Pomerelia reveal similar results.
Perhaps a greater reliance more quality sources such as gazetteers would help ameliorate some of these problems.
-  AjaxSmack  05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of online searches? Gazetteers?

message: I oppose the reliance on Names of European cities in different languages article to provide major foreign language (FL) forms that would normally appear in the article text. (See Vilnius for example)  The Names article is too fluid and has too many FL forms to substitute.
Also, I have also proposed limits/splits to that article so please check out Talk:Names of European cities in different languages.
One possible rule addition could be that if there are more than a certain number of FL forms (e.g. 2 or 3), then all of the FL forms would be required to be moved to a separate names section.
-  AjaxSmack  05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I think. --Lysytalk 07:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliance on "Names of European cities in different languages" article

message: I do have one possible solution to this question. Since naming can be a touchy affair as far as international relations are concerned, I suggest you go straight to an international relations source: Government (and Embassy) English documentation. This would show the title of the place in question as the country itself would like a name translated for the world, and I think this modern context is important as well. THEPROMENADER 10:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unacceptable. Wikipedia does not use "official" names except as a stopgap when English usage is undeterminable; I strongly oppose any effort to change that policy. Septentrionalis 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what you mean by "official" names, but all I meant was the name used in press releases and the like - in information destined for the greater public. THEPROMENADER 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have considered a similar issue during the debates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland. The problems we run into included the facts that sometimes it's difficult to find what is the official name, especially in English, as 1) the official guideline may not be released 2) if released, it may not be respected even on the webpages of issuing body 3) often, it does not exist and various government bodies have their own different ideas how are they (or the cities, etc.) named in English...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Other possible problem is the case of Kiev. While Ukrainian authorities strongly support the name of Kyiv to be used in English, the name does not yet stick and most people still refer to the Ukrainian capital as Kiev instead (and so does Wikipedia). To some extent the same applies to the Czech Republic vs. Czechia phenomenon. //Halibutt 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. These are not exceptions, nor is Prague (official Praha); these are policy. This proposal, until a few minutes ago, would overturn that policy. Septentrionalis 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And, frankly speaking, good for us. I mean, while I fully agree that the Czech government has the full right to promote the name of Czechia, we're here not to report what governments state, but to report what is actually used. Hence IMO the article on Czech Republic should stay where it is, at least as long as people are using the "old" name. Or did I get you wrong? //Halibutt 06:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local Name vs. Historic name vs. English name 

message: Just a minor point: the guidelines should explicitly state that only the recent issues of encyclopedias (let say, published after 1993) should be used. For example, Britannica from 1911 includes many geographic names that had not been used after the end of WWI. But some editors might argue that it is a relevant source to establish a swaEn. Many names were changed right after the end of WWI, WWII and Cold War. This fact should be reflected in the guidelines. Tankred 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, feel free to ammend the policy. What about historical names: would historical editions of encyclopedias be useful there?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedias

message: I was asked on my talk page to comment on this so here goes... I'm a bit confused by what is being proposed here. Is it version F or version G, or a hybrid, or a discussion between the two? The differences between the two aren't really clear to anyone who wasn't involved in the prior discussion of (assumedly) versions A through E. I think the boldfaced parts of sentences make the guideline hard to read, and I would prefer to do without the terms "swaEn" and such since they have the potential to be highly confusing to people unfamiliar with them. In my opinion it is more important for a guideline to be easily understood, than to be technically correct in the smallest details. In practice every guideline has a few exceptions anyway, so you don't need to document too many single cases. >Radiant< 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above began when Version F was the only version, as it was for some time. Version G arose in the middle of it, since I think the severe requirements of the present Version F contrary to WP:NC, which is policy. (This page will, at best, be a guideline). I don't insist on either version, myself; while a good version of this page would be helpful, nationalist trolls will ignore it, as they do other WP pracitices. Septentrionalis 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But with this we will be able to control them more easily; especially that branch of the troll family who specialized in long and pointless talk discussions, and removing any mention of foreign names from articles, or adding them where uneeded :) I look forward towards the days when instead of spending hours repeating the same arguments over and over again, we will be able to point to this convention and end the discussion (after all, this is what naming conventions are for, to make our life easier and our articles more standarized :) ).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Septentrionalis, we're not writing this for the nationalist trolls, but rather for the rest of our community, for all those who moderate'em. //Halibutt 07:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I suggest to change the sentence "Foreign names can be used only if there are no established English names." of the paragraph 3 into "Foreign names can be used only if there are no established English names or an official local name." The proposal in fact distinguishes a local official name from foreign names and foreign names should not replace local official names. This is the case of geographic places, where it is not possible to find any widely accepted English name because of their little significance. But the guidelines should cover also such cases. Tankred 23:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "foreign"? Local names are foreign, except in English-speaking countries. We should avoid setting up definitions of common words which are contrary to common usage (as opposed to more precise than common usage). Septentrionalis 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I perfectly see your point and I apologize for not being clear. The problem is that the foreign names proper are defined by the guidelines as the names "used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". If we leave the sentence mentioned in my preceeding comment in its present version, it may open a window of opportunity for edit wars in the articles about places without a widely accepted English name. Let say there is a mountain in the Czech Republic a no widely accepted English name can be identified. The territory used to be inhabited by Germans and that is why the mountain has a different name on German maps. In other words, the place in the Czech Republic has a Czech name on the Czech maps, a German name on the German maps and people in the English-speaking world so not care. The present version of the guidelines can be interpreted in a way that both a Czech name and a German name can be used in the content of Wikipedia articles. I propose to delete the sentence "Foreign names can be used only if there are no established English names." from the paragraph 3. As a result, only the same name as in title or a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context will be used in the content of articles. Foreign names will have their place in the lead of the main article, but they will not be used in other articles. Is it clearer now? Tankred 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm,I think your first suggestion, recommending the use of official local name because historical foreign one was better, otherwise it may not be clear what to do if there is no English name. We may also note that the local official name will likely be the name of the article in question and so redirects should be avoided.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign names

