Talk:English exonyms

message: Shall we add a section on Israel? It may get too long, as there are hundreds of English biblical exonyms...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicky Ng (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is already on Wikipedia--search for a list of Biblical placenames...we could then provide it as a link within this article. However, for important localities that are currently inhabited, we might want to add them to this article...--达伟 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Why are places like Arad, Tel Aviv, etc, added? How would one EXPECT to see these placenames transliterated? --Wiking (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel/Holy Land/Palestine

message: Where do we added exonym names? Especially medieval kings have different names in different languages.
For instance Karl=Chales, Knud=Canute, Svend=Sweyn
:Foreign language versions of names are not exonyms as such. Other (language) versions of these names are usually added on the individual pages, e.g. Knut.Travelbird 15:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exonym names

message: Are English names for places in England, Wales and Ireland really exonyms given the fact that the majority population of the three countries speak English as a native language ? Travelbird 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they most definitely are not. The details of where such place names differ can be the subject of separate articles, but they are demonstrably not names that local inhabitants don't use. To suggest otherwise is pure nationalism. Owain (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you quoted from the less than perfect article exonym, "An exonym is a name for a place that is not used within that place by the local inhabitants (neither in the official language of the state nor in local languages)." I'm not sure I'd accept the description of Welsh as a "local language", other than in the purely geographical sense, but this actually backs the case for including these English exonyms for Welsh places: these names are not used by speakers of Welsh, the native language of Wales. Whether you like it or not, they all derive from English corruptions of Welsh names or were invented. Some of the ones included are no longer used officially either, e.g. Cardiganshire, Ca[e]rnarvon, so they are "not used in the official language of the state" and rarely used by monoglot English-speaking Welsh people. Historically they are not native Welsh names; they came from outside and so are "exonyms". "To suggest otherwise is pure nationalism," you say. Well, some would be inclined to see your unconstructive and undiscussed edits here (and elsewhere) as "pure Unionism" (read: "British nationalism"). Enaidmawr (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that this discussion benefits by either side imputing motives to the other.  Moving on... In those areas of Wales where the majority speak Welsh - Ynys Mon, Gwynedd, Ceredigion, Caerfyrddin  - I think there is a case for the English names to be included as exonyms.  That would include places such as Holyhead, Anglesey, Snowdon and perhaps Carmarthen.  Elsewhere I think Owain's point is valid - the majority local language is English, and, although there are different Welsh names, these do not count as exonyms according to the dictionary definition.  In some cases, incidentally, the English names predated the Welsh names - for example Chepstow, Newport, Montgomery.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I do understand the argument made by Ghmyrtle, I am not convinced that it takes proper regard to the way minority languages (and Welsh is one such taken across Wales as a whole) are used, especially in the media. Nor do I believe that making fine distinctions in order to either include or exclude items from a list is necessarily the best solution for Wikipedia. To take an example; the news on S4C will refer to Yr Wyddgrug and not to Mold and almost everyone living in Mold will call it Mold which might seem to make it a Welsh exonym. However, all Welsh speakers throughout Wales would call it Yr Wyddgrug even though the local themselves would not. This would seem to provide a strong justification for classifying it as an English exonym. This same argument would apply to many Welsh places in the South of Wales, along the eastern margins and in southern Pembrokeshire where Welsh is infrequent of absent as a spoken language. To remove these words from the list of English exonyms makes this dichotomy of nomenclature invisible to the interested user of Wikipedia and, if editors are so concerned with the minutiae of the definition that they would wish to exclude words, then I would recommend instead the provision of a sentence of clarification at the start of the Welsh list rather than wholesale exclusion. And as a footnote to the previous comment, it is also worth noting the strong Welsh speaking populations of Anglesey, Carmarthenshire, Conwy, parts of West Swansea, and Powys Velela (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Mold example makes Yr Wyddgrug a Welsh exonym, but that doesn't make Mold an English exonym does it? The list is supposed to be a list of names in the English language that aren't used by locals in the places in question. By that definition, none of the English-language names for places in Wales are exonyms unless 0% of the local population speak English (which occurs nowhere). Owain (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case you had better remove the Indian section as well as English is an official language there and it can not be said of any of the places listed that "0% of the local population speak English". And Mold is clearly an English exonym in Wales, however much you may try to twist the facts. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than continuing to argue over the precise definition of the term, could this dispute be resolved by adding a sentence at the start of the Wales list, along the lines of:NOTE: English is the most frequently spoken language in some of the locations listed below.  ...?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That proposition has my support. Velela (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Perhaps add "in others Welsh is predominant"? Enaidmawr (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Y Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland/Wales/Ireland

