Talk:Lake of Gruyère/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Name etc.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name etc. (These changes)

Please provide references for your changes. -- User:Docu

You're on the talk page of this article, not on mine - though I assume you're addressing me. There is no discussion required to know that an article mustnot repeat statistical data. All these are in the infobox, which has no reason to exist if one has a series of sentences merely giving exactly the same data without any additional information. My removing duplicate data, does not need references. References are supposed to support text being added. The rewritten parts do not contain any new information, hence your request for references makes little sense.
The renaming of the article is required because a few google searches on "Lac of la Gruyère", Lake of La Gruyère", and "Lake of Gruyère" (also without accent), excluding the French-biased Swiss .ch domain and wikipedia copies, show the 'Lake of Gruyère' to occur about as many times as the originally French name 'Lac de la Gruyère'. Inspecting pages to eliminate those with other remaining French names and phrases that clearly have an English instead of a French name, makes 'Lake of Gruyère' the prevailing name. Wikipedia guidelines then do not offer a choice.
Furthermore, [nearly?] all article names about lakes, carry the name "Lake" and definitely not the French "Lac". That makes it clear that for less widely known names, like the 'Lac of la Gruyère'/'Lake of Gruyère', the relatively significant number of French names in English texts does not mean it to be the "most common usage in English" or even nearly equally often used in English, but rather that the original name is often simply maintainded during an "English" translation or copied into an English text. The fact that the truly English name occurs just as often, and follows the usage for all lake names most commonly used by speakers of English, takes away whatever doubt that might have remained.
You're not being of much help by bluntly and blindly reverting text --also without discussion-- while not even taking the trouble to maintain corrections that are undisputable (e.g. how to numerals are presented, or improving poor (English) style).
Though some of the characteristics of your edits let me assume you might be a relative 'newbee', be it not entirely unexperienced, other actions and aspects indicate a rather profound knowledge and experience. It puzzles me a bit. Anyway, you should sign your edits on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~ so as to provide a link to your (talk) page and a proper date/time stamp.
— SomeHuman 1 Apr 2007 21:16 (UTC)
Just for me to understand, which sources are you using as a reference for the name "Lake of Gruyère"? How are you counting using google?
Unless you provide us with a policy, I'd take it as your personal opinion that information in the infobox can't be included in the article's text. People sometimes use just the infobox or only the text.
BTW which corrections did you make on "how numerals are presented", I think we agreed that adding a "+" is a change that shouldn't be done? Is there a reason why you add "/" into "
"? I can't see much use of such a contribution. -- User:Docu
Your text is entirely unintelligible, till looking at its source: "<br>" cannot be seen on a talk page any better than elsewhere. Yes, there is a reason to end it with a slash: Wiki does not handle unclosed tags under all conditions, hence all unpaired html and wikipedia tags such as (mainly) <br> and <references> should be <br/> and <references/>. Signing your comments including the date/time stamp, is another obligation by Wikipedia standards. And adding the "+" as in "1 E+... m", "1 E+... m²" or "1 E+... m³" is for too many reasons to explain here and now, most recommended (by me) in every new or copy/edited article. We agree that it is not necessary to add it in each existing article. But it is best to add it in articles that actually show this indication as well as in infoboxes because the latter are likely to become used as sample for future articles (as there never is an advantage of going by a redirect for one of these indicators). Also less common indicators (e.g. with a normal 2 or 3 behind m instead of a ² or ³, or with small e instead of E, or without blank between 1 and E/e) that do not exist as redirect for all the similar indicators, should best become changed. Because most articles with such indication are like that, while doing a (manual) replace it is most of the time only clear that it does not need to be done when the modifications are already done, they may as well be saved then. Note that tjhere is absolutely no reason to maintain the indication without "+", if an article is edited or cleaned-up, one may just as well (or rather, better) add the "+". — SomeHuman 2 Apr 2007 05:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


