Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/April

Proposed wording

The above section is getting unwieldy, so how about people post their proposed wording changes below? Novickas (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on it, I should post something up later today.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, let's hold off on making any actual changes to the guideline itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't think this is an issue for this page. It's meant to deal with how we name articles; it might mention in passing how we treat alternative names that don't get selected as the article title, but if that's going to become a controversial issue in itself, then it ought to be addressed principally in the guidelines that tell us how to structure the lead of an article. --Kotniski (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, that it's a lead vs. main body issue to some extent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Its also not just how articles are named as there are sections that dealwith the lead and other content as well, so this guideline does double duty.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. Combined with the fact that the bits about the lead and other content are duplicated (and partially contradicted) in other guidelines. If we really want this page to be about our treatment of geographic names generally, we should rename it ("Naming conventions" in Wikipedia parlance refers to titles of articles), and ensure that other guidelines don't effectively deal with the same issue in a different way.--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What other guidelines cover geographic names in articles? I couldn't find any and it could be helpful to look at those guidelines.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the Alternative names-section in the MoS guideline on leads kinda about this too? It looks to me like proposals made here would be more appropriate to handle over there.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the most important thing is consistency - consistency in application but also consistency across various guidelines. It's the fact that potentially guidelines/policies contradict themselves, even partially, that drives these edit wars and causes confusion. Since the discussion started on this page, I say let's just work it out here first and then take it over to the other places. But part of the purpose of doing it here is to reconcile what it says here to what it says elsewhere. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, consistency is very important, not only in articles but among guidelines. These guidelines get written, usually independent of one another and that can get tricky when they seem to disagree. And no guideline is set in stone, and they can all be updated and changed in order to come up with the best possible solution to whatever problems comes up now and in the future. If it is clear that we have two competing guidelines then we should come up with a solution that brings the two into sync. But first, does WP:LEAD conflict with this guideline? I'm not seeing how it does, but perhaps I'm missing something.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think that there's no contradiction with WP:LEAD, however that claim has been made. Probably what is needed is to make the guideline clearer and more precise in order to avoid confusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, proposed wording coming soon, I promise. My Wikipedia time has been derailed by the AE nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

N's proposal

There are three points at which this guideline's treatment of alternate names diverges from WP:LEAD. There are two extra clauses about when to include them at this page: if used by 10% of EN sources or by a group of people that used to inhabit this place. One sentence present in LEAD and not here is that alt name usage in first sentence is not mandatory and should reflect consensus.

I propose that the first additional clause (alt names used in 10% of EN sources) be changed to 'used in reliable EN sources'; the second (used by a group of people that used to inhabit this place) removed; and the third (not mandatory and should reflect consensus) added. These changes would in my view create more consistency among the guidelines and work to reduce edit warring.

• The 10% clause lends itself to unproductive argumentation about Google hits. How about getting rid of that and replacing it with 'used in reliable English-language sources.'

• The inhabitants clause likewise lends itself to exhausting disputes and edit-warring (what editors above have called scent-marking). 'Used to live here' - when? Now doesn't count? How many? I would say it's widely ignored. Certainly at all major city articles.

• The addition of LEAD's 'The following are examples of names that may be included parenthetically, but this is not mandatory, and inclusion should reflect consensus.' [1] - just general Wikipedia policy, encouraging discussion and consensus. Often leads to more sourcing too. Novickas (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am finding your comments very difficult to read, in part because of the telegraphic style. If patriotic editors don't war about the alternative names, they'll war about the article's title. Although I should remember Wrocław and Olsztyn what comes to mind first is Breslau and Allenstein. I think that there is some good thought behind the "former inhabitant" clause. Its too bad that we don't have a good Hittite gazetteer. --Bejnar (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am all in favour of using reliable, recognized English-language sources rather than percentages of Google hits. But we must be careful. I do have a problem with the recent Encyclopedia Britannica naming decisions that seem to accept the dictum that the official governmental name is the name, despite English usage. And I certainly would not go with local pronounciation as a guide, which would result in Nawlyns rather than New Orleans, or Loval instead of Louisville. --Bejnar (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title wars will go on forever - my focus is on this guideline's mention of including alternate names in the lead, particularly in the first sentence, since its interpretation has led to a recent Arbitration Enforcement entry. [2]. Novickas (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the guideline already say that historical names can already be mentioned in the lead? I don't see what this discussion is about and who is on what side of what argument.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the guideline allows movement of the historical names from the lead to a dedicated section, and then prevents their return. Which I think is contrary to LEAD which states that the lead should summarize the key points of the article (And sometimes, former/alt names are quite important to the article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But the content section already says: The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. That seems to mesh with other guidelines and should, unless I am mistaken, satisfy WP:LEAD.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

10% clause is easily verifiable. Replace it with "reliable sources", and we will have revert wars as editors argue what is a reliable source. For example, Britannica is often inconsistent...

