Talk:Alexandroupoli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a convention put down by Wikipedia and we have to adhere to it wether we like it or not. It clearly states how the names should be place in the article. In this case they should be both in the first line. Regards DeliDumrul 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mywayy's changes on the alternative names of the city, referred discussion and talk pages does not point any concensus on the naming of subject cities. Nonetheless, we should be arranging our articles by the book not by one group or the others desire. Therefore, not seek a concensus when there is already a convention. DeliDumrul 00:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes u believe that we should have both names in the first line of this article? --Hectorian 00:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See Edirne. ;) —Khoikhoi 00:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Some users are arguing that if Istanbul does not have the Greek name in the first line then the Greek cities should not have Turkish names either. There's a long discussion going on in the Istanbul talk page about what should be done about it. Moving the alternative name in this article with an argument based on what is done in Istanbul article would be a little like performing a retribution (pls excuse my choice on the word, I couldn't find a better way to point it out). I don't understand why we don't go by the book but try to find ways around it. DeliDumrul 00:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking about Istanbul, i really cannot understand why it bothers some users so much if the greek name is mentioned in the first line... What they may think? that this would make the city less turkish?! i really see no reason to have the turkish name in this article's first line if we don't put the greek in Istanbul's first line... And if the reason, according to some editors, is that 'the case is later on discussed' or 'there is another article about the name, i am ready to create articles about the different names in other languages of the greek places in Western Thrace and the Aegean, or to create paragraphs mentioning them in the existing articles... Lets be honest, no 'book' or 'rule' prohibits the mentioning of the name 'Κωνσταντινούπολη' in the first line of Istanbul. --Hectorian 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying this from Istanbul talk page, just to address your comment on the 'book':

From the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names);

Relevant foreign language names[3] are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesNames). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. .

What I'm trying to say is that there is a page for the alternative names already. As the convention suggests the first line should not contain other names if such a section (in this case a section would be too long to include in the article itself) is created.

Having said that, we shouldn't discuss Istanbul on this page. DeliDumrul 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They're basically saying a separate section for the alternate names is necessary once there are too many in the lead (see Nagorno-Karabakh for example. If all you need to add to the article is just the Turkish and Bulgarian name, then you don't need new section. See Gdańsk, for example. —Khoikhoi 01:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In Gdansk, Poles and German editors agreed, in such a degree that Gdańsk has been used a lot as an example... but of course, in the case discussed, we have to do with Istanbul... and some editors will never allow the greek name been there...

To DeliDumrul: u were the one to begin the discussion here, and u mentioned Istanbul first. now, u are asking not to talk about it here... --Hectorian 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Istanbul in response to Mywayyy's edit summary. I shouldn't have, my bad. DeliDumrul 03:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now that someone has determined to block the page

Would that someone correct the word "inhabits" in the population statistics to "inhabitants". Further evidence that blocking pages just leaves an article in an unworthy state. Carlossuarez46 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

This article seems to have been protected over a small dispute. There has been no discussion in several weeks. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)