Talk:List of European cities with alternative names
|
|
| Contents |
Early discussion
All attempts to insert nationalist, historical or linguistic POV into this article will be reverted. Adam 22:44, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Please put names in alphabetical order by language
- I think it makes more sense to sort them by spelling because that way one can see easily how many of the names morph from one language to another. --Shallot 09:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure Berlin, Riga and Stockholm have Polish names
Adam 12:29, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hello, can you tell me the difference between this list and a possible List of European cities?, because every city has names in other languages. Can you tell one city that doesnt have an alternate name? Cheers, Muriel 15:37, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Well, now we will know all of them :). Actually I created this articles as a playground for pedants. It will keep them amused and away from other articles. Adam 22:33, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This listing would be easier to read if it were a table. -- Viajero 16:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- User:Jurriaan Schulman, nice work . Do you think it would be too wide if it also had columns for the languages? -- Viajero 19:02, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- i think it is less legible as a table. All these lines make it too cluttered. --FvdP 19:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Who has been listing cities like Arnhem and Utrecht which are the same in Dutch or other languages? And why a listing for Bielefeld? I removed them; what is the title of the article ;-) -- Viajero 21:16, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- 1.I added Arnhem, because of the German equivalent Arnheim.
- 2 Muriel is right in sofar that almost all major cities have alternate names. But not all cities, and not al settlements. We should set a size limit, for instance 50,000 inhabitants (at present Teschen is probably the smallest entry, which has about this size), to avoid the addition of many names of small places in multilingual or border areas.
- 3.I also think that we should only add unpredictable alternations, i.e. not mention different translitterations from non-latin alphabets (because otherwise we would have to add many Russian cities containing ch, u, sh, etc in English, because these render tsch, u, sch in German, tsch, ou, ch in French, cs, u, s in Hungarian, etc. These are predictable, and therefore useless to mention.
- 4.Finally we also should omit all kinds of "former names", because these would make the list endless, and therefore useless. For Volgograd we now already have a historical Russian name and a historical Polish name, without any information about when these were used. More useful would be: just the names one could find in present day's newspapers and maps in the respective languages. Fransvannes 22:49, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, I think the former names are very interesting and useful, particularly the former German names of cities in east-central Europe. I also want to find someone who can add Yiddish names. Adam 23:26, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- A list_of_cities_whose_names_have_officially_changed might be interesting. Is there one?
- Sdw25 09:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Tiranë (indefinite) is not a different name from Tirana (definite), just a different form of the same name. Should it still be in this list? Dori 04:27, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
- No, unless we add all Albanian city names. Fransvannes 10:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Samuelsen , why did you rename this page? -- Viajero 10:32, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'd like know the difference between "alternate" and "alternative." (100 words or less please). Adam 10:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I would too. My dictionary (AHD 4th ed) won't enlighten me.
- No, but Wikepdia will. See List of words having different meanings in British and American English Andy Mabbett 16:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Should we translate Cyrillic by Anglocentric (Rossiyskaya Federatsiya) or pan-Slavic (Rossijskaja Federacija) rules? The page seems to be inconsistent. -- GCarty 10:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- There are several ways of transliterating Cyrillic, I don't see why one of them should be characterised as "Anglocentric." I am copying names as I find them, and so are others I presume. Adam 10:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A
inclusion criteria
Hi Adam, someone has been adding entries for languages in which the name is the same in English, like this entry under Sarajevo: "Sarajevo (Bosnian, Croatian, Dutch, English, French, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian)". This seems completely superfluous to me. It seems to me that the list should reflect its title and remain an ordering English names of cities with alternates in other languages only where the exist. In many cases, it is the same. No need to list! Or am I missing something? -- Viajero 11:02, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yes the someone is me. I am just adding it because I am a perfectionist and I like to list everything. I'll find the Zulu name for Reykjavik eventually. Take it out again if you want. Adam 11:18, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Besides, I think the articles in wikipedia should also be somehow useful. Say, I want to know the Hungarian name for city x. When city x is called the same in Hungarian and English and is therefor not listed, how should I know if the city name is either not listed yet in Hungarian or that it is the same as in English???
- Well, if there are other Hungarian entries, I think you can safely assume that all Hungarian entries are listed where applicable. Same with French, Spanish, etc.
- I would never assume that! If some Lithuanian speaking person sees this article and decides to add only one or two city names in Lithuanian because she doesn't know the other names in Lithuanian or because she doesn't have time to add more city names. Jurriaan 16:23, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- So I would say, the article would be more useful if for every (European) language the name for city x is listed. To make the table more readable, one could use the international abbreviation (D for German; NL for Dutch, GB for English etc.) for that country, rather than to write out the language.