message: Names that are manifestly not English words should not be used when there is a reasonable and reasonably-common alternative that is manifestly English.  Especially, words that are impossible in modern English orthography should not be used when there is a reasonable alternative that can be more naturally rendered.  Many readers tend to "hear" words as they are being read, and this is especially true when running across an unfamiliar one.  This makes a word that looks unpronouncable jarring.   This applies with less force when the foreign-language spelling (and some approximation of its pronunciation) have wide currency.  While we certainly want to include the official name, (and the name commonly used by the locals, if different) as a means of informing readers, it seems natural that the title and the word ordinarily used for a place should make sense in the language of the particular Wikipedia: English in this instance.
It makes no sense to defer our stylistic judgments to another tertiary source, such as Britannica, that is not bound by our NPOV or NOR policies, and where content wars are not even a possibility.
To take some examples:
*"Plzen" is the offical and local name, and clearly should be used in the Czech Wikipedia, but there is no obvious way to pronounce that word in English.  If anything, "Plizen" is a more natural assumption than "Pilzen".  In contrast, there is a reasonably-common alternative, "Pilsen", that is pronounceable in English, and that can be manipulated in natural ways to make other parts of speech.  Therefore, "Pilsen", even if old-fashioned, should be preferrred.
*"Gökçeada" is the official name, and the one used by the Turkish-speaking inhabitants of the island classically known as "Imbros" in English.  The Turkish name contains diacritics and it has no natural pronunciation to a monophone English-speaker.  On the other hand, because Greek has greatly influenced English, the name "Imbros" looks natural and can be pronounced readily.  It is also reasonably common in texts intended for an English-speaking audience, so it should be preferred as the ordinary name for the title and most uses.
*"Gdansk" has no natural pronunciation in English, and if we were writing the 1965 edition of Wikipedia, I would argue for "Danzig", but we aren't.  The Polish name was sufficiently commonly used during news stories of the 1980's that usage changed, and "Gdansk" is now perfectly proper for ordinary contexts.
This is not, of course, a complete guideline, and the principle cannot avoid all arguments, I think that this is the core intention of "Use English", and that we could eliminate a lot of silliness if we kept to this rule. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are suggesting is outside the scope of this naming convention; instead, it should be discussed at the page of another proposed naming convention, namely Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly relevant to this discussion, and there is no certainty that there will be any policy or guideline coming out of the other discussion. Moreover, as the Plzen/Pilsen case shows, there are instances not involving diacritics that come under this rubric.Robert A.West (Talk) 11:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the case you have mentioned in fact involves diacritics. The Czech name is Plzeň and the English name Pilsen. The same is true for your second case - Gdańsk. Anyway, both proposals F and G prefer English names. But I think that we should real English names (if they exist) and invent English-like neologisms when real English names do not exist. Tankred 15:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English orthography and usage 