That was not a debated name change - as no name change proposal was ever properly placed and debated. Docu - if you think that the name is supposed to be French, you need to input a proper proposal for the change on the proposed name change page, along with a template for this page, and then allow the debate to occur - provided that you have proper references as to why your proposal would be valid.
You should be aware of the following:
  • THIS OFFICIAL WEBSITE is from Gruyère, translated to English, and uses "Lake of Gruyère"
  • this page uses "lake"
  • THIS Swiss tourism site uses "lake"
  • this is another swiss website translated to English as "lake"
  • this is yet another swiss website translated to "lake"
  • this is yet another swiss website translated to "lake"
  • a quick search of Google Scholar shows 373 hits for "lake" (looking for "lac de la" in scholar brings up many french sites - not english)
this is compelling evidence that the name is "Lake" when properly translated into English. Rarelibra (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the change from Lac de la Gruyère to Lake of Gruyère was not debated, this is why it was reversed. I appreciate that you are providing references for the suggested page title. -- User:Docu
The selection of links you provided do show quite consistently that "lac" means "lake" and some even use it for in the context of a "lake of Gruyère" for a lake which happens to the same. However, we should discuss how to name the article about "Lac de la Gruyère" in the canton of Fribourg.
This may be important, as one of the links is for another unrelated lake and one of the sources uses the word "lake", but doesn't in fact name the lake "Lake of Gruyère".
I'm sure you can find a few links on flickr to provide links similar to interfacelift above, but these aren't suitable references either. As for google scholar, I think "quick search" accurately describes how you used it, but doesn't provide additional help.
The coordinates on the article (46°39′N, 7°06′E) provide links to various maps. I went through the various Global Maps provided for the location and they consistently use "Lac de la Gruyère". If you look up the lake in the "Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names", you will find "Lac de la Gruyère". -- User:Docu

Docu - you cannot use global maps as a reference (like Google or MapPoint) because they tend to keep the names in native tongues. This is English wikipedia - as you see the article for Lake Michigan changed into "Lac Michigan" in French wiki or "Michigansee" in German wiki, the same occurs when bringing an article over into English wiki. The name is "Lake" in English, and the usage is proven above. Rarelibra (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Lake Michigan argument misses the point, "Lac de la Gruyère" being named de:Lac de la Gruyère in the German language wikipedia.
The Google Scholar result you provided just shows that Google Scholar wasn't used correctly.
BTW, if you like to rename the article, it might be clearer if you state that "The name is 'Lake of Gruyère' in English", rather than "The name is 'Lake' in English", because the lake article has never been named 'Lac'. -- User:Docu

The regional tourist office ("Gruyère Tourist Board")] generally uses "Lac de la Gruyère" as well. -- User:Docu

Name convention

The name is not "Lac" - it is "Lake" in English. No matter what, the name is translated into English usage for English wiki. Rarelibra (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra, lake is the name for an article about lakes (in French that would be "lac", e.g. fr:Lac). "Lac de la Gruyère" is the name of the lake, it is called that way even in other languages. Those all have words for "lake", but do use the place name. -- User:Docu

WP:ANI#User:Docu

User Docu, no matter what you attempt, this is ENGLISH wikipedia. We do not use foreign names like "Lac" if an acceptable and proper name exists in translation (such as Lake). If you continue this madness, we can verify with ANI. Rarelibra (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you understood what administrators mean with "it appears you've been doing cut and paste moves, which violates the GFDL". -- User:Docu
I hope you understand this isn't a proposal. The name in English is Lake, not Lac. Rarelibra (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I thought we had a guideline for this somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment. The closest I can find is one example quoted at WP:NCON, about an analogous issue with the name of a mountain range. Rarelibra is right, generic name constituents like "mount", "lake" etc. usually get translated into English.