- Jurriaan 12:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you start a second page called List of European cities in all European languages or simply List of European city names. That would be the appropriate place. And turn it into a table with columns. It will be a huge and may not fit horizontally onscreen, but it would at least be logically named and easy to look up entries by language. -- Viajero 12:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I woule be happy to rename the article List of names of European cities in all European languages, since that is what I am now turning it into. (I have found Chinese, Indian and Japanese names for them too but I am resisting the temptatio to add them.) Adam 13:38, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Which is what I would suggest. Or at least the article should mention that the city name in a certain language is the same as the English name if there is no other name listed for that language. Jurriaan
- To Viajero: to me it was unclear that this would be a list of cities which have a name different from the one in English. I thought that English was in the first column just for practical purposes, and because this Wikipedia is in English. Why would it be interesting to add all possible languages when a city has a local name different from the English name (e.g. Vienna) and not to add variants of Paris and Berlin, where there is no difference? If the list is about English, we could just make a list of Englisg versus local.
- To Jurriaan: if we abbreviate, we should abbreviate languages, not countries.
- To all: I still think that the addition of entirely predictable translitteration variants from cyrillic to latin is superfluous. (and there exists an "Anglocentric" variant as well as a German, a Dutch (even more than one), a French, a Hungarian, and so on) Fransvannes 10:02, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Note that alternative literally means "one of two", so this strictly doesn't include palces with 3 or more names. We could (a) not be paedantic and ignore this (b) move to "list... with multiple names" -- SGBailey 2003-11-27
Was the german transcryption of cyrillic names used on purpose?Halibutt 07:34, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why is Corfu listed? It's an island, not a city. Perhaps the list should be moved to "list of places in Europe blah blah"? Kosebamse 19:39, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'd like to ask some stuff and give my opinion.
1) For some cities, there are variants between European and Brazilian portuguese (Amsterdam=Amsterdão/Amsterdã, Moscow=Moscovo/Moscou). Should they be listed? If the list purpose is "how do people all around the world call this city?" then these differences should certainly matter.
2) Why not to:
- a) use the wikipedia (and ISO) language codes?
- b) break the page into two (or more) arranged by foreign languages (e.g. one from Abkhazian to Japanese and other from Korean to Zulu) when needed? These pages would require careful attention, since the first column in their tables (the one which contains the English name) would better be the same in all of them.
- c) create columns for each foreign language?
- d) To make "c" possible, create a code to simplify things, like: "-" means no version for that name available in that language and "*" means the name is the same as in English?
3) I think that names originally in Cyrillic shouldn't be here. There should be a page which explained the difference between transliterating ("Moskva") and translating ("Moscow" in English, "Moscou" in French and Brazilian Portuguese, "Moscovo" in European Portuguese and so on). In that page city names should perhaps be listed by transliterated names, with the same table scheme used in the Latin-alphabet city names page, but including a column for English itself. Of course, the differences between the various transliteration methods should be explained, since maybe the best people to decide about the NPOV regarding questions like "St. Petersburg vs. St. PetersbOurg" would be a Latin-alphabet Slavic-language-speaking person.
Amorim Parga 04:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am such a person, and my opinion (for what it is worth) is that place names in languages that use non-Latin orthography (eg. Russian, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese etc) should definitely be in the list. It's just that it would be useful to use a really practical and meaningful transliteration that does not depend on knowledge of Anglocentric, pan-Slavic or any particular internationally recognised system of transliteration. A lay person know nothing of any such systems, he/she knows only how words look to their untrained eye and how they sound to their untrained ear. It is therefore important to use spellings that as closely as possible approximate to the sound of the word in the source language. Let me refer to the surname usually spelled as "Gorbachev". The last syllable is pronounced "chov" not "chev" (same for Khrushchev, Brezhnev et al), and in my opinion should be transliterated in English as "chov" not "chev". There are two ways of pronouncing the Russian letter "ye" - sometimes it's "ye", sometimes it's "yo", and you just have to know when to use which one. So, when people untrained in Russian come to transliterating Russian words, they usually refer to some standard list of Russian letters and convert them into the relevant English letters - this works more or less OK, most of the time, except for problems like "Gorbachev" etc - and lots of people always pronounce his name the way it is spelled, ie. incorrectly.
But at least it is spelled using accepted English orthography. However, when we come to words in the List we're discussing that use non-standard symbols (like the Z with the Czech-looking hacek in the supposed transliteration of the Russian word for Geneva into English) - that is going too far. This symbol is not recognised in English, it has no meaning in English, and an English speaker with no knowledge of foreign languages would not have the faintest idea how to pronounce it.
The point of transliterating words from one language's orthography into another language's orthography is entirely lost when the result is something that is foreign to the latter language's orthography. I'm working on a reference work on this very subject because there are just so many idiotic results that come from even simple processes, such as transliterating "Chaykovsky" into Latin script. We have ended up with various variants, the most stupendously idiotic of which are names like "Tchaikowsky", "Tcherepnin", "Tchekhov" - the "tch" as a commencing consonant is not recognised in any language at all !!!!!!
Anyway, enough from the pulpit from today. But I will be revisiting this issue very very soon. I'll be back. Cheers to all Hibernians for St Patricks Day !! JackofOz 05:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- For a list of the language abbreviations used see language code.
