Talk:Meißen/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Meißen/Meissen 2 Meissen/Meißen 3 wikipedia should only use exonyms as a last resort 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion 5 Name as it appears in English-language encyclopedias 6 A procedural question 7 English names 8 American locations in German articles

Meißen/Meissen

ß is not an Umlaut, strictly speaking --Yak 07:14, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest to replace it with ss if some people cannot read the Umlaut. NetguruDD

"Meißen, (or 'Meissen' according to the now-standard conversion of the German letter 'ß')" There is no such standard conversion. Writing 'ss' for 'ß' is an alternative, where 'ß' is not avaiable, so writing both versions in this article is actually a good idea, but the reason is bogus. It's true, that some things in German ortography regarding to the 'ß' have changed. 1.) In Switzerland you can use 'ss' instead of 'ß' since many years, but Meißen is not in Switzerland. 2.) According to the actual spelling rules 'ß' has been replaced by 'ss' after _short_ vowels. 2.a) This is not the case here, because 'ei' isn't spelled short. 2.b) The rules actually don't take effect on names at all. In addition to the use of "Meissen" as an reading/writing-help to those who don't know the 'ß' it is used in capital letters (MEISSEN) and smallcaps, because there is no uppercase 'ß'. Some local companies also use the spelling "Meissen" (especially and most known: the porcelain manufactory), but it's a part of their company name and not the city's official spelling.

As this is the English, not the German, Wikipedia, the spelling should be "Meissen". Mark O'Sullivan 11:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about that. We spell most foreign words with foreign letters, if that's the original spelling, e.g.: Düsseldorf, Bogotá, Rømø. It makes it easier if one doesn't have to remember two spellings, and with Unicode and that little "insert" box under the edit box in Wikipedia it's really no trouble. --Chl 13:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, myself I don't spell Rome "Roma", or Munich "München", or Dublin "Baile Átha Clíath", or Cairo "al-Qahira" in Arabic script, or Beijing in Chinese characters. If people don't know how to pronounce "ß", it helps them (even if they're not reading out loud) to use the conventional English form. Mark O'Sullivan 17:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here Here. This lunacy must stop. My 1st language is English. I'm trying to learn German so I'm sympathetic to German spelling. But this is an ENGLISH encyclopedia. There is no "ß" in English. I am not offended by the fact that German-speakers call my country "Australien". I'm guessing that Irishmen are not upset that the same people call their country (in German) "Irland". Why do they insist I call Cologne, Koln? (And the capital of China is Peking, whatever the Chinese want to call it in Chinese). This issue will be the death of Wikipedia. Avalon 00:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the above, which is policy. Septentrionalis 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As do I. And this is coming from someone who has extensive German ancestry and a great love for Germany. Charles 04:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The relevant portions of "Use English" are as follows:

1. "Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems such as syllabaries or Chinese characters."

   "ß" is part of the Latin alphabet, it is not from another alphabet or writing system.

2. "If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form."

   This does not apply as Meißen has no "anglicized form" corresponding to Vienna.

3. "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration"

   This applies because Meißen has no commonly used English name. German is a Latin-alphabet language like Spanish or French, so no transliteration is needed.

For these reasons, Meißen rather than Meissen should be the name of this article. I would point out, however, that the naming conventions are guidelines, not policy, so neither the "pro-Meißen camp" nor the "pro-Meissen camp" can claim to have policy on their side. User:Angr 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has for almost all its history been at Meißen. This is in line with the general practice on Wikipedia. If anybody believes that there is a reason to deviate from that practice here then please take that up on WP:RM. Stefán Ingi 06:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Meissen/Meißen