Rarelibra, as a suitably severe punishment for cut-and-paste moving pages, you are hereby sentenced to one hour penal servitude: you will have to assist me in a map design job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Applicable guideline is, I think, WP:UE. Neıl ☎ 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Messy and exceptionally confused debate closed. It wasn't worth it. Article stays where it is, for now. Parties are advised to not be WP:LAME and to make better efforts at understanding what the other side is saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support/oppose Lac de la Gruyère → Lake of Gruyère (or support/oppose NOT MOVING BACK Lake of Gruyère → Lac de la Gruyère)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose [move from "Lac de la Gruyère" to "Lake of Gruyère"], see above. -- User:Docu
    text in brackets added on 27 February for clarity. -- User:Docu
  • Strong support to keep as Lake of Gruyère Rarelibra (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a side note - you are greatly confusing this whole article and discussion with "proposal to revert" and "proposal to move". You should simply have a proposal to move from "Lake" to "Lac" and that's it... aside from the fact that you are ignoring the evidence presented. Rarelibra (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - ArthurRubin merely fixed the broken history after a copy and paste attempt - I am not sure that indicates he endorses either title. Per WP:UE, the article should sit at the current location, Lake of Gruyère. Neıl ☎ 18:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I do not have a strong opinion about which name is correct; I basically agree with Docu that names of places should not be translated, except if there is a name commonly used in English (Mantes-la-Jolie is not Mantes-the-beautiful). I don't think the Swiss references cited above carry much weight here — these are likely to be written by French/German speakers who translated their website in English. The first two serious references that come to my mind are a tourist guide and a world atlas (both written in English, obviously). The paper copy of the Lonely Planet guide on Switzerland talks about "Lac de la Gruyère", untranslated (note that they use Lake Geneva, and not the French "Lac Léman", since the translated name is commonly used in English — so we are not in the case mentioned by Rarelibra above where the mapmakers "tend to keep the names in native tongues"). The map of the CIA World Factbook does not mention this lake; however, they write Lac de Neuchâtel for another one, indicating that there is no systematic translation of the names (again, "Lake Geneva" is used, so they still translate some names). These examples are what makes me lean towards the French name, but I could change my mind given (more) solid references. My 2 cents... Full disclosure: like for Sandstein below, Docu asked on my talk page for my opinion on the topic, although I had already noticed the discussion. Schutz (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How can you say that the Swiss references are just "... speakers who translated their website". If they translated with the usage Docu suggests, they would not have translated the name usage to "Lake". Even this website shows the usage in English. Rarelibra (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean that I see no reason why French/German speaking people who write a tourism web site would be experts on the common use of translations of local names in other languages, and that it may well be that when they translated their website into English, they translated the names of local features literaly, without wondering if the name exists and is commonly used in English. Therefore, I think that their choice of translation carries much less weight than the choices made by an English-speaking editor of tourist guides or of a world atlas. Schutz (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is some more evidence. Google Scholar search, in English, presents 373 hits for "Lake of Gruyère". Google Scholar search for "Lac de la Gruyère" in English gives us the following statement:
  • There were no results in your selected language(s). Showing worldwide web results for Lac de la Gruyère.
In other words, NO USAGE in English for the French version. Rarelibra (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide us with clickable links to Google Scholar? Otherwise, I can't explain you why the results are wrong. -- User:Docu
In other words, you are unable to go to Google Scholar and search yourself? If you search in English for "Lac de la Gruyère" it doesn't have any hits. Rarelibra (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
With Google Scholar, I get the following results:
In summary, this doesn't help us much (note that Lake of "Gruyere cheese" gives 88 results). -- User:Docu
Yes, I have already read the Google Scholar count in the discussion above. As you have probably noticed, I was more concerned about the quality and the origin of the sources rather than their sheer number — although I would not pretend that this is the only way to go, I still think it is an interesting point that deserves a comment. More generally, looking at the discussions on your talk page, I am not sure if this discussion should really happen on the individual talk pages of the lake/lac/see articles, or if it should be conducted at a more central place. Anyway, you seem to have a very strong opinion on this point, while I don't, and I do not want to spend too much time on this issue (also, comments such as "you can continue your madness" on your talk page seem a tad exagerated to me, and do also encourage me to stay outside of this discussion). All the best, Schutz (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support leaving the article at Lake of Gruyère. The name of the feature is "Gruyère" and it is a lake; hence "Lake of Gruyère"—in full accordance with WP:UE.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that "Lake of Gruyère" is a translation. It should be included in the article's text as such. -- User:Docu
  • Support but there may be a better solution; natural English syntax here would be Lake Gruyere, like Lake Geneva, Lake Constance, Lake Como. Google Scholar turns up two hits for this, one with the accent grave, one without; let's use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's still just one or two "hits", not a series of texts that could establish usage. For Lake Geneva or Lake Neuchâtel, this is fairly clear: e.g. "Lake Neuchâtel" is being used regularly, thus I started the article myself at that title. For this lake, maps just use "Lac de la Gruyère". -- User:Docu
      • On the contrary; there is a pattern of English usage throughout the Alps; what would be required (and is missing) is a reason to suppose that this lake differs from the others (except in getting less attention, because it is both small and recent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • In general, there may be English names, but this doesn't mean that there always are nor that they are the most commonly used. -- User:Docu
  • Comment, one may think that "Etang de la Gruyere" is another option. It gives quite a lot of hits in English language texts on Google Scholar.
However, as one of the links provided for "Lake of Gruyère" by Rarelibra before, it's about another lake.
To avoid any confusion, this would oppose moving it from the title "Lac de la Gruyère" as it can be found on all maps. -- User:Docu
You can't be serious. That link shows 14 hits for "Etang" while "Lake" gives over 300 hits (and "Lac" gives 0 hits). Rarelibra (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You should search for either "Lake of Gruyere" (with quotation marks) or for Lake-of-Gruyere (with hyphens). Otherwise, everything that contains the words "lake" and "Gruyere" will show up (I think google usually ignores words like "of", "the", etc.). Yaan (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for Lake of Gruyère. Wikipedia policy is to use an English title whenever possible in preference to a foreign one and, as stated above, the current English title is by no means a wikipediasm. For the same reason I am opposed to Lack Gruyere since this evidently a neologism. ChrisDHDR 09:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for Lake of Gruyère. I agree with ChrisDHDR above. Rarelibra may have been incorrect to do the attempt at the blanket changes, but I feel that in this particular case there is sufficient guideline and evidence displayed for the English usage. Rarelibra has asked for Docu to present evidence for the French usage, but I don't see anything presented here. Vargwilku (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Any specific samples you have in mind that favor the move to "Lake of Gruyere"? -- User:Docu