But where does this article use language abbreviations? Marnanel 19:55, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Most of the so called Arabic, Russian and Greek "names" of cities that are no more than letter-by-letter retransliterations of what is usually the best way describe the original sound structure in Arabic, Russian Cyrillic or Greek script, kind of broken phone game with transliteration, but in no way names of there own. I would even exclude Serbian names where they are just an orthographical adaption in order to maintain the original sounding. Serbian (as do some other languages) adapts spelling of all proper names, leaving us with constructions like Džordž Buš (George Bush), Asošiejtid pres (Associated Press) et. al.Jakob Stevo 11:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Derry
I've added Derry to the list as a main list item. It's the official title in the Republic of Ireland (e.g. road signs) and with the city authorities (Derry City Council, City of Derry Airport). I've pointed out that Londonderry is the official British government title.
I've pointed out the status of Derry where listed after Londonderry.
Unfortunately, trying to list the city just once is not going to work - as both names are in some way official, and both in some way give offence to one of the parties involved.
Zoney 14:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Extension to Include Countries in the List??
I suggest this list should be extended to include names of countries (or a separate list Names of countries in different languages created. That is, if we think this list makes any sense anyway. I actually have some doubts there, except where the names significantly differ: Everyone will realize that the Serbian Minhen and the Polish Bratisława stand for "München" and Bratislava resp.
An example of how country names can differ:
- German: Deutschland; related: NL Duitsland, SWE Tyskland, etc.
- French: Allemange; ES Alemaña, AR Almâniya, etc.
- Polisch: Niemcy; CZ Němačko, CRO Njemačka, etc.
- (Colloquial Serbian/Croatian: Švapska)
- Finnish: Saksaamaa
- Lithuanian: Vakucija
(That makes 7 forms with each a seperate etymology)
Austria:
- German: Österreich; SWE Österikke, NL Oostenrejk, etc.
- Czech: Rakousko; SK Rakusko
- Arabic: Nimsâ (3 - 4 different)
Similarily, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Albania, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Wales, etc. all have at least two profoundly different names being used in different languages, which are non-cognates.
As I said, I find it more important to show up the different roots than to list all derived cognates (as are England, Angleterre, Engleska, Ingiltira, Englandia, etc.; or France, Francia, Faransiya, Frankreich, Francuska) Jakob Stevo 20:46, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea, but as this article is long despite being confined to European cities (and that region alone even!) - it goes without saying that what you suggest above is a new article! I suggest List of alternative country names. Like this page, it's probably a handy diversion for pedants and disagreements over naming of countries, as well as being an interesting and valuable project in its own right. My own country, according to its 1937 constitution is officially Éire or Ireland in the English language. Since the Republic of Ireland Act in 1949 it has an official description as the Republic of Ireland. Just an example of how a country's name can be expanded - there's many others with various or controversial names or descriptions.
- Zoney 23:02, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- Basically yes to everything, but Éire or Ireland (or Irska as it would be in Croatian) are basically derrivations from the same term, which you can kind of point out if you are average smart and have any intention to do so. Thats a totally different case than Nimsa, Austria, Rakousko in the case of my country, which you really have to know in order to make any sense out of it. Jakob Stevo 20:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
List of alternative country names
I created the proposed List of alternative country names for all the wikipedians to enjoy. Halibutt 21:41, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
Pasquale and Auschwitz
Although I agree that the very name Auschwitz should be linked, I see no point in mentioning it twice. I doubt anyone knows the town under the German name, usually the term Auschwitz is connected to the concentration camp, not the town itself. Also, the German name is alternative to the original and official name, so placing it as such is misleading. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:24, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Very true. No need to mention same info twice. As the article says, it lists first current best-known name in English and then alternatives in other languages. So far what I know, both terms Auschwitz and Oswiecim are used in English, but as it is not my native language i do not know which one is more "official". Someone, who knows better should remove redundant info.--Kulkuri 21:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, I certainly did not think I would cause such a stir. My point was simply that, in certain special cases, the current best-known name in English may well be two names, rather than one. There are a couple of other such cases in this article (care to spot them?) and they don't seem to have bothered anybody. I don't believe this amounts to "redundant info", on the contrary, it may well be very germane. A good rule of thumb may be this: if there are two Wikipedia articles (rather than just a redirect), then it is justified to double-list the name.
Personally, I have no axe to grind and I don't believe an encyclopedia is the proper place to score political points or enforce political correctness. I believe the purpose of an encyclopedia is the facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. In the case of Auschwitz, it is an indisputable fact that many more English-speaking people are familiar with the name Auschwitz than are with Oświęcim. (Alas, the sad historical fact that this placename is associated with the memory of the Nazi concentration camp cannot be undone.) Since this is the English Wikipedia, listing Auschwitz may offer the vast majority (I would guess 99.9%) of those English-speaking people who are familiar with the name Auschwitz but not with Oświęcim to actually learn that the Polish (hence official) name for Auschwitz is Oświęcim. Now isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what you want?