The former inhabitants clause is not perfect, and nicely illustrates what will happen if the 10% is replaced with a similarly unclear wording. It is also likely unnecessary, as the 10% clause should mostly cover it. Still, it tries to solve the situation of what to do when we have no English sources discussing the location. Perhaps the former inhabitants wording could be changed to consensus on historical or cultural significance or such. This would need more thought.

Consensus is good, but what to do when you have some nationalistic minded editors POV-pushing on an article that is of interest to very few? How do you reach a consensus with "true believers" - editors for whom there is no compromise, only "my way or the highway"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, here are the relevant sections from this page and from WP:LEAD.

From this guideline:

Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article ... If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. It will serve neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). Local official names are often listed first, out of alphabetical order.

From WP:LEAD

When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historical contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability.

and

Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

Like Jojhutton, I don't see a contradiction here either. The key point of dispute seems to be in the sentence If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. and the second section - i.e. whether we should have names in the lead or in a separate section, or both. What I would like to see is clarification on when either approach is desirable. My sense is basically that for very short articles its fine to have the alternative name in the lead. For longer articles once a "Name" section is created it should all go in there. However, let me emphasize again that this needs to be applied consistently - so no "Wilno" in Vilnius, since it already has a names section and no "Breslau" in Wroclaw for the exact same reason (although truth be told, the lead of Vilnius is spectacularly UNcluttered).

Alternatively we can allow significant alternative names both in the lede and in a names section. But this means "Wilno" in Vilnius etc. Again, key is consistency.

It appears to me that this is the axis along which editors split.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We could end up with an overdose of consistency here. Different cases need different treatments - there's no one right or wrong way. Some "alternative" names, like Danzig, clearly belong in the lead whatever we do; whereas in other cases a complete list of relevant alternative names begins to look like clutter (and then there are internationally known places like London and New York where a complete list of everything they're called in any language would probably be regarded as clutter even in the Names section).--Kotniski (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why we need to include a key sentence from LEAD: The following are examples of [alternate] names that may be included parenthetically, but this is not mandatory, and inclusion should reflect consensus. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision-making, no matter how difficult it may be. It was reached at Gdansk/Danzig and at Skopje. Novickas (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can see where this is leading - based on this wording, it will be argued that a name can only be included if there is consensus to include it (but not the reverse), hence the POV warriors will simply decline to accept the inclusion of a name, presenting the usual political rather than valid encyclopedic arguments, and then argue that the very fact of their opposition means that the name can't be included.--Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way - just to emphasize, tho, this only refers to parenthetical mentions in the first sentence; nothing to prevent mention in running text. For instance, at the problematic Bernardine Cemetery article, mentioned at AE, its Polish name could be added thusly: 'conservation work on the cemetery (known in Polish as x)...' I don't think that would cause an edit war.

The alternative to leaving out the consensus clause here, tho, is to put 'this does not apply to geographic names' in LEAD. Novickas (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the solutions are either to give the POV-pushers an easy way to win, or give them the win right here, right now, on a silver platter :( I don't see why we cannot have, in article on Suwałki, both the name section and the Lithuanian Suvalkija right after the main name. Would you really prefer the Lithuanian name to be hidden deeper in the text? Personally, I find it useful, that town has much shared history, and the Lithuanian name is used by some English sources. I will also note that the note section has not been created there yet, because nobody was really edit warring about the name in the lead... Do you really think that the article should eventually have a dedicated name section and no other names in the lead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Danzig belongs to lead of Gdansk. But why does Wilno not belong after Vilnius? I also think we need to discuss how does the Danzig vote interact with current and proposed NCGN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong - Piotr and Kotniski say that consensus should not be a requirement for first-sentence-parenthetical inclusion of alt geo names, and that LEAD should therefore be altered to either eliminate the consensus clause or contain an exception for geo names? Novickas (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to lose the consensus clause altogether - anything in guidelines that implies that lack of consensus should be interpreted as giving a particular result is going to be the subject of system gaming. There's an overall understanding that guidelines can be overruled - in any direction - if consensus is that they give an unsatisfactory answer in a given situation - we don't need to spell that out for one particular point.--Kotniski (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean, take the consensus clause out of LEAD? Please post an update here if that changes. Novickas (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a notification of this discussion at WP:LEAD [3] since we might want to alter both pieces of text to make them in compliance with each other. I also think that in this particular case, this "consensus clause" is really nothing but an escape hatch allowing determined POVed users to hold articles hostage through filibusters (in fact the WP:CONSENSUS states: The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run.). The naming guideline here represents Wikipedia-wide consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What we want and what we don't want (alternative names)

It seems this Eastern European naming conflict is the only thing that will pull me back into editing anymore. Looking back through my contributions, I was involved in a discussion with some of you that seemed close to a resolution until the EEML thing broke out. My opinions haven't changed a lot. Here's how I look at it:

We want:

• Alternative names to be useful and accessible to English speakers who may be using outdated information or information from an ethnic-minority community.
• A lead that is relatively free of clutter.
• An encyclopedia that neither whitewashes history nor gives undue weight in the lead to empires and formerly hegemonic cultures.
• A systematic, consistent way of including alternative names.