  • Oppose move, prefer Lac de la Gruyère. The most specific guidelines I can find are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which states that we use an English name where it widely exists, and if not we go with the local name (General guidelines, #1). I'm getting 1040 Google hits for "Lake of Gruyere" versus about 800 for "Lac de la Gruyere" (lang=en, -wikipedia). I don't personally consider either one to be "widely used" with such few hits, so went looking to the quality of the links instead. This is probably the best I could find thaat favored the translated version. By contrast, I found another encyclopedia which favors the local name. MSN/Encarta has a "Map of Lac de la Gruyère (lake), Switzerland", and on the very same map they've translated "Lake Geneva" to English. So they seem to be following the same basic style guideline as us -- translate where a well known English verson exists, but defer to the local name where an English translation is not well known. I tend to favor following other encyclopedias where possible since they know more than we do (they're paid experts, we're volunteers), hence my vote. Callmederek (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • The various links provided by Rarelibra are inconclusive (see the detailed discussion). "Lac de la Gruyère" being a place name, we can't simply replace "Lac" with "Lake". -- User:Docu
  • Very weak argument by Docu versus all of the evidence above showing the usage in English (including a website from Gruyère). Rarelibra (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been asked by Docu to comment here, but I do not understand what the problem is, or what new name is being proposed by whom, and on what grounds. Sandstein (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Sandstein - User Docu is on a crusade to have this article name in French. He refuses to accept that the page was moved last year in April (even when it is in the page history and has been pointed out to him on his talk page). He reverted without explanation and contrary to the evidence that was presented by User:SomeHuman. I moved the page and had administrators lock the page from movement due to the supporting evidence of the English name usage. User Docu is continually persisting in attempts to move the page and refusing to accept that the name is in the proper English usage. He tried to reintroduce a 'move request' that was never introduced and he has been told by administrators that this is the proper article name, in English. Yet he persists. Rarelibra (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, check this diff to see why this page is illegible. I rephrased the question. It seems consistent with the responses given. -- User:Docu
Thanks, I get it now. I have blocked Rarelibra for 24 hours for his disruption of various pages in the course of this dispute. Sandstein (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Note on request from WP:RM

    • User Docu reverted a move back in April last year when User:SomeHuman provided the explanation of usage in English to justify. User Docu reverted without merit or proof, and fails to provide proof of the usage of the French form in English. On the talk page, you will see proof of over 300 hits on Google Scholar for the English usage, and NO hits for the French form in English usage. Also, several official Swiss websites translate the name into "Lake" in English. If Docu was correct, they would leave the French form in translation. Instead, User Docu has continually pursued to change the name back after evidence has been presented to prove the English usage... and User Docu consistently denies the proof I have provided. Rarelibra (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is further discussion from WT:RM which I have now placed in comment tags below, per a reply on my talk page that it made the discussion confusing. Either way, please note that (a) there is a listing on RM that should not be taken down at this time; (b) there should be a move request tag on this page until the request is closed - likely 5 days from now; (c) this is the correct location for further discussion. Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