The same may not be possible if you remove Auschwitz, simply because all those English-speaking people are not as likely to look up Oświęcim as they are Auschwitz. This seems so obvious to me that I am frankly amazed that it isn't to you. On the other hand, if it so important to you to remove Auschwitz, then go ahead. You might also want to remove the Wikipedia article on Auschwitz and replace it with a redirect. Perhaps you might like people to start referring to the concentration camp as the "Oświęcim concentration camp" as well. Furthermore, in the effort to remove all "redundant info" from the Wikipedia, you might want to hunt down the couple of cases of double-listing in this article and merge them, and also do the same with the corresponding Wikipedia articles. And all in the name of what? Certainly not in order to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. If anything, the contrary. Pasquale 11:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No, no, no, you didn't get my point. What I was trying to say is that for most of the English speakers Auschwitz = Auschwitz concentration camp. No need to delete the Auschwitz article since it says exactly that.
- On the contrary, this is a list of cities with alternative names. I doubt you'd call the Auschwitz concentration camp a city. I simply decided to delete the separate entry while at the same time leaving the link to Auschwitz in order to explain that at times (very rare cases, AFAIK) the name is also applied to the city. However, listing it under two separate entries would be misleading since that would suggest that the name Auschwitz is something more than just a German alternative name for Oświęcim - which is not true, at least as far as the town is concerned. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I see what you are saying. But, still, I disagree. Whether you are talking about the concentration camp or the town, the place name is one and the same, i.e. Oświęcim in Polish, Auschwitz in German, etc. My point is that, given the great currency of Auschwitz in the English language and internationally (again, I believe it is immaterial whether the reference is to the concentration camp or the town), a double listing is justified (precisely as it in the couple of other cases of double listing), i.e. with two main entries. In both cases, under each entry, the other entry is linked, precisely because there exists a Wikipedia article (not a redirect) for each of the names (Auschwitz and Oświęcim). This serves as a clarification that this is indeed one and the same place name, even though, admittedly, in current usage, Auschwitz is primarily used for the concentration camp and Oświęcim for the town. In any case, I will not press this point further, if there is a consensus that double listings must be avoided at all costs. Maybe we can wait a few more days to see if any additional opinions are expressed and then determine what the consensus is. Pasquale 16:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not going to fight over it either, it's not a big problem. However, please note that Auschwitz is not an article, it's a mere disambig that might've been simply redirected to Auschwitz concentration camp while the name Auschwitz could be added in the Oświęcim article header. It's not a case of New York and Nieuv Amsterdam.Also, apparently the Oświęcim/Auschwitz is the only town listed twice (correct me if I'm wrong, but I could not find any more cities listed twice). The links to alternative names are very scarce on the list and Auschwitz is visible enough when listed as the alternative German name under Oświęcim, no need to list it twice. Also, the other line suggests that Oświęcim is one of the alternative names of Auschwitz, which is a false statement. I'm erasing it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:57, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Nice going, Halibutt, you say one thing and do another. You state "I'm not going to fight over it either, it's not a big problem" but then you erase it (obviously, it was a big problem). You write an edit summary that reads Auschwitz moved to Oswiecim when in fact you simply removed it, because Oświęcim was already there. And you keep saying it's a false statement that Oświęcim is one of the alternative names of Auschwitz, when in fact that statement is absolutely correct. As I have tried very hard to explain, one name translates the other, but for some reason you seem to think the name Auschwitz was somehow invented just for the concentration camp. (That would be like saying that the Councils of Nicaea did not take place in Iznik, because Iznik is the name of the town, while the name Nicaea was invented just for the Ecumenical Council hall, or something.) Anyway, have it your way. I guess the most important thing is not to include erroneous information. Whether Auschwitz=Oświęcim is listed once or twice is not that important.
BTW, I am surprised you didn't spot the double listing of Cieszyn and Těšín. I hope you will put your political correctness aside and leave it the way it is.
Pasquale 17:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If you really think that is important - feel free to add the line back, as I said, I won't fight for it. And there's no hidden agenda behind my edit. It all depends on how do we understand the title of this article: alternative names to what. For me this is a list of English/official names and all of their alternatives. To make long thing short: for me Auschwitz (German name) is an alternative name for Oświęcim (official/English name), but Oświęcim is not an alternative name for Auschwitz. Osiwecim is the official name and all the other are alternatives. In this context Oswiecim is both an English name of the town and the local, official name. Auschwitz is the (disambiguous) alternative, nothing more.
- And I did notice Cieszyn and Cesky Tesin as listed twice, but they are two different towns nowadays (both administratively, politically and economically), so they should stay as separate entries. It's not that Cesky Tesin is an alternative name for Cieszyn or the other way around. Also, please take note that it was me who created both articles :)
Arabic, Cyrillic, Greek scripts
Why is e.g. Moscow given as "... Moskva (... Russian ...)", etc? Since it can be done on Wikipedia, shouldn't it be in the script of the language concerned, with a transliteration in brackets or italics after? — i.e. "... Москва́ Moskva (Russian, ...)" - MPF 14:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"For the purposes of this article, Europe includes . . ."
