Talk:Porsanger

Move

I have moved the article back to it's original name, instead of the official name, as per the Wikipedia official policy on naming conventions. The move to the official name was not discussed here first (and not a single redirect fixed), but I will explain why I believe this article should have this name, and not the official name:

• WP:NAME states that an article should have the name that is most common in use
  • The municipality is in Norway, and most of its residents speak Norwegian as their first language, therefore Porsanger is obviously the most common name in everyday use
  • As a former resident of the municipality, I have not once heard anyone call it Porsanger Porsangu Porsanki
  • Even in official signage it is not called Porsanger Porsangu Porsanki, but Porsanger kommune, Porsangu gielda and so forth, usually with emphasis on Porsanger kommune
• The Norwegian, Sami, and Finnish language wikis have their articles named no:Porsanger, se:Porsangu and fi:Porsanki respectively
• Similar examples of this are en:Helsinki/fi:Helsinki/sv:Helsingfors and en:Cardiff/cy:Caerdydd
• Even when there is no language issue, policy is to stick to what is commonly used, as with for instance Ford (Ford Motor Company)

- BsL 03:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with BsL. I would also like to point out the same thing has happened to other articles for kommunes in Northern Norway, (e.g. Kautokeino). I suggest they should all be moved back to their original names. It's of course entirely appropriate to point out when a kommune is bi- or tri-lingual, but changing the article title is not the right way of doing it.--Barend 11:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to move Kautokeino, Karasjok, Tana, Nesseby and Kåfjord as well, but they'll have to be discussed first, to determine which name is used most commonly. Some of them have predominantly Sami populations. - BsL 23:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The name of the municipality is Porsanger Porsángu Porsanki. This is the name you will find in phone books, official documents etc. I don't see any harm having the article under the current name, and both Guovdageaidnu and Kautokeino as redirects. My experience from other indigenous/minority people articles is that having a very strict naming policy that insist that the majority/colonial name should be used, only generates endless discussions about which name should be used (eg Talk:Inuit). Such discussions are a waste of everybody’s time, and more importantly many of the people in question are offended and do not want to contribute to the article. So for such articles, I think the content of an article is more important than its name.Labongo 08:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that SSB uses Porsanger Porsángu Porsanki Municipality http://www.ssb.no/english/municipalities/2020. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Labongo (talk • contribs) 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The Caplex encyclopedia also uses all three names: http://www.caplex.no/Web/ArticleView.aspx?id=9328093 Labongo 11:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

About the naming policy. WP:NAME states that an article should have the name that is most common in use. But, my understanding is that this is for articles in general. For articles about muncipalities, we should use WP:NAME#City_names, which links to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names). Then under Norway we find that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Norway#Naming should be used. This guideline states that: "For administrative units and geographical entities, the official Norwegian name [1] is used for the article...".Labongo 09:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about the naming convention in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway#Municipality_naming_convention. Labongo 09:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there were no "endless" discussions regarding any of these articles, until you moved them without discussion. Further, I am not at all disputing the official names, I am merely saying that articles belong under the name they are commonly known under, not what is formally correct (again, I refer you to Helsinki, Cardiff, Ford, UEFA and so on.) That is also the general gist of the naming conventions. The Norway-guideline states what it does to deal with a different problem. For that matter, have a look at Norway, which is named just that, not either of Kingdom of Norway, Kongeriket Norge or Kongeriket Noreg. I do not agree with you, but I'll consider the outcome of the discussion over at WikiProject Norway to carry authority. - BsL 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Porsanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040614073527/http://eklima.met.no/ to http://eklima.met.no/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)