We don't want:

• Alternative names being used to promote irredentism ("nationalist scent-marking" is a great description), or to somehow even things up (Country A's names are all over my articles, so therefore I need to put my names all over Country C).
• Endless argument over which names should and shouldn't be included. Is the Polish language's legacy in Lithuania more important than that of Yiddish, Russian, German, etc.? Maybe. Maybe not. Is the inside of the parentheses at the start of the lead the best place to sort it out? No.

To me, Novickas' proposal gets all of these things done. I see the purpose of alternative names in the lead being a way for English speakers to know right away if they're on the correct article. There is no need to prioritize (10% rule) names in the parentheses. If it's worth arguing what name should go first, it's worth having a name section to sort it out in detail. Where do I vote? Leo1410 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

Below I make two proposals to alter the text concerning alternative names. The current wording is also an option - though in that case I think it is important to streamline its application across articles.

Please feel free to modify the wording and the table, or add additional proposals.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for alternative names

Proposal	Wording	Comments	Implications	Other comments
Current	The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses ... Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".	The main confusion and source of contention concerns the word "Alternatively" in the second paragraph. However the word "Alternatively" does imply an either/or situation.	Since the proposal says "Alternatively" this means that an article SHOULD NOT have BOTH an alternative name in the lede and a dedicated Names/Etymology section. The exception is for "local official names". Hence Vilnius does not need "Vilna" or "Wilno" in the lede since it has a name section. Same is true for Wroclaw and similar. On the other hand, small articles without a name section can retain the alternative names in the lede. Furthermore places where there are multiple alternative names should go with the name section, as is currently usually done. Places where there is only one alternative name should keep the alt name in the lede.
1	The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses ... Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. If a separate "Names" or "Etymology" section is created in the article and the alternative names are included there, whether or not to also include the alternative names in the first sentence of the lede should be decided through consensus on the article's talk page. Note however that such a section may be inappropriate for short articles and stubs. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".	Keeping it short, but this is basically the "let's have a Names" section version of the proposal in that it puts the burden of inclusion in the lede itself on obtaining consensus on article talk. By default, short articles will generally not have a Names section and will get the alt names in the lede.	For short articles this is essentially the same as before. For long articles that already have a Names section the inclusion of the alt name in the lede is subject to article-by-article consensus. So for example Trakai is fine as it is. Koszalin is fine as it is, until and if someone creates a name section at which point consensus on talk page will be needed to keep (German: Köslin and Latin: Cussalin) in the lede. (Kashubian: Kòszalëno) is the "local official name" exception so it stays in the lede regardless.
2	The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses ... Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. If a dedicated "Names" or "Etymology" section exists within the article, alternative names can still be included in the lede provided the criteria mentioned above are met. Removal of alternative names from the lede would then require obtaining consensus on the article's talk page first. Alocal official name different from a widely accepted English name should always be retained in the lead.	This is the mirror image of 1. Here the removal of the alt name would require consensus so the burden is flipped.	In this case, if "Wilno" or "Vilna" are included in the lede of Vilnius, the removal of these would require consensus on talk. Likewise, the removal of "Danzig" from Gdansk or "Kolberg" from Kolobrzeg would require consensus on talk.
3

• In the present text and in all of these proposals, I don't like the attempt to precisely define "relevant names", particularly using the 10% rule (which I don't think is normally adhered to in actual practice, particularly since with many of the smaller places there is little by way of English-language sources at all). Names can be relevant for a number of reasons, either historical or contemporary. And some names are so especially relevant that they belong in the lead not just because that's a convenient default place to put them, but because they are essential facts about the article topic (I mean, they ought to stay in the lead even if they are also discussed in a separate Names section - in contrast to other less super-relevant names, which need to be findable, but don't have to be given explicitly in the lead if we've got a better place for them). --Kotniski (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the first point, I think it's good to have a benchmark even if it isn't always observed. For smaller places I think they would be covered under the "is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" - which is why I kept that part throughout.