"A number of important Mediterranean Basin cities are also included" — I can't see any non-European Mediterranean cities?? Anyone want to add Aleppo, Algiers, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Tripoli, etc? I think these are worthier of inclusion than some of the central Asian (former Soviet) cities that are in (I'd add them myself, but don't know the answers). - MPF 14:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese
Notice there are several cities that are named differently in Portugal and in Brazil. Moscow for instance is known as Moscovo in Portugal and as Moscou in Brazil. - PMLF 20 Nov 2004
Right, PMLF, and in fact both names were already there all along. I guess you didn't notice that the Brazilian Portuguese name was already listed as "Moscou (French, Brazilian Portuguese)" when you added it again at the end. I then removed the duplication. The names should be listed alphabetically. If the same name is used in more than language, it is listed once and followed by the language names alphabetized according to the English alphabetical order. Pasquale 21:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ashgabat???
Why though? Even if Soviet Asia were not quite distinct from Soviet Europe, what conceivable rationale would there be for including central Asian cities?
I suppose it is just too obvious to point out that nearly none of these are "alternative" names. They are the names for cities in other languages. Here's the difference: Brussels has official alternative names, but London's name is London. The Latin names are rather sweet though. I'm almost tempted to add Colchester and St Albans. Only the desire not to encourage this nonsense prevents me.Dr Zen 12:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hey Dr Zen, I think too much zen may have gone to your head. What is the big difference, prithee, between "alternative" names and "names for cities in other languages"? Personally, I find this list extremely useful. When I capercenn't remember exactly how to spell the Slovene names for Venice and Vienna (respectively, "Benetke" and "Dunaj") or the Hungarian names for the same two cities (respectively, "Velence" and "Bécs"), I can look them up here. On the other hand, if you think this is all nonsense, you can just stay away from this page. No harm done! Pasquale 18:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What's the big difference? *sigh* Well, it's like this: Brussels has a mixed population of Francophones and Flemish-speakers, so it has two *official* names, which are Bruxelles and Brussel; London has one official name, which is London. There is no "alternative" to describing it as London in English. In other words, there is nothing that parallels Bruxelles/Brussel. Now, I think you can see that "Brussels" is what the city is called in English. It's not an alternative name for Bruxelles/Brussel. There is, once more, no alternative to "Brussels" in English as a name for that city. While a list that gave alternative *official* names might be interesting, one that gives a very incomplete list of what cities are called in other languages is not. If you want to know what to call Venice in Slovene, get a Slovene dictionary. And Ashgabat will still not be in Europe, no matter what you call it.Dr Zen 00:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hey Dr Zen, you're just a boring quibbler. Your point is so obvious to everyone (*sigh*), that it's not even worth mentioning. The article title specifically does not say *official*, nor does it say "alternative in its own native language". If you want to find out what the three *official* names for Brussels are (yes, you forgot about German), all you have to do is go to the "Brussels" article in the Wikipedia, and it will tell you. Your comment about looking up a Slovene dictionary is downright silly. Maybe you keep a Slovene dictionary by your bedside, but most people don't. (Besides, dictionaries often don't include geographical names, you would need a monolingual encyclopedia for that.) That is why this article is so useful, not to mention of great historical, linguistic, and cultural interest. If you don't agree, just leave it to the rest of us. If you strongly believe the article title is incorrect and would like to change it to something like "List of European cities with names in various languages", go ahead. It would be a longer and more cumbersome title, and a totally unnecessary change, but it's been done before. Earlier this year, a quibbler such as you hijacked what used to be called "List of alternative country names", because he felt such a title should include only *official* names, and renamed the previously existing list (with names for countries in assorted other languages) as "List of country names in various languages". What was the result? His new (*official* names only) List of alternative country names has languished and is a fairly useless article, while the older and renamed List of country names in various languages has continued to flourish, because people continue adding to it. Ditto for this List of European cities with alternative names. It has been grown by leaps and bounds, even if you believe it is "very incomplete". Obviously you don't understand how the Wikipedia works. I challenge you to tell me how many articles are not "very incomplete". Instead of whining about it being "very incomplete", you could add to it, if you really cared. But you say you don't care for it, so what's your problem? (And, finally, as far as the Central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union are concerned, they are part of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, aren't they?) Pasquale 21:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dude, you simply don't understand what "alternative" means. Is English your second or third language? I've tried politely to explain where you've gone wrong and you've been savagely rude. The "quibbler" you had problems with before probably spoke English as their mother tongue. Perhaps you didn't understand that Wikipedia is about "quibbling" over what is or is not the case. It is not about authors guarding their pages and fighting off other editors who want to make changes. Since when was the German name for Brussels "official"? You are simply making that up. My comment on a Slovene dictionary was apt because you'd have to be a complete idiot to come to Wikipedia and look up a list of "alternative" names to find out the Slovene name for Venice. BTW, dude, the United States participates in the OSCE. Does that make it in Europe? Where are the names for New York in different languages? I'm going to be adding them shortly along with others that occur to me and I think I will be making