I am going to comment on the statement that this article has been at Meißen for a while... Regardless of that, Meißen is not the "English form" of the name. Meissen is used in English to descrive the porcelain, the city, the margraves, etc. I noticed that an editor went as far as to change the ss in links to ß... When those articles exist at locations using ss. The city may be German, but the language of this Wikipedia is English. Before anyone gets me wrong, I am an ethnic German, but I believe that English forms ought to be used on English Wikipedia and there are conventions to back that up. Charles 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't like Wien/Vienna. Meißen doesn't have an English name. Where there is no English name, the original name is used, and the original name is Meißen. The name of the porcelain company is Meissen Porcelain, and that article is correctly at Meissen porcelain. But the article on the city has to be at Meißen, because "Meissen" isn't the English name of the city, it's just a misspelling. User:Angr 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a misspelling, it's a substitution made when ß is not available. However, it also happens to be the form that is used in English, therefore it is the English name and not merely a misspelling. I haven't a clue why Meissen Porcelain would be used in English if Meissen were a misspelling. It is obvious that the English form of the name Meißen was used for the name of the company because, well, it's the form of the name used in English! The Encyclopædia Brittanica also uses Meissen. Charles 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think an encyclopedia that can't even spell encyclopedia correctly should be taken as a standard. Anyway, ß is available, and there is no reason not to spell the name of the city correctly. The Meissen Porcelain company has chosen to spell their name with ss, even in German, but that's irrelevant to the city. The name of the city is Meißen, and it has no English name. User:Angr 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't even spell encyclopedia right? Well, get cracking on removing the traditional spelling from Wikipedia's article on encyclopedias/encyclopaedias/encyclopædias. For a proponent of including ß, you're awfully harsh on æ. The name of Meissen is spelled correctly in English as such. Charles 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My own preference is to follow the lead of outside major English-language sources. The couple of places that I spot-checked [1] and Britannica Online [2] clearly use the form "Meissen", as does MSN's Encarta [3] and Columbia Encyclopedia [4]. Which English-language sources are you seeing that use the diacritic? --Elonka 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My own preference is to have articles on cities that actually exist. There is a city named Meißen. There should be an article on it. There is no city named Meissen. What other encyclopedias choose to do is irrelevant. User:Angr 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Michelin (green) guide to Germany which sits at home in my bookshelf uses ß as apropriate. It is the main reference I have for locations in Germany. I am fairly sure that it mentions the city of Meißen, but I am away so I cannot check.

Also, I have said several times now that those who want to move the page to Meissen should suggest it at WP:RM which is the forum for moves which there is disagreement about. Somebody suggested I was not following my own advise on this but I believe I am: If I want to move a page from a name which has been used for almost all of its history and somebody objects and moves it back I will take my suggestion up at WP:RM and try and gather a consensus for it. I will certainly not try and force my move through by warring over it or by making useless edits to the redirects to shut non-admins out of the picture. On the other hand, I am not interested in being walked over by the rudeness of others, if that became accepted behaviour, the quality of Wikipedia would deteriorate very rapidly, and here I am certainly not just referring to what is the preferred location of pages. Stefán Ingi 10:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a formal WP:RM is probably useful, to ensure that there is consensus for the article's title. The constant move wars were inappropriate. Let's leave the article in one location, and debate it in a civil fashion, rather than yanking it this way and that. --Elonka 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will maintain that the current location (Meissen) complies to common English usage and that a requested move does not decide common English usage, regardless of the outcome of the vote. Charles 04:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The question whether to use Meißen or Meissen as a title on the article on this city is not settled by the five pillars of Wikipedia, it is something that editors can and do disagreee on. WP:RM is the process that we do have to settle such cases and since there is disagreement over the move from Meißen to Meissen it should have been taken up there. Making pointless edits to the redirect to hinder that process is simply rude. Stefán Ingi 20:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be at Meißen, not at Meissen, as there's no need to substitute an incorrect rendition of the name for the correct one, which utilises "ß". —Nightstallion (?) 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly be true for German, however English uses -ss- for the name of this city. Charles 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, putting "Meissen" instead of "Meißen" here is tantamount to using "haengen" instead of "hängen" in an English-German dictionary. It's sheer nonsense not to use the correct glyphs, especially as they're part of the standard Latin character set. —Nightstallion (?) 08:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's also parallel to spelling Kiel "Quil" or something in the Spanish Wikipedia (which they don't do!) just because "k" isn't used in Spanish. User:Angr 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

English isn't Spanish, nor is English German. When there is a variant to the German spelling that is also more common in English, it is used. Charles 13:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia practice is not for the form of a name to be debated by Wikipedia editors, which is effectively