message: Since the discussion died down again, unless there are any SIGNIFICANT objections, I'd like to suggest we proceed to make it a Naming Convention. I am not entirely sure how we should do so...comments?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which version? I continue to object to Version F; as others have. Septentrionalis 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: G, of course.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Much obliged. A straw poll, widely advertised, would probably be best; mention it  at Requested Surveys and Village pump (policy) and the other major Naming convention pages.  Septentrionalis 02:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The point of clause 7 is that names can be widely accepted but only come close to meeting any of the first six criteria; if, say, the Britannica (only) has a spasm of political correctness about the local name, google is 2.5:1,  and so on. Does Tankred (or anyone) disagree? In other words, is this a question of phrasing, or is there substantive disagreement here? Septentrionalis 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a question of phrasing. I think it should be clarified that the point 7 cannot be used as the main criterion (comparable to encyclopedias and academic journals). Tankred 02:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken it out of the numbered list and made clearer that it is intended for borderline cases, in the spirit of WP:PR. Septentrionalis 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tankred's other point, and hope he will add a more explicit phrasing to Version G. Septentrionalis 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is to add one sentence into the Paragraph 1 of "Dispute resolution": Avoid revert wars: If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page. If the dispute is affecting more than one article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the main article about the place in question. In order to pull all the disputants into one talk page a template may be created. See :Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice for an example of such a notice. Tankred 02:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; and archived F. If anybody feels like bringing F back, fine. Septentrionalis 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of talk page template for this NC for articles that are affected by edit wars - would you create one?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if they are popular and important enough for being valuable to readers, but they should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists, and should be used in articles with caution.
JoergenB 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, you changed 'frequently used' to popular (I am ok with that), but I don't think adding 'for being' improves the nutshell (is it even correct gramatically?). Adding 'they' after 'but' seems like an ok change, too. I will go ahead and implement the two we agree on, they are cosmetic anyway. PS. 'and important enough to be valuable to readers' seems akward - what about replacing this with either 'important' or 'notable'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For being is not idiomatic; and I'm not sure popular and frequently used are the same thing. Septentrionalis 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "frequently used" is a more precise summary of the guideline than the more vague current formulation "popular". Tankred 16:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sofixit. Septentrionalis 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers, should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists, and should be used in articles with caution.
There may have been some earlier changes you have not been aware of; if so, you may consult the history in order to find out whodunnit and hopefully why.   I  don't think I have further comment s of value to add to this.  Best,--JoergenB 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments about current version (as of 10 Oct)

message: I believe the 'nutshell' could be expressed just a little more clear - without changing the meaning. I suspect that the present wording could confuse other users than Robert A West for more than his 2 minutes :-).  At least, I needed longer time than that to grasp it.  However, I don't want to provoke more discussion.  If anyone thinks the change to the following text would either change the meaning, or fail to make the meaning at least marginally easier to grasp, I'll skip this.  Proposed changes in boldface.
::Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if they are popular and important enough for being valuable to readers, but they should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists, and should be used in articles with caution.
JoergenB 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, you changed 'frequently used' to popular (I am ok with that), but I don't think adding 'for being' improves the nutshell (is it even correct gramatically?). Adding 'they' after 'but' seems like an ok change, too. I will go ahead and implement the two we agree on, they are cosmetic anyway. PS. 'and important enough to be valuable to readers' seems akward - what about replacing this with either 'important' or 'notable'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For being is not idiomatic; and I'm not sure popular and frequently used are the same thing. Septentrionalis 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "frequently used" is a more precise summary of the guideline than the more vague current formulation "popular". Tankred 16:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sofixit. Septentrionalis 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers, should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists, and should be used in articles with caution.
There may have been some earlier changes you have not been aware of; if so, you may consult the history in order to find out whodunnit and hopefully why.   I  don't think I have further comment s of value to add to this.  Best,--JoergenB 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The nutshell

message: Shall the guideline explain which names in the lead are bolded, and which are in italics ? --Lysytalk 20:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should; my experience is that names frequently used in English are bolded, foreign names are italicized if in Roman script, and that Greek or Cyrillic names are neither (because they are distinguishable from running text anyway). Is this controversial? Septentrionalis 21:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it can be. I just found it should be better defined one way or another, to avoid lame revert wars on this (i.e. if a name is "foreign" and should be italicized or "synonym" and should be bolded). I know this seems silly but that's what the guideline is for. --Lysytalk 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics

message: Isn't it time to make it into a guideline now ? --Lysytalk 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is. Tankred 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to ask the same thing :) I will drop a note at WP:NC for a final round of comments, barring any significant objections (everyone is free to do minor rewording or such they think is needed), this will finally become a 'job well done' :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we tell Village Pump and RfC too? or people will complain they've been blindsided. But I think it's what we actually do, as a guideline ought to be.  Septentrionalis 01:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, the more the merrier :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Guideline ? 