the editing changes I feel are appropriate. That's the wiki way, not to turn your back on bad work just because other editors are obstructive.Dr Zen 23:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- My friend, you don't know what you're talking about, and I feel sorry for you. (1) Don't worry about my English, I'm a linguist and a professional writer, so it's definitely up to snuff. (2) The "quibbler" I had problems with before was Chinese, and you can tell that by looking at what he did with the List of alternative country names. (3) German is one of the official languages in Belgium; just look up Belgium in the Wikipedia (and while you're at it, Check your facts before you make a claim). (4) An encyclopedia is useful to different people in different ways; as a linguist, I find this article extremely useful, and I don't see why that should bother you in the first place. (5) OSCE or not, you have to stick by what the article introduction says: "For the purposes of this article, Europe includes Turkey, Cyprus and all the republics of the former Soviet Union. A number of important Mediterranean Basin cities are also included." Or did you not see that? Frankly, I don't know who wrote that and I don't care, it's just a guideline. (6) This article has been around for quite a long time (more than a year, that's an eternity in Wikipedia time) and it's had thousands upon thousands of contributions; you have never contributed to it and find it useless, so what are you griping about? Pasquale 19:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My apologies, Brussels does have an alternative German name. No need to be rude about it. I'm afraid that if you don't understand the distinction I am drawing between towns having alternative names (Brussel, Bruessel, Bruxelles) and having different names in different languages (Brussels), then your English is not as good as you think it is. I don't have to stick with what the article says. If I disagree, I can edit it. I am doing you the courtesy of talking to you first. I don't know or care who wrote it, but the whole point of Wikipedia is that we are not stuck with it. I am griping because the article has faults. Its main fault at the moment seems to be that it is zealously guarded by a person who will not discuss its flaws fairly and objectively. Now, there is absolutely no sense in which Ashgabat is in Europe. None whatsoever. Your argument for it was spurious and I showed it to be. And these are not "alternative" names. People in Venice, unless they are Slovenes, do not think their city is called by the Slovene name. Do you not see the outright lunacy of what you're saying? This list ought by your reasoning to include the name of every major city in Europe in every one of its thousands of languages! Is that your aim?Dr Zen 05:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Dr. Zen, this whole conversation saddens me, because you keep misunderstanding what I say. Of course, I TOTALLY understand the distinction you are drawing between towns having alternative names and having different names in different languages. Didn't I say it was "so obvious to everyone (*sigh*), that it's not even worth mentioning"? The purpose of this article is the latter, not the former, and that is made clear in the introduction and throughout the article. I even said if you would like to change its title to something like "List of European cities with names in various languages", go ahead. Maybe I'll do it myself, now that it has become an issue. On the other hand, if you would like to have an article with just the *official* alternate names, you are welcome to start it. But why should you wish to remove an article that others find useful simply because you don't?
Have I said I want it removed? My view is that the name should be changed but not without discussion. I have edited the introduction in line with our discussion.
- I don't believe that's the Wikipedia spirit at all. You say: "I don't know or care who wrote it". Then, leave it alone. You don't change something you don't care about, do you?
Absolutely I do! I rarely work on things I care about! I avoid those things I have a strong opinion about because that way I avoid the temptation to impose my POV.
- I assume you know how to surf through the history of a Wikipedia article. Well, if you do, you will see this article was started more than a year ago, it has had several thousand contributions but several hundred contributors, but it has always had precisely the function it has now (which you find useless).
Slavery was an institution for centuries before its abolition, old bean. Having been wrong for a long time is not a recommendation in itself!
- (If you would like to see the article's very first version, by a certain Adam Carr — yup, he's the one to blame! —, click here: [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=List_of_European_cities_with_alternative_names&oldid=1769837).) You say: "Its main fault at the moment seems to be that it is zealously guarded by a person who will not discuss its flaws fairly and objectively." Are you referring to me?
I am not having any problem with any of the other contributors. Only you.
- If so, you are wrong, witness the hundreds of people who have happily contributed to this article. I did not put "Ashgabat" in there, the city that so annoys you, but I don't see why it should be taken out, when the introduction clearly allows for it.
I have explained why I feel the introduction is flawed.
- You see, Dr. Zen, I suspect you are neither a linguist, nor a historian, nor a social scientist
I do not care for your suspicions. As it happens, I majored in linguistics and I work as an editor in English. So I tend to be very careful with words and very interested in matters linguistic.
- otherwise you would probably find this list much more interesting and valuable than you seem to.
Would I? I am a little piece of all those things and I find it almost entirely useless. It is not comprehensive by any means, and it is unwieldy.
- If you knew a little more than you do, Dr. Zen, you would perhaps know that it is very unusual for any city to have different names in foreign languages, and the extent to which it does is a measure of that city's international importance through history.
Yes, because of course Stockholm's impact on world history has been enormous. If you knew anything about linguistics, my friend, you would know that it has several names because its initial consonant cluster is hard for Iberians to pronounce! The number of names for places in your list does not in fact correspond with their importance, nor with anything else in a systematic way (I'd be interested to know why Arras is of such overwhelming importance to Japanese).