With respect to the second point - "some names are so especially relevant that they belong in the lead not just because that's a convenient default place to put them, but because they are essential facts about the article topic" - I think that's where consensus comes in. If these names are indeed so relevant that they belong in the lead then that should be decided on the article's talk itself. Certainly I think this will apply to some places, like "Danzig" in "Gdansk" but it will not apply to other places.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, but as I said before, I'd still be wary of wording the guideline in any way that implied that one or other side gets its way by default in case of lack of consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the difference between Prop 2 and Prop 3 - where does the burden of obtaining consensus lie. I don't think this is an avoidable question. Otherwise people who remove names will say "you need consensus to add" and people who add names will say "you need consensus to remove" and edit wars will ensue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The present burden lies on those who would change (in either direction); I see no reason to shift this. My wording is therefore: Parenthetical mention of alternate names is not mandatory; consensus should determine whether or not to include a name. If people want to add a note on possible Names sections at this point, that's fine too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty idiosyncratic reading of the current wording - obviously the way it is written now is causing much confusion. Also "burden lies on those who would change (in either direction)" directly contradicts "consensus should determine whether or not to include a name". Having the burden of consensus on those wishing to change things is problematic for several reasons. First, it arbitrarily privileges the status quo, and there's no logical reason for that. Second, it results in a lot of inconsistency both within and across articles. Third, it allows a dedicated agenda driven editor or two to hold an article hostage against reasonable changes. Fourth, what if somebody "sneaks in" a name (or sneaks a removal) - at what point does that turn into the status quo? Three days? Two weeks? A month? A year? The lack of clear dividing line is again arbitrary. The guideline needs to be clear (which it isn't), ensure consistency (which it doesn't) and avoid arbitrariness, or otherwise it's very likely that all these edits wars will persist into the foreseeable future.

Also, I think it would be better if folks held off from actually changing the text of the guideline until we hammer it out on talk first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am coming to this discussion late and have probably missed some points in my skimming of the above discussions, but....

I agree that including alternate names somewhere is useful and encyclopedic, including not just names commonly and currently used in English. For example, it took me some effort to determine that a 19th-century (English) book's reference to "Kara-dagh" referred in that context to Skopska Crna Gora -- I added this information both to the article and to the dab page Kara Dag. And I used to be a strong advocate of including all historical names for places in Greece and Turkey (both the Greek names for places now in Turkey and the Turkish/Ottoman names for places now in Greece). However, I agree that the parenthetical additions have become a place for competing nationalist claims, and often become unwieldy, including the names in 3-4 languages, their transliteration, their pronunciation, their gloss, and their etymology (theoretically, we might have Montenegro (/monte'negro/ < Italian (Venetian) 'black mountain'; Serbian Срна Гора /'trna 'gora/ 'black mountain'; Albanian Mali i Zi /malii'zi/ 'black mountain'; Greek Μαυροβούνι /mavro'vuni/ 'black mountain'; Ragusan Dalmatian Munte Negru 'black mountain' (OK, I admit I made that one up)).

I'm not sure how best to handle all this. The criterion "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" seems to be particularly open to over-inclusion of names that were never commonly used in English, so I would suggest removing it. I would also want to apply rather strictly the principle that only names that might be encountered in English should appear in the lead -- though other names should be covered in a "Name and etymology" section. --Macrakis (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. Will striking "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" lead to an argument over every harbour in Ionia and every Silesian hamlet whether we can now change the article to take the Greek and German names out (although both are quite frequently found in English). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think it is important to think through the implications of any proposed wordings. Also, is over-inclusion worse than under-inclusion? I think that if it's done in a Names section then the answer is no, but if done in the lede than possibly yes. One implication of removing "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" from the guideline though would be for example, going through and undoing all of Herkus' edits [4] (all the ones with edit summary of 'lang-de') since all those edits are based on the fact that at one point these small villages (in some cases as small as 17 people) were German, but it's not like there's gonna be English sources for these places of 17, 200 or even 300 people for the most part. Unless we have different rules for short articles - which is why specifically addressed this in my proposals above. Also, what constitutes "English usage"? If I can find 1 (one, uno, jeden) source in English which uses a particular term is that enough?Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Asia Minor, the Balkans, and the Caucasus are good test cases. Many places have or have had many groups of people speaking many languages over the millennia, so a place in what is now Greek Thrace may have had inhabitants who used a classical Greek name, a Byzantine Greek name, a modern Greek name, a Bulgarian name, a Serbian name, an Ottoman Turkish name, a modern Turkish name, and maybe an Armenian, a Ladino, a Bulgar (Turkic), an Aromanian, and a Roma name. Are those worth mentioning somewhere in the article? Perhaps. Do they belong in the lead? Surely not.