message: Ukrainian names, originally spelled the Russian way (e.g. Kharkov, Russian: Харьков) undergo renaming in English (Kharkiv, Ukrainian: Харкiв).  Russian language is very popular in Ukraine but the official language is Ukrainian only (as of today). Please make suggestions whether there is a need for a list of Ukrainian cities renamed following derussification.--Atitarev (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine 

message: Several of the entries under Zhongguo/PRC are not strictly-speaking "English exonyms" so much as they are the Chinese names for the cities (etc) in a pre-pinyin romanization system. Since the romanization system was developed by non-Chinese (as opposed to currently-standard Hanyu Pinyin) I guess in one way they are "exonyms", but if we carry that logic to its extreme, then every name from a country where roman is not the standard script and the most common romanization standard was not developed by people of that country qualifies as an "exonym".
While I am sure the same is true of Iran, India, etc., an example from Japan would be appropriate:
(i)every city in Japan is conventionally referred to in English by a romanized version of their Japanese name;
(ii)the system used was not developed by the Japanese themselves;
(iii)the Japanese already have their own romanization standard;
(iv)the indigenous Japanese spelling is effectively the same as the foreign one for most words;
(v)however, if the same standard that is applied to Japan as to China, numerous place-names used in English to describe Japan would have to be classified as exonyms;
(vi)these include "Fukuoka" (Hukuoka), "Shizuoka" (Sizuoka), "Hiroshima" (Hirosima), "Aichi" (Aiti) and "Fukushima" (Hukusima).
(vii)The list, however, only gives ONE English place-name for Japan as an exonym -- "Japan" itself!
Of course, the above scenario is ridiculous, and the Japanese themselves in fact use both romanization systems in practice. However, it is all irrelevant, since both romanization systems are just ways of representing the native Japanese names in the roman alphabet. The same appears to be true for several items currently included in the list, including "Tientsin" and "Tsingtao". I don't know enough about Chinese romanization systems to be sure how many of them should be removed under my proposal, so I won't implement it myself, but it's something to think about.
elvenscout742 (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the PRC and the ROC both use different romanization systems officially, so that all spellings in Pinyin and Wade-Giles are officially recognized by some Chinese government. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, that's a fair point, however in terms of utility it's still worth noting old romanizations which have "stuck" as if exonyms, the text can be expanded to make the point. This is after all supposed to be a sourced article (hence the more explanatory copy the better) not just "List of...". I might play a bit with the edits you just made, but feel free to play with them again yourself. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I actually didn't notice that this wasn't supposed to be a list, which is why I thought that entries like the Chinese ones I mentioned should be deleted as misleading. Your edits to Korea are good. I also like that you didn't reinstate "Sŏul" as the former "exonym" for "Seoul". As far as I know, that spelling was never widely-used in English, nor was the un-breved spelling "Soul", even before Revised Romanization was developed (although I might be proven wrong). elvenscout742 (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variant romanizations? 

message: where are these?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  colonial Africa 

message: *Brugge/Bruges : Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area). Seems to be a particular urgency to delete this. Can I ask why a  tag was not used instead? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're saying. The current version (with the asterisks) looks fine to me. Oreo Priest talk 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I didn't even see those asterisks. Maybe it is, it's less visible but no information is lost. I'm just making sure than any removals have buy-in of more than 1 editor. If Oreo Priest says its fine then its fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fifth deletion

message: There are places in Canada and the United States that have names in English and various native languages. I have begun a section for the US with "Denali", the native name for Mount McKinley. Please feel free to add more. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native names in Canada and the US 

message: I'd like a discussion on the bracketed explanation of the usage of Calcutta. From my experience Calcutta is still widely used to refer to Kolkata, as most current English-speakers have grown up with the name Calcutta. I propose rendering a variation of 'declining in use' or 'going out of fashion' instead, to reflect the name change being fairly recent in the scheme of things. (Cesdeva (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "traditionally" - that seems to say that it still has currency in a way that "historical/old-fashioned" doesn't. Dohn joe (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that 'traditionally' would be a good alternate choice. I'll change it to that later unless other opinions/suggestions arise(Cesdeva (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you also apply the same term to Bombay, Madras, etc.? Dohn joe (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove the parentheses within the India section to bring it into standardisation with the rest of the article too (Cesdeva (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calcutta, (historical/old-fashioned)? 