- It is because "Rome" was known about and referred to frequently through the centuries and millennia, that it has so many names in foreign languages.
Ah, I see. So by your understanding, Skopje's importance is greater than that of Madrid's, on account of having more names? Tell that to the preColumbian population of the Americas!
- But you don't seem to grasp how unusual that is. "Chicago" may be a very important city now, but its history spans less than two centuries, not enough for any foreign variants of its name to arise. You say: "This list ought by your reasoning to include the name of every major city in Europe in every one of its thousands of languages! Is that your aim?", and (stunningly) you have no inkling of how foolish and ignorant that statement is.
Indeed? Many of the places in your list have "alternative" names because they are in regions where more than one language is spoken. Some have different names because their original names are difficult to pronounce, or simply because, yes, they have been known to speakers of the language in question for long enough that they have come to be pronounced in the local way. By the way, here you are accusing me of being foolish and ignorant and yet you do not seem to be aware that Chicago is not in Europe.
- On the contrary, I suspect it is by now pretty hard to come up with any more foreign-language versions of the names of most of these cities.
Well, it is an absolute certainty that there will be many languages that simply lack the sounds required for some of them! Take "Paris". That is impossible in Japanese, for instance. "London", ditto. I believe that is rendered "Rondon" in Japanese.
- Or do you think people just make them up?
I think that most often they simply cannot pronounce the local name in their own language.
- As I said, this is an article of great significance and usefulness for anyone interested in linguistic variation, cultural history, and related areas. It is obvious that you are not. So, I conclude it is your argument that is spurious and flawed. Pasquale 21:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, so I am trying to fix it as far as possible.
in italics Dr Zen 07:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, Dr. Zen, if you're a linguist, then linguistics must be in a very sorry state indeed. Once again, most of the points you raise in your rebuttal are either irrelevant or incorrect or fallacious. Let me give you just a few examples:
(1) So what if Chicago is not in Europe? I specifically used an American city as an example of a locality that has risen to relative international prominence only in recent centuries, because there aren't many such examples in Europe (I suppose I could have mentioned Glasgow or Reykjavík). This article is limited to Europe and adjoining areas merely for convenience, but this historical and linguistic phenomenon is obviously not restricted to European cities. Or are you suggesting otherwise?
(2) Your attempt to belittle Stockholm's "impact on world history" is truly pathetic. In centuries past, particularly in the 17th century, Sweden was a major player in European history and its armies marched deep into the European continent (see Rise of Sweden as a Great Power and Thirty Years' War).
(3) Your notion that phonetic adaptation is the reason why Stockholm has several names is ludicrous and should have been enough to flunk you in a linguistics class. You are confusing the how with the why, my friend. Of course, phonetic adaptation explains how Stockholm's name (like Strasbourg's or Stuttgart's) was adapted to the Iberian languages, but that does not make it the historical reason why it was, otherwise the same would have happened for every Stockbridge, Stockton, or Sturbridge in the world, which of course it didn't. While a Spanish-speaking person will have the same difficulty pronouncing any and all such placenames, there are no Spanish forms of such names. On the other hand, Estocolmo is the *official* (you seem to like that word) name of Stockholm in Spanish and Portuguese, in the sense that if the Swedish government publishes official materials about Stockholm in those languages (as it surely must), it will use that form of the name.
(4) Skopje may well have names in more languages than Madrid, but so what? The Balkans, and Macedonia in particular, have always been a cauldron of many ethnic and linguistic groups, which is, of course, another reason why even a relatively small town may have names in numerous languages, especially in certain parts of Europe. But that gets us into the politics of this whole thing, which this article tries carefully to avoid. A name in a language that may have been *official* sixty or a hundred years ago may still be resented by the speakers of the current *official* language of the place.
And on and on it goes. To be sure, your point about Japanese is well-taken, but that is only because the Japanese language has to adapt every foreign name and every foreign word to its katakana syllabary, and to its graphemics, which of course reflects Japanese phonemics. Since there is no l/r contrast in Japanese, both /l/ and /r/ are adapted to the one Japanese liquid phoneme, which is actually neither, although it is conventionally rendered as <r> in rōmaji and other romanization styles.
But, look, I am sick and tired of this debate. I want to make it perfectly clear that the reason why I responded to your intervention was that I perceived it as a broad attack on the very nature and existence of this article, furthermore coming from someone who had never contributed to it, and had presumably just stumbled into it. So, I felt obliged to defend the article, believing I was speaking on behalf of its many contributors. But if your beef is only with the article's name, as you have clarified, why are we discussing all these secondary points? Frankly, I couldn't care less what the exact name of the article is, so go ahead and change it, if it bothers you so much. Your hair-splitting insistence on an exact technical definition of "alternative" as "alternative in a currently *official* language of the place" may well be justified, even if a little specious. Let's see what others say. So far, you have only received support from one other person, who has also never contributed to this article. I would like to hear from the many people who have used and contributed to this article for the past year or so. Pasquale 19:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding earlier, I don't monitor this article too often, as contributions tend to be non-controversial here. I don't care too much how is it named, so if you can think of some better place, you are welcome to move it there. Regarding usefulness of this list, I personally find it very interesting, for the reasons Pasquale so nicely pointed out. -- Naive cynic 19:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What he said. I don't agree with all inclusions in the list as some of them are, presumably, merely expedients of lacking certain sounds or artefacts of different spelling conventions (especially transcriptions of names originally written in non-Latin alphabets where, for example, /u/ might become |oe|, |u|, |ou|, or something else depending on the language). But a large number of cities are "official" in the sense Pasquale mentioned.