message: Are primarily interested in local usage, for obvious reasons; many of them use München or Venezia, where we do not. This does come up in naming discussions; is a remark on it controversial among us?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) .
:I am afraid you lost me here, could you elaborate?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right; I believe there is even an English guidebook to Munich entitled München. This is not English usage; this is a display of local knowledge. (On similar grounds, I would add a caution about municipal websites; many of them are translated by someone who doesn't know English very well, and most of them are testimony to the official name, not English or local usage.) Septentrionalis 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidebooks and  roadmaps

message: I wonder if the (in)famous Gdansk vote is an exception to that naming convention, or is the convetion compatibile with it? And if not, should we make a note that (presumably) Gdańsk vote (and other such similar rulings if there are any) take precedence over it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting is evil. No amount of voting may overrule policy. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I first encountered the inclusion of the Alternate Names link when editing Pomeranian cities, which usually had only Polish, Pomeranian/Kashubian, and German names. Usually the Pomeranian name would be listed in the intro, with the German one on the other page (possibly out of political concerns). The majority of localities usually only have one or two historically relevant alternate names, so I see little reason to send the reader to a completely separate page only to find out one or two names. My first preference is having alternate/historical names mentioned in the lead, while including the names in a paragraph near the beginning is also acceptable. I think the latter should only be done when the quantity of names makes listing them in the intro unwieldy or if there is sufficient information to fill a paragraph about the etymology. I am opposed to making exceptions for one country and not another. Olessi 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Olessi that the policy should be general enough to be applied on a wide range of cases. A separate short "names" section after a lead would not harm any article, including capitals. And in most cases, there are only 1-2 relevant alternative names that can be put into the lead. Tankred 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptions

message: Regarding the method of mentioning both historical and current names, I like the style that Space Cadet began using a few weeks back. He/she lists the historical name first, followed by the current name in parentheses, all within wikilinks. An example would be Marienburg (Malbork). For instance, "The burgher Johann invited his good buddy Jan, the royal chronicler from Kraków, to share a drink at the tavern of Marienburg (Malbork) in 1312".
Also, I originally touched on this elsewhere, but should the usage of when to use double naming be set in stone? For instance, if the subject of the article is of a language/ethnicity different from the current locality, double naming should be used, but if the subject is of the same language/ethnicity as the location there would be no need to include other names. For example, "In 1567 Kovács went to Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca)", or "In 1835 Schmidt went to Kronstadt (Braşov)" (since the Hungarian and German names have been superceded by the Romanian names), but have "In 1739 Ionescu went to Alba Iulia" (no need to have Gyulafehérvár or Karlsburg since Ionescu was a Romanian). Just adding some food for thought... Olessi 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our current proposal touches upon that issue as well: In cases when a historic name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: historical name (modern name). I basically agree with your thoughts above; do you think they should be reflected in this proposal? If so, in what format?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not so easy in many cases to determine which two names should be used and in what sequence. For example, the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin and so one would expect that the Latin name of a city should be chosen, followed by a modern name in parentheses. But, in fact, many cities in Slovakia used their local names (i.e. the German and less frequently the Slovak and Hungarian ones) also in official documents. In other words, we have usually four historical names used simultaneously in the same period. According to the proposed policy, this case does not allow identification of a widely accepted English historical name, so the modern English name should be used thorough the article (and all four local historical names should be mentioned in the lead or in a separate "names" section just after the lead). I think such a solution is one of the most important advantages of the proposal because it will prevent edit wars (should a name be written as Latin (Modern), German (Modern), Slovak (Modern), Hungarian (Modern)?) and inconsistent apparition of assorted names (Latin/German/Slovak/Hungarian/Modern) in various articles. The context of the sentence, as proposed by Olessi ("Ionescu went to Alba Iulia"), is not always helpful since (1) it is often difficult to classify people born before the 18th century according the modern ethnic categories and (2) it would be messy if there are three different people mentioned in an article as going to three distinct towns though it was just one town having three different names. To sum up, I think the proposal is quite clear and practical in this regard. Tankred 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The only solution not implying any problems whatsoever is to use only current names in an article text and to mention all the variants in the text dealing with the town/object. The reason is,  besides the obvious comfort for the reader, the fact that unless the object has been officially renamed to a totaly different name ( which is a relatively rare case), it is not clear what the correct historical name is (for several reasons). I am saying this as a result of several years of experience both with this wikipedia and with historical toponyms. We have wasted huge amounts of time with quarreling about what "historical" names should be used for Central Europe, although a the simple rule I mention above would solve this once for all (if applied consistently). And as a matter of fact, except for a few well known towns, there are no "correct" English historical toponyms for Europe. Juro 02:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double naming 