Even including only the names found in English-language sources can give us too many names and spelling variants for a lead. In English-language sources, you find Constantinople, Constantinopolis, Constantinoupolis, Konstantinopolis, Konstantinoupolis, Istanbul, Stambul, Stamboul, Byzantium, and Byzantion. The lead is not the place for an exhaustive list of English-language names. --Macrakis (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it basically sounds like what you're talking about is addressed by Proposal 1. In that case, there'd be a "Names" section which would have all those many names; classical Greek name, a Byzantine Greek name, a modern Greek name, a Bulgarian name, a Serbian name, an Ottoman Turkish name, a modern Turkish name, and maybe an Armenian, a Ladino, a Bulgar (Turkic), an Aromanian, and a Roma name. Then if one of these is especially important, consensus can be established on talk to also include it in the lede. But you'd have to have consensus for each name individually to do that which will most likely keep it short. Under Proposal 2, you'd have to have consensus to remove any of the names from the lede once someone put them in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I think that Constantinople/Istanbul/Byzantium TRULY IS a special case (unlike Gdansk/Danzig which is "special" only because people used to edit war over it so much way back in Wikipedia's past). But it doesn't make sense to write policy based on special cases. You do it the other way around - write it for typical cases, THEN note the exceptions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is my suspicion that, for most editors, all the examples being discussed are "special cases". For many articles something much simpler would work e.g. "The title can be followed in the first line by a short list of alternative names in parentheses including relevant foreign language names used by at least 10% of the population who do, or who used to, inhabit this geographical place within the past x years. All other alternative names should be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; this should be done if there are more than three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Exceptions to this are explained at [link] (or below)." Ben MacDui 14:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Current population does not work for place names. For example, there are no Germans in Kuldīga, Latvia, yet it should include its historical German name (Goldingen) in the lead. Vilnius should include Vilna. (If you compare Vilnius, Vilna, and Wilno with Google's ngram viewer, "Vilna" is the only term that even registers.) Gdansk should include Danzig. This is common sense. Quite frankly, whether we make rules or simplify rules, the proverbial exception will always prove the rule. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that Kuldiga and Gdansk have Goldingen and Danzig in the lede but "Vilna" and "Wilno" has been kept out Vilnius. I like Ben MacDui's suggestion to keep it simple and his phrasing but, again, let's be clear about implications. That kind of phrasing pretty much corresponds to Proposal 2, though in the above I tried to be more explicit about the process and where the burden of consensus lies. BTW, Google's ngram is still really clunky, particularly with non-English books.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just recently put in Goldingen, so I can't vouch that it will stay there. As for Vilnius (Approved), Vilna (Variant), Vilnia (Variant), Vil’no (Variant), Vil’nyus (Variant), Wilna (Variant), Wilno (Variant), certainly I myself have read plenty of English language sources utilizing Vilna prior to the 20th century. As an English language encyclopedia, the guiding principle should be historical names as used in English. Esthonia for Estonia, Roumania for Romania, et al. WP is a resource, we're writing it for other English speakers. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Re parenthetical alt names - conflicts with WP:LEAD

VM has twice removed the statement "Parenthetical mention of alternate names is not mandatory; consensus should determine whether or not to include a name". I just now restored it. It is in conflict with the corresponding statement in LEAD. As things stand, an editor could add one citing this guideline, another could remove it citing LEAD. Not good. If something emerges here to the effect that for places, it is mandatory, and does not require consensus, then put that in LEAD. Novickas (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually several editors (for example Jojhutton) have expressed the opinion that there is no conflict with WP:LEAD. The reason I removed the addition is because it was being in midst of discussion, before any kind of consensus was reached on whether it was appropriate or not. You know, it's not very nice when one person is trying to talk things out and reach and agreement first, while another person just jumps in and makes changes as they see fit, without paying attention to the on going discussion. It smacks of a "my way or the highway" kind of attitude and is not conducive to reaching an agreement. How about removing the extra text until we agree if it does indeed belong in there?

Either or I expect you go to the articles on Wroclaw, Kolobrzeg, Torun etc. and remove the German parenthetical names, since they're not mandatory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) about it. Novickas (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that there was and still is no conflict with WP:LEAD, as it is written with or without the recent additions. I saw the sentence that was added this morning and thought is was a bit of overkill, since it was already implied, by the words "can be..." in the first sentence.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@Novickas, perhaps we can continue the conversation below. Your addition is, from a practical standpoint, completely unworkable as it is an invitation to conflict while not addressing at any level the underlying considerations in a manner which could be formulated as guidelines. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Note