It has been more than the standard 5-day period for this action. From what I can see, there is more support for the name to be "Lake" than "Lac". So we should bring this to a close and leave it as the English name. Rarelibra (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There doesn't appear to be that much support for the recently forced move to the new title "Lake of Gruyère". In the absence of a consensus in favoring the move to "Lake of Gruyère", thus the previous one should be restored. -- User:Docu
There is more support for keeping the title as "Lake". Rarelibra (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Many of summary support "votes" of Rarelibra's invitees are based on the (wrong) premise "use an English title whenever possible".
  • Concerns raised with Rarelibra's Google Scholar search were not addressed and requests for explanations dismissed (Rarelibra: "you are unable to go to Google Scholar and search yourself?"). Search on Google scholar just gave one hit for each title. Google books gives just about as much. -- User:Docu
Failure to see the proof provided is not a problem with the explanation, rather, only with Docu. Rarelibra (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The frequent confusion with Etang de la Gruyère wasn't addressed either. -- User:Docu
    No satisfactory explanation as to why the "use an English title whenever possible" premise is "wrong" was given.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    We now spell that body of water Etang de la Gruère, as do its sources. If this is not sufficient dabbing, having one in English and the other in French can only help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    The problem is that some of the "evidence" provided by rarelibra for "Lake of Gruyère" is about Etang de la Gruère. Maybe "Lake of Gruyère" should be a disambiguation page pointing to Lac de la Gruyère and Etang de la Gruère, this way everyone gets a "page". Anyways, Etang de la Gruyère is a spelling that is or at least was used for "Etang de la Gruère". -- User:Docu
    Docu - this is quite untrue. The evidence provided is for the LAKE, not the Etang. The way this page exists is correct. The English page is "Lake" and the "Lac de la" page is redirected here. Rarelibra (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • High concern with reasons why Docu constantly ignores or fails to provide proof of claim for French usage in English. Rarelibra (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Complete version of the short summary by myself:
  • There doesn't appear to be that much support for the recently forced move to the new title "Lake of Gruyère". In the absence of a consensus in favoring the move to "Lake of Gruyère", thus the previous one should be restored.
  • Many of summary support "votes" of Rarelibra's invitees are based on the (wrong) premise "use an English title whenever possible".
  • Concerns raised with Rarelibra's Google Scholar search were not addressed and requests for explanations dismissed (Rarelibra: "you are unable to go to Google Scholar and search yourself?"). Search on Google scholar just gave one hit for each title. Google books gives just about as much. -- User:Docu
  • The frequent confusion with Etang de la Gruyère wasn't addressed either.
See above for point to point replies by Rarelibra. -- User:Docu

Docu, you do nothing more than confuse. The move was made based on solid evidence of usage. You have failed to provide any evidence showing usage of French in English. The summary support votes are votes from users - therefore providing a forum of popular usage. Are you attempting to merely discount all the votes in support? User Docu also discounts the Google Scholar count given above (in disbelief, maybe?). PMAnderson pointed out the article about Etang versus Lake (they are two separate entities - it even states in the Etang article not to confuse it with the Lake). Rarelibra (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra, with Google Scholar we found one result of "Lac de la Gruyère" in English and another one of "Lake of Gruyère". This is hardly enough to justify the move to the later.
As there is a consensus that "lac" means "lake", we can indeed add a literal translation to the article's text while keeping that article at its geographic name ("Lac de la Gruyère"). There wasn't much doubt about this though. -- User:Docu
Docu, you are incorrect. Over 300+ hits for "Lake of Gruyère" were found on Google Scholar (373 to be precise). There were NO hits in English for "Lac de la Gruyère" (however, there were hits in other languages for "Lac de la Gruyère"). This is quite solid proof. Rarelibra (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yaan explained above how you can do the request correctly (if you don't want to click on the links I supplied). As for "Trends in Research in Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera", it's clearly in English, "solid proof" as you would say. I should stop now, I exceeded my talk page/article ratio. -- User:Docu

So you fail to see the links I provided? Interesting. Rarelibra (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.