message: *At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (toponyms) it is stated that NC(GN) "is a proposal for Eastern and Central Europe only", but this is not mentioned at all in Proposal G. Is the statement at NC(T) outdated, or is NC(GN) only limited to C/E Europe? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) suggests this guideline is Europe-only (but not limited to only Central and Eastern Europe).
*It seems that this proposal is only for localities, as opposed to additionally covering geographic regions or landforms, but this is not specified in the proposal as far as I can tell. I inquire because some landforms like populated mountains might fit these proposed guidelines.
*The proposal says to include relevant foreign-language names in alphabetical order by language, but this could use some further clarification. If the "official" local name differs from a widely accepted English name, I think that should be listed immediately following the bolded title. For instance: "Warsaw (; ; ; )" instead of "Warsaw (; ; ; )".
The following are situations where I can see potential exceptions over naming order being sought and I think they should be cleared up here first.
*Should current local dialects take precedence over historical/foreign names or be alphabetized normally? For instance: "Szczecin (; )" (local Kashubian dialect first) or "Szczecin (; )" (regular alphabetical order).
*If a locality was once part of a different country or has a significant minority, should the name of the former country  or of the minority take precedence over other foreign language names? For instance: "Oradea (; )" (Hungarian minority) or "Oradea (; ) (regular alphabetical order). Alternately, "Trnava (; )" (formerly part of the Kingdom of Hungary) or "Trnava (; )" (regular alphabetical order).
I prefer simple alphabetical order (which would not require a change from the current proposal). This is because there localities have often been part of multiple states- which should take precedence after Vyborg, the Finnish Viipuri or the Swedish Viborg? Similarly for the minority suggestion, demographics can change and we should avoid "favoring" one minority over another (what should follow Chernivtsi, the Russian name or Romanian name?). Olessi 18:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be the glorius solution for the case, Olessi! No need to put a line like this:;  into a separated ==names== section, totally needless and pointless. It is like putting for ex Leonardo da Vinci's professions -was an Italian polymath: architect, anatomist, sculptor, engineer, inventor, mathematician, musician, and painter - into a separated ==(his) professions== section. Pointless and needless, and it will never ever expand. So, by my view: the good is this form: Oradea; ; ). 
*I support the alphabetical order. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 14:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I support both of Olessi's suggestions: the geographic extension of this proposal and the alphabetic order of foreign and historical names, which can prevent edit wars over which name should be listed first. On the other hand, I am not sure if VinceB's understood well the role of the "names" section. In many cases, such a section is unnecessary. But it can make a lead more intelligible in case of five foreign names and it also allows us to discuss etymology. Moreover, I do not think that editors of the articles like London would like to see Londres and Londonium in the lead, though these names are completely relevant. But their inclusion in the names section should be less painful.  Tankred 18:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Should this suggestion to expand the proposal then be mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? Olessi 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: There has been recently a heated dispute between User:PANONIAN and User:VinceB over the inclusion of alternative names in the lead. It became really nasty and the conflict resulted in a departure of a valuable editor. In order to prevent such ridiculous disputes in the future, the guideline should be more explicit in this regard. My idea is to list the cases in which alternative names have to be included in the lead or in a separate "names" section. I think the official local name should be always included in the lead if it differs from the name used in the title (Warsaw, Warszawa). It would be also better to include all alternative names in the lead if there are less than three of them. In case there are three or more alternative names, a separate section placed just after the lead should be created to make the lead more intelligible. If there is a separate section discussing etymology of the name (or alternative names), all alternative names should be put there. What do you think about this? Tankred 19:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think it would be hard to sell the "lead-only" idea to editors of London and other articles about capitals. Anyway, I think a lead should not be flooded by a list of names, but it should be a well-written summary of an article. Look at the leads of all featured articles for instance. I do not think that a special names section placed just after the lead harms an article in any way. If I can use my pet project, Banská Bystrica, a separate section (9 lines in this case) allowed me not only to list all alternative names, but also to discuss them in detail. On the other hand, I completely agree that there is no reason to create such a section if the etymology is not described of if there is just one or two alternative names that can be easily put into the first sentence of the lead. That is why I merely proposed to distinguish between the cases, in which inclusion in the lead is superior to inclusion in the names section and vice-versa. Tankred 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Banská Bystrica; the separate paragraph gives room to discuss meanings and dates (and, where necessary, shifts of location). Is Zvolen meanngful in any of the languages concerned? I'm not sure we need to do anything for Londres; that's one of the advantages of linking to :fr:Londres. Septentrionalis 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tankred's suggestions and rationale. Olessi 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead vs. Names section