I just want to note that this addition to the guideline [5] does not have consensus for inclusion. In fact it appears to be a "jump the gun" type of edit which seeks to change the existing status quo in order the prejudice and influence the ongoing discussion on naming above. Wikipedia does not work through fait accompli but rather through collaborative discussion and consensus building. I would appreciate it if the editor concerned self reverted here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated (diff cited), Novickas' wording has the practical result of not adding any parenthetical names whatsoever without a consensus. Between requiring a consensus and inevitable arguing what a consensus is when all are not in agreement in order to add any parenthetical name, this is simply not workable. What this addresses without stating explicitly are cases where one would omit parenthetical names otherwise expected to be included according to historical use or population, that is, how and where do cultural and historical sensitivity come into the consideration of parenthetical names? For example, the Rīga article does not contain the Russian transliteration (Рига) for two reasons,

• first being that the German hegemony which lasted from 1200 to 1900 trumps historical significance for alternate names in Swedish or Russian, e.g., Libau for Liepāja, home of the Russian Navy, not the Balticized/Slavicized Либава (Lībava);
• second, the consequences of the Soviet legacy, Russian being the language (and predominant nationality) of the invader.

Unfortunately, rarely is it that one can dispassionately discuss such matters. If someone tells me my reasoning as stated here is full of crap, Latvia was a subject of the Russian Empire for well over two centuries and plenty of Russian-speakers live in Latvia today, I must include Russian variants for all Latvian place names, well then, things might get a bit ugly. The point being, I might agree with statement that parenthetical names which might be considered "mandatory" according to other gudielines are not; however, stated that way and left to consensus is an open invitation for conflict.

My offer to assist in naming disputes stands as I have particular sympathy to both the Polish and Lithuanian positions—as well as Jewish/Yiddish, after all, "Litvak" is specifically a Lithuanian Jew—which often come into conflict. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think your offer of assistance is welcome, though part of the point here is that naming policy should be applied consistently. So it's not just Polish and Baltic issues which are at play but also German, Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Russian. Honestly, I'm sure that where someone to raise the issue Toruń there'd be NO consensus for inclusion. But the implication of the wording being added by Novickas is precisely that the German name "Thorn" could be removed, since it is not mandatory. Again, before we go unilaterally messing with the wording, the implications of the changes need to be thought through.

I agree with your observation that simply stating that inclusion needs "consensus" is an invitation to edit warring - unless we're specific that the consensus burden is with the "inclusionist" side and consequently carry through by removing the alternative names for places where no such consensus exists (which would be a whole buttload of articles).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To VM: Alternate names need never be removed from the first sentence, the lead, or the article. Only if there are more than three alternate names do we go to a separate section, again per LEAD. Most commonly used EN version and official local are standards mentioned in LEAD. Other names, I'd say formerly official ones like those Herkus has been adding, plus those used in EN reliable sources, can certainly be added. This is only about parenthetical.

To PV: I'm afraid I see your comments as somewhat contradictory. You mention "if/then...I must include Russian variants for all Latvian place names", but that is what the non-mandatory clause is for. As far as consensus is difficult and sometimes ugly, true, but that's what WP is about. Novickas (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing your point (though if I miss it, I imagine dozens of other editors will too). What is the difference between "parenthetical names" and "alternative names in the Lead"? If "Wilno" gets put into "Vilnius" does that mean that it "need never be removed from the first sentence, the lead,"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant that in the high-profile case of Vilnius, its many alt names (Wilno, Vilna, Vilne, Wilna and their transliterations) can be used in running text as well as in the names section. The lead in larger articles might not be the best place for them, although I'd make an exception for official names, i.e. "the city was annexed by Poland in x, and its official name became Wilno." At less-developed articles, where parenthetical alternate names have not been disputed and evidence of more than three alt names in EN usage hasn't been shown, the parentheticals would be OK. Novickas (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This kind of interpretation may be open to gaming, as editors try to add less relevant alternative names to push it over the the "three name" threshold so that it can be removed from lede. Your Vilnius example has that flavor to it (incidentally I'm not all that convinced that "Vilne" is the name used in Yiddish. If you do a google books search for "Vilne Yiddish" it automatically redirects you to "Vilna Yiddish" - true, "Vilne" is sometimes used but it appears to be the less common form).

But ok, going with this, Wroclaw has 11 versions (English: Breslau, Hungarian: Boroszló, Latin: Vratislavia or Budorgis[1], Hebrew: ורוצלב (Vrotsláv), Yiddish: ברעסלוי / Brasloi, Czech: Vratislav, Slovak: Vratislav or Vroclav, Belarusian: Уроцлаў (Urocłaŭ), and Silesian German: Brassel) and hence a name section. Yet, the Czech and German names are still in the lede. Per your suggestion, it appears that if there is no consensus to include the Czech and German names in the lede - particularly since they're already in a Names section - these could be removed.