- Furthermore, I believe it is a distinction for a city to have a separate "official" name in a foreign language -- since it generally means that the place was historically important and/or well-known. I even seem to recall reading that it was considered a mark of erudition in former times in England to know the English names for many foreign cities and use those when referring to them, but that some of them have since been lost in common usage since those places were not referred to much. (I'm afraid I can't think of an example.)
- So therefore, I find this article useful and interesting. -- pne 07:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Since it is definitely impossible - in many cases in many areas of Europe - to define "official", "current" etc., technically the current name (i.e. "alternative names") is the most correct one this very useful article can have, and Mr. Zen's "arguments" are ridiculous. On the other hand, an average fast reader could really think that the article only contains alternative names in one language (when he sees the article in a list or so). So for me the issue is to choose between correct and user-friendly. I could accept both solutions. Otherwise I see absolutely no need to change the content of the article. Juro 22:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alternative Names?
To me this looks less like a "places with alternative names" list and more like a list of places with their names in different languages. Should the title be changed to infer this, as opposed to thinking places really have several different names in one language? (With the obvious exception of Derry) Selphie 13:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) **
That's exactly what I said and was roundly abused for it. Dr Zen 07:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
with the exception of your good self I'm being ignored for it! oh well........!
Selphie 09:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) **
Dr. Zen makes a suggestion in jest:
- "This list ought by your reasoning to include the name of every major city in Europe in every one of its thousands of languages!"
which I think would make a really cool article, actually, and is a good summary of what this page should look like. If another title would reflect this better, why not suggest one? That said, I can certainly see the argument for removing Ashgabat. Central Asia really is pretty far away from Europe, and it would be perfectly reasonable to have a distinct List of Central Asian cities with alternative names. - Mustafaa 23:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Possibly something like "List of Names of European Cities in Different Languages"? Selphie 09:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) **
Re Ashkabad, it is a common convention to include all the former republics of the USSR as part of "Europe" in a political sense. Turkmenistan is a member of the OSCE, for example. The same applies to Turkey. On the other hand Cairo and Beirut are definitely not European cities and should not be included. Adam 00:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yiddish names in Hebrew alphabet
A month or so ago I added a bunch of Yiddish names both in Hebrew alphabet and in YIVO transliteration. Today I came back and found that someone had deleted the Hebrew alphabet forms from most (not all) entries. Why? Is there some policy against non-Roman alphabets here? Was someone offended by the presence of an alphabet they couldn't read? Was it wanton vandalism? Entering the codes for the Hebrew letters is a wearisome and time-consuming task, so I don't feel much like putting them all back. But please please PLEASE remember that Wikiquette says to avoid reverts and deletions wherever possible! --Angr 19:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, Angr. I agree that there is a lot of vandalism. The appropriate style would be to enter the Roman transcription first (bolded) followed by a hyphen and then the non-Roman script (if possible, italicized). Pasquale 17:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
This is a great topic, but I see two big POV holes in it.
Firstly, there seems no easy way of consistently determining what is the current English name for a place. For example, someone who writes "Marseilles" is likely also to write "Lyons", whereas someone who omits the final "s" on one is likely to treat the other in the same way. The dominant spelling will also vary as to whom you survey: my musical background would make me automatically spell the place currently listed as "Mechelen" as "Mechlin". Is there any way of having a consistent policy on what appears in the left-hand column?
Secondly the use of the word "former" for certain names is horrendously politically loaded. The most obvious case of this is Constantinople/Istanbul. The use of "former" here to describe the Greek-derived names (apart from the one in Modern Greek itself, where there really isn't another common name) is a Turkish-sympathistic POV. Suffice it to say that any nationalistic POV inherent in an instance of the word "former" doesn't look like NPOV to me. It may therefore be a very good idea to avoid using "former" for names of cities which lie in a territory disputed in modern times. Phlogistomania 01:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- To the first point, I would say the simplest way of deciding what name should be used in the left-hand column is to use the name of the Wikipedia article on the city in question. If the main article is at Lyon and Lyons is a redirect, use Lyon. As for "former", I'd go by English usage. Today it's called Istanbul in English; formerly it was called Constantinople in English. That has nothing to do with pro-Turkish or pro-Greek sympathies, it's just a fact about English. It's no different from saying that Peking is the former name of Beijing, which has nothing to do with a change in hands from one ethnicity to another. --Angr/comhrá 05:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)