message: A few weeks ago  began removing German names of places in Central and Eastern Europe. I suggested the usage of the word "former" as a compromise to prevent the removal of the names; the IP user found this acceptable.
I don't really like using that term, however. Besides being ambiguous, determining if a name is a "former name" or not is controversial and seems like original research to me (when Google is the determinant). Previous arguments over the usage of "former" that I am aware of are at Talk:Piła, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names. What do y'all think? Olessi 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "former" is used in the sense of "Tczew was formerly officially known by the German name Dirschau" (as opposed to implying that "Dirschau" is no longer used in German), then I can understand clarifying that in a Names/Etymology section, although most articles with such sections already seem to discuss the whens and whys of alternate name usage. If no Names section is included in the article, however, simply listing "Tczew (former German: Dirschau)" seems too ambiguous for me. Olessi 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this has the additional problem that, quite often, German sources will still call it Dirschau; what's changed is whether the name is official and what name is used in English. Septentrionalis 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Former" names

message: Elsewhere on this page, another editor wrote an RFC about revising the WP:USPLACE naming guideline. Then another editor noted that these discussions arise at intervals, and proposed a moratorium on further discussion of the topic. Here I'm attempting to combine the two, along with a smattering of WP:CANPLACE.
*The name of the state may be omitted when titling an article about a US city, provided that the city is unquestionably the primary topic for its name and the city proper had a population of at least 100,000 in the 2010 census (if List of United States cities by population is to be trusted, there are 389 cities which would meet this--admittedly arbitrary--population criterion). A redirect from Example City, State to Example City extant as of 1 January 1 2014 shall be sufficient evidence of the primary topic that a move or move request may be assumed to be uncontroversial.
*The name of the state may be omitted when titling an article about a US city, if the city's name is unique. If another topic shares the same name as the US city, but the other topic has no Wikipedia article, the name is unique only if a proper Wikipedia article could not be written about the other topic. Moves done without checking for uniqueness and availability of reliable sources may result in severe trouting!!
*This should go without saying, but if an article is moved from Example City, State to Example City, retaining a redirect from Example City, State (or a disambiguation page, when "Example City, State" needs disambiguouation) is highly encouraged.
*Resolved: unless this goes horribly wrong, let's not make any more substantial changes to USPLACE until some time in the year 2016...that doesn't mean the discussion begins in 2014 or 2015, please. —rybec 01:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Red Slash has proposed that the state could be omitted for any US settlement that is the primary topic for its name. Uniqueness applies to fewer place-names and is easier to determine. It's a criterion in WP:MOSCAN and I haven't noticed problems with that. —rybec 22:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar change was made for Australia a few years ago, with no issues.  But for the US of A?  Oh NO!!!!!!!!  --B2C 03:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  compromise proposal on USPLACE 

message: *Oppose all. Come on! We've already spent two weeks discussing this, and the current tally is 15 to 8 against these ideas. How many more times do we have to say it? This is no compromise, this is just yet another "let's do away with USPLACE" proposal, even before the last one has been closed. As for the "no substantial changes until 2016", we really can't stop people from making proposals. Many of them are made by well meaning people who haven't been privy to the earlier discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: compromise proposal on USPLACE survey

message: , I sought to address Agathoclea's concerns about "a constant flurry of RMs due to disagreement over which small town is the primary" by limiting the articles this could apply to. You write that you oppose because this is not a compromise; please feel free to make an suggestion that does fit your conception of a compromise. —rybec 04:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Red Slash has proposed that the state could be omitted for any US settlement that is the primary topic for its name. Uniqueness applies to fewer place-names and is easier to determine. It's a criterion in WP:MOSCAN and I haven't noticed problems with that. —rybec 22:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar change was made for Australia a few years ago, with no issues.  But for the US of A?  Oh NO!!!!!!!!  --B2C 03:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: compromise proposal on USPLACE threaded discussion