Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/July

Move request for Meran

There is a request that Meran be moved to Merano, at Talk:Meran#Requested move to Merano (5 July 2009) Ian Spackman (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Making a request for a move the same day as the decision has been taken is not the way to handle the debate, especially not as the move was preceeded by a long and extensive discussion.JdeJ (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no actual consensus at that discussion. It is more collegial to request reconsideration than going to dispute resolution, but either will work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_15#Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_15#Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice - the historic template is up for deletion... probably a good thing, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The six tests

As I recall, these are in a fairly random order; indeed, the last two or three evolved in the course of discussion. I have met a conversation which suggests it may be useful to say so; but if someone remembers it differently, feel free to revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Search engine issues

May I suggest adding the following to the above section:

• Multiple copies of same article:
  • There are many web sites which simply 'hoover' information from other sources. This can result in, say, 50 out of 100 search engine hits being copies of the same original source article, which distorts the statistics heavily.

• Doubtful credibility of sources:
  • Especially in specialist subject areas, there may be widespread ignorance and misuse of correct names as used by authoritative sources such as experts in the field. Common usage is not necessarily correct usage. Whilst not an issue restricted to the Internet, it is a particular risk when using a search engine.

• Tendency of native speakers to use their own names:
  • There is sometimes a tendency for native speakers, even those with a good command of English, to leave names in their own language. Often this is entirely appropriate. But sometimes, it is simply confusing. E.g. A native German speaker may use Rheintal when describing the Rhine Valley and Theodor-Heuss-Brücke for Theodor Heuss Bridge. If the subject is uncommon, there may be a preponderance of hits on such sites which gives a false impression of correct English usage.

Bermicourt (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A sufficiently wide-spread ignorance is English; see mob. But the other two points are well-taken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Added something on (1) and (3). The example used is Fritz Stern, My Five Germanys (note spelling; I think a native speaker would have found Germanies). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruds

There may be a problem with Iranian geographic names, and we don't have a "Country-specific guidance" for Iran. Recently, and in the past, some editors have changed entries like Sefid River to Sefid-Rud, Zayandeh River to Zāyandé-Rūd, and Zarrineh River to Zarriné-Rūd. What kind of additional guidance can you suggest? --Bejnar (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Talk:Sefid-Rud and Talk:Zāyandé-Rūd about this issue. Alefbe (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk page discussions are correct. This is really no different to Afon Cefni in Wales where, in contemporary English texts, the Welsh version of the name is used rather than translating it to "River Cefni". Skinsmoke (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That depends on what English prose texts generally do. Atlases, which have been known to refer to the Seine as a fleuve, instead of a river, are poor witnesses in this respect; the BGN, as often, is not addressing our question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read Talk:Sefid-Rūd, you see that Sefid-Rud and Sefidrud are the two most common variations of its name in English texts, and Sefid River is not common at all. The notion of English name (in Wikipedia) should be about the usage in English texts, not whether the parts of a word have English origin or not. Alefbe (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your assertions; I see no evidence. However, the principle is correct; as WP:UE says, Often [the most common name in English] will be the local version, as with Madrid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some writers of course will always use the local name, regardless of the existence of an English form, some through ignorance, and others out of an appreciation of the local language. We do need to avoid things like Rio Grande River. --Bejnar (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Names that are more common in English texts (English books and English academic papers) are "English Names" (in the Wikipedian sense) and should take precedence. You may think the authors of those texts are not knowledgeable enough and you know better that them, but Wikipedia is not the right place for you to teach them or to purify English language. Alefbe (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: In the example that you mentioned, the common name of the river is indeed Rio Grande and it's quite similar to the case of Sefid-Rud (moving Sefid-Rud to Sefid River, which you prefer, is quite like moving Rio Grande to "Grande River"). Alefbe (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Or Colorado River, Red River of the North, Red River of the South. Just because something is a hybrid doesn't mean it isn't English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)