I'm still not exactly clear what you mean by "parentheticals".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's just meant as alternate place name information appearing in ()'s in the lead. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. on Wrocław, certainly it's commonly known in English as Breslau; there's less impetus for the Czech in the lead. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Novickas, the point is that we need something between "Choice A or Choice B"? and the ugly side of consensus—that can only be done if there are clear and specific criteria to guide discussion, otherwise it's a free-for-all, as we've seen. To VM, I'm equally sympathetic to all the rest as well. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A clear and specific mechanism already exists - that is moving alt names, if there are more than three, to a separate section. Preferably with context. Novickas (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So Tracken and Troki go in the lede of Trakai, since that's "less than three"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Those would be acceptable as parentheticals if it weren't for Troky [6], which increases the number of reliably-sourced EN names to four. This number of names in EN sources for long-inhabited places is not unusual. Novickas (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm, your gb links to hits for "ROBERT DAN Isaac Troky and his "Antitrinitarian" "le mpitana tranobe du troky aîné" and "who are said to be of 'one stomach' (troky raiky)". You probably meant [7] which does have 51 hits which is far less than 10% of 5270 hits for Trakai (never mind Troki and Tracken). This actually illustrates my point rather nicely - this "three or more" condition can be gamed if someone is willing to find *some* sources for less relevant names, just to inflate the number of alternative names beyond three, and keep names they don't like out of the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not out of the lead, if the article is short; just out of the parenthetical list, so as to reduce clutter. Editors can still argue that one or another version deserves pride of place in a particular article; quite well established for Gdansk/Danzig. This does not in any way prevent alternate names from appearing in an article. Such as Trok for Trakai, yet another EN version of the name found in a Gbook search [8]. I'm sorry you see this as gaming, because I see a separate names section with an immediate link in the first sentence as a compromise that both serves the widest possible readership and reduces conflict among WP editors. Novickas (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To reduce the gaming, a variant of 10% rule could be introduced, to eliminate some random misspellings or unpopular variant, that some would certainly try to find to push their POV. PS. I just want to reiterate that popular alt names belong to lead: Danzig should be in Gdańsk's lead, but so should Wilno in Vilnius'. This is helpful to readers, many of whom arrive at the article through redirects. OF course, this clearly shows that only popular or important names should be in the lead, rare and unlikely variants don't. That's all there is to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the recent, unprecedented, undiscussed and one sided moves and renames made by User:Karasek [9] I'm starting to think that we might need to open a full fledged RfC on naming in Eastern Europe to try and get this mess sorted out once and for all. It just doesn't work when a few editors try to discuss and achieve consensus while others run amok moving and renaming things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, BGN would indicate the Neisse River is the English conventional (not his rename)--there are three separate approved BGN names, one each for the Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. I have to take a look at the other ones, he's been quite busy. I'd suggest forming an EE naming board of EE editors. We won't all agree, but keeping the conversation in one place has got to be a whole lot better than what we have now, which is nothing. Non-EE editors would be welcome of course too, but I've had my fill of editors declaring themselves genetically immune to the EE nationalist disorder or pontificating over the moral turpitude of EE editors. We ought to be able to sort things out. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A naming board - or maybe a Wikiproject specifically devoted to Eastern European naming - could work IF there is sufficient good faithed participation. An RfC could or a general mediation could be the process which leads to an establishment of something like that. Or we could be "bold" and just start one. The problem of course is going to be the deep mistrust that some editors will have in regard to others (and vice versa) and if say, I, start such a project, I'm sure some will boycott it simply because it was me who started it. But you're right, something needs to be done, the amount of valuable time that this is devouring is just ridiculous. The economist in me chafes at the inefficiency and waste of resources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

BGN

I've read through many of the BGN's presentations at various symposia (cartography, for example) regarding the challenges and finer points of English-language place names. The BGN section has been in dire need of a rewrite for some time. BGN is NOT a reflection of any official U.S. policy, rather, it is a research project which "approves" nomenclature for Federal employees (typically, State Department desk jobs) to use in dealing with the general public, i.e., the proverbial American Joe Q. Public, and as such indicates preferred/prevalent English language usage in all cases. It is only when English language usage is completely different from what we would use today according to usual conventions that a "Conventional" entry is additionally created to document that usage. Lack of a "Conventional" entry does not mean that preferred/prevalent English language usage is not defined. You can see this most typically where a city and an administrative division have the same name; administrative divisions tend to move with the times while cities tend to be stuck in vernacular. Florence versus Firenze is a classic example: for the city, "Florence" Conventional, "Firenze" Approved; for the administrative division, "Firenze" (Short, full Approved is "Provincia di Firenze") with "Florence" merely being a Variant. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Its Approved names include Moskva and Firenze, neither of which are any dialect of English; they are, respectively, a rational and quite common transliteration of Russian, and the Italian spelling.

This does not "indicate preferred/prevalent English language usage in all cases." It is not intended to do so; if it were so intended, it would be a dreadful failure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas vs. components thereof

I've been concerning myself with the Wikipedia entry for Victoria, BC, off and on over the last few years.

