Talk:Heligoland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, I've never heard, that this island has another name in two different languages. It seems the name has to be checked once more in naval charts. In Germany this island is named Helgoland and not Heligoland. Bernd
A very similar article already exists as Helgoland, thus we have the same twice, once with the german spelling, once with an english spelling. Someone has the time to merge them both?
- I'll put it on my list of things to do sometime. The Helgoland article seems better on the physical geography, this one on the history. I think as this is the English Wikipedia there ought eventually to be a redirect from Helgoland to Heligoland. -- Arwel 22:28 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
- Merged. It should indeed be under its English name. I've now redirected the Helgoland article here. -Scipius 23:26 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
Why should it indeed be under the English name? It surely confuses me - in a globalized world, isn't it time high to standardize on the real name for proper nouns instead of insisting on odd variants depending on language (Like what has already been done for pin-yin Beijing instead of Peking). -- Egil 04:28 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
- While your suggestion has some merit, it's normal practice in an English-language publication to use the English forms of place names. I created the Heligoland article after doing the article on the Battle of Heligoland Bight because it simply never occurred to me that an encyclopedia in the English language would have an entry on Helgoland. Peking --> Beijing is just about the only example I can think of where a placename has been changed in recent decades, and this is merely a change in the form of Romanisation used -- we're not using the Chinese form of the name for the place, otherwise we'd be using Chinese characters. In any case, what would you do when more than one language is used locally? I'm from Wales, and most places that are larger than villages have both an English and a Welsh name -- should this Wikipedia use both or either? Which is the real name? In the English Wikipedia, I'd be perfectly happy to use "Cardiff", "Wrexham", or "Holyhead"; if I was working on cy.wikipedia, I'd use "Caerdydd", "Wrecsam", and "Caergybi" instead. -- Arwel 20:15 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
- Well there is no such thing as a "real name" of anything. Names serve a nominative purpose so that people can index information. The only thing that matters then is what the most commonly used and understood name is in the language you are writing in. Since this is the English Wikipedia we use what English speakers use. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for more. --mav
-
- That there is no "real name" for something is simply not true. At least where I come from, a real and official name exists for any geographical location. I guess that woiuld be the case in most of the world. Like in Wales, there may be more than one official name, in which case we are spoilt for choice and may use the one most appropriate for the context. Also, where I come from, we more or less gave up the entire concept of having our own names for foreign places somewhere along the 20th century. Traditional Venedig and Rom has changed to Venezia and Roma. This is a very good move since not only is it highly practical in a globalized world, it is also a matter of common courtesy toward the inhabitants of said areas. In fact, since I've now given the matter a bit of thought, use of ones own invented names instead of accepting the proper one can easily be interpreted as a sign of imperialism. In some cases, as in Rhodesia vz. Zimbabwe or Ceylon vz. Sri Lanka so obviously so that the name in English usage was in fact changed. And yes, Peking vz. Beijing is a good example since Beijing is the offical name of the city by way of the offical Romanization, pin-yin (all signs for geographical names does by law have the Romanised form displayed).
- OK, I'm not proposing to change the English language here and now, but if it is the intention for the Wikipedia to be an international encyclopedia in English language, at least any entry that uses a unique English form should have a redirect fron the proper name too. -- Egil 06:20 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Looking for relatives
We just recently found out where my great grand father was born and it happened to be in Helgoland. Besides his name - Friedrich Joachim - I have very little information regarding date of birth except it was anywhere in the 1980´s. Could you help me indicating where to look for further information? Thanks and regards, Eduardo Joachim - Sao Paulo - Brazil - ejoach@terra.com.br
[edit] Schengen Treaty
The Schengen Treaty article says that Heligoland is outside the Schengen zone. Anyone know why? Seabhcán 22:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since this part of the Heligoland entry already caused some confusion among foreigners holding a Schengen visa and wondering if they are allowed to visit Heligoland or not, I will delete this sentence in the article.
Anyway, this got probably confused with the customs status of Heligoland and maybe there is not enough authority on the island to make it a proper entrace point to the Schengen area but since it is a part of the Federal Republic of Germany it is thus a part of the Schengen area.
This sentence should only be reintrotuced with a persuading citation. Mafeu 00:59 23.11.2006
[edit] Heligoland Bight
I've replaced the Heligoland Bight redirect with a proper stub, to prevent the German Bight→Heligoland Bight→Heligoland double redirect, and avoid the self-link that was present in this article. It's merely the result of some googling, so feel free to improve upon it. --Fbriere 18:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Attempted destruction
"On 18 April 1947, the Royal Navy detonated 6800 tons of explosives in a concerted attempt to destroy the main island." I understand that they'd been using it for a bombing range, but what made them try to blow up an entire island? — Trilobite (Talk) 4 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
- IIRC, there were two reasons: the island had an very extensive network of bunkers/tunnels that should be destroyed, and to get rid of some of the unneeded explosives left over from WWII. The tunnels were filled with the explosives and then detonated, which was quite a spectacular sight (i wonder if any of the photos flying around on the web would be public domain) --84.56.88.22 4 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
- The Brits couldn't annex it (they would have been forced to give it back sooner or later) or occupy it forever and they didn't want it in German hands either (it disturbed British naval and later air operations in both World Wars), so they tried to destroy it. - Alureiter 14:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi! So as we do seem to agree (here and in the trivia section) that the British did not only want to destroy the tunnels or bunkers but the entire island, shouldn't that also be made clear in the article itself? If noone disgrees, i'm going to change it in a while. Edwing 02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carfree
Until recently the article described Heligoland as carfree. Although the tourist board page [1] contains the line "here you will neither encounter any car noise toxic exhaust gases, i. e. pure nature – everywhere", the text seems hyperbolic and badly translated ("in desalinated condition the water has got drinking water norm"). A google search for "heligoland carfree" points only to Wikipedia or its mirrors. I want to know - and provide some sources - if it is true that the island is totally and perpetually devoid of cars and motor vehicles, and that if this is so, it is a consequence of policy rather than the practicality of importing and fuelling cars; in other words, if Heligoland is indeed car-free, is this by choice or necessity? -Ashley Pomeroy 10:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