message: I'm glad that people are expanding this list, but it's worrying that so many entries are unsourced. Without a source, how can we know that each item is a genuine exonym rather than just a name? bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you see as the difference? Dohn joe (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: The list contains the phrase "now historically" 36 times. What is this supposed to mean? On the face of it, it is a contradiction in terms. Does it mean that the name was once common but is now historical? But everything historical was once common; that's the definition of history! Whatever it means, it should be re-phrased to make the meaning clear.  Scolaire (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose its slightly unusual, my take is that it means the name is now only used in a historical context and has fallen out of common usage. 'Historically' would perhaps fit better. Ultimately it is a means of separating those English exonyms that were once prevalent and now aren't. (Cesdeva (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

text: (ec):The correct form of the word is actually "historical". Grammar really does matter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is what it means, then it should be replaced with "used only in a historical context". What bothers me is that you say it is "your take" on it. Does that mean that people have been adding the phrase over the years with only a vague idea of what it means?  Scolaire (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's possible, but let's battle the Ambiguity Illuminati another day. Dealing with the present, I do however believe that more clarity, standardisation and efficiency can be found; maybe coloured Asterisks  can be used with a note saying "used only in a historical context" at the top of each section? The same could be done for other additional notes, using the remaining colours    . (Cesdeva (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, no. Let's get rid of the meaningless phrase now, and we can talk about coloured asterisks at our leisure.  Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that Now historically is not clear enough. I'm just trying to avoid annotation clutter. So do you not want an annotation regarding the historicity or do you want a clearer phrase instead?  (Cesdeva (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already done the substitution. You can go ahead with your proposal for clutter reduction now.  Scolaire (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Marseilles is another one. These are all 21st-century books that use it (Okay, some of them are reprints of 18th-century books, but still).  Scolaire (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with exonyms like these is that, it is difficult to distinguish between ignorance and authority. E.g. most English speakers know we call München Munich because the city is so well known, but not many people have heard of Braunschweig and even fewer know that its English name is Brunswick. And when ignorance becomes widespread, it tends to trump knowledge, at least on Wikipedia! Partly because WP:COMMONNAME tends to be seen as the overriding principle (even though the policy indicates that there are other factors). --Bermicourt (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. Do you have a proposal on how to distinguish between exonyms that are truly historical and those that are perhaps used less often nowadays but were traditionally used? Dohn joe (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now historically 

message: Right so i'm proposing that methods be discussed regarding the tidying up of annotations on the list. The list is becoming rather cluttered with annotations and i feel a method should be employed to make it more organised. My proposal involves a coloured asterisk system, as shown below: (Cesdeva (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good idea. It violates WP:COLOR - readers with impaired vision will not be able to understand it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

text: An already existing problem is that asterisks are used in various places with different meanings. The same symbol may not be used to indicate different information within a page. Any given symbol may only have one meaning in an article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clutter reduction 

message: Should Zara (for Zadar) and Ragusa (for Dubrovnik) be included? Both of these names show up in historical contexts don't they?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.19 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Noyster  (talk),  10:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian Cities 

message: This is incorrectly described both here and in the main article as the former, old-fashioned name of Vlissingen, but 'Netherlands' should of course be deleted. It's presumably only there because the main article is headed 'Flushing, Netherlands' to disambiguate it from other Flushings, particularly the one in New York. The former name is 'Flushing', full stop. But there's an unresolved debate on the 'Flushing, Netherlands' talk page about whether the whole article should be renamed, since most English-speakers nowadays know the place as Vlissingen and are unlikely to look it up under 'Flushing', or even see any connection between the two names. I see that one or two diehards on that talk page are trying to insist that 'this is the English Wikipedia, so we should stick to the proper English names'. They then make an irrelevant comparison to 'Munich' versus 'München' - but 'Munich' is still the only current English name, whereas 'Flushing' simply no longer is.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Flushing, Netherlands' 

message: Wouldn't the town of Oświęcim now be referred to in English (and perhaps even in German) using its Polish endonym (perhaps minus diacritics) because its German exonym Auschwitz (even if normal English usage pre-WWII) is now associated so completely with the Nazi concentration camp?
And were other German exonyms (such as Posen for Poznań or Bromberg for Bydgoszcz) commonly used before the war, but fell into disuse afterwards? --GCarty (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of German exonyms for Poland settlements 

message: Is this a typo? Should the exonym be "Ivory Coast"? Jnicho02 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly Cape Verde and East Timor.  The table is finding the country names automatically from the flags, and somebody had deliberately removed the English exonyms so the links were not to the coutries' titles 20:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Côte d'Ivoire?