Victoria presents an article naming problem that is global in scope to all of Wikipedia: the need to distinguish between the use of a city name to refer to a metropolitan area in general, and its use to refer to a legal entity which is part of the metropolitan area. Other cities which exemplify this distinction: Vancouver BC; Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles, California. Undoubtedly there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other cities around the world with this issue.

Suggestion: that such articles be entitled thus, for example:

• Victoria, British Columbia (metropolitan area)
• Victoria, British Columbia (City of Victoria)

I have no idea where in all of Wikipedia one enshrines such a standard. Can anyone help?

Floozybackloves (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The general convention seems to be to place the article on the formal city, as defined by its legal municipal boundaries, at the main article, even if this isn't the common usage. Yes, I know that WP:UCN and all that exists as a guideline, and I am not saying one way or the other that I support the current convention, but nonetheless the convention exists and the reason why it exists is that many people feel the most consistant thing is to keep the articles under their proper name even if they are not at their common name. This has been particularly contentious before at articles related to Las Vegas, Nevada and Orlando, Florida as the common understanding of those cities is that other incorporated areas are often mistakenly believed to be part of the city proper, especially tourist areas. For example:

• Compare Orlando, Florida to Bay Lake, Florida and Lake Buena Vista, Florida, and to a lesser extent Kissimmee, Florida. The Walt Disney World Resort isn't actually in Orlando, but everyone thinks that it is, so that is the source of a lot of the confusion.
• Compare Las Vegas, Nevada to Paradise, Nevada. Paradise is the official location of most of the Las Vegas Strip and has a population of about 1/4th of the Vegas Metro area, and yet no one really knows it exists since the postal addresses are still in Las Vegas.

So the convention is to only include information about the city proper in the article under the city name, and instead cover the metro area in articles like Los Angeles metropolitan area or Greater Orlando. Again, I am not saying I support or oppose the current system; so feel no need to rebut this to me, but that is the current system and that's probably how it will stay. --Jayron32 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

An aside to "Note"

Regarding Toruń/Thorn (I vaguely remember watching that battle some time ago), the main problem is that the way the article is written it comes across as a mishmosh of both names. (One should note the switch to the Polish Toruń at the first mention of the Polish resistance.) I'll comment further at the article when I have a chance. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea that's another issue I've been thinking about and will probably raise somewhere at some point. A lot of these articles switch names on you all of sudden and from the point of a view of a reader it's extremely annoying and confusing. It seems like we care more about assuaging our editor's nationalist sensibilities than of actually providing a readable product to our readers - it's definitely a case of misplaced priorities. Same name should be used consistently throughout an article without this irritating back and forth. No book does that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Gdańsk versus Danzig, wasn't there some agreement to mishmosh, that is, use "current" name for "now," use "historical" name at the time for "then"? It is certainly simpler to use the current name as in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which uses Gdańsk throughout. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there was agreement. Some editors did it that way. Either way, it was a bad idea which made articles a pain in the butt to read and understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Sadly, readers have no influence over the project, editors do. Who cares if readers find name switching annoying? They will never complain much, they will not edit war, and they will not take you to DR or an admin board... Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an editor and I find it annoying. I have a hell of a time removing redirects from my watch list every week. Worse is when the new article name doesn't even show up on my watch list.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is an application of the economic theory of rent seeking. A particular article's naming convention is of interest to many readers and even editors, but only a few particular editors, usually with an intense dedication to its presentation actually pay attention to it. Basically, if someone changes around the names in an article in an annoying way, then the "changer" receives immense satisfaction, regardless of how the readers and other editors perceive it. The "benefits" to an individual engaging in such an activity are large, while the "costs" - of the article becoming confusing and hard to read - are diffused. So if it just sort of pops up on your watchlist (never mind if you're just a casual reader) you're annoyed and irritated but you don't have that much of an incentive to undo it (especially since you know you will be jumped on by the dedicated true believers who have become quite skilled at wasting your time). The end result is that we end up with confusing crap and the encyclopedia's reputation suffers as a result. This is, I think a fairly fundamental problem, and the only way to deal with it is with consistent and enforceable naming policy. Someone somewhere once suggested that we should just use modern names consistently through the encyclopedia, nationalist sentiments be damned. That's certaintly a way to cut this Gordian knot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Or historical accuracy. Yes, I know... Gordian knot indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, this is a guideline. Consensus may decide that it should, in any given case, be ignored. That's policy, and we should not hesitate to say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Question re naming of things

I had a question (and a proposal, I guess) regarding the naming of things, and some of things are locations, such as buildings. I don't know if the names of buildings and train stations and so forth are really geographic names, but maybe. It's here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Titles of things should be translated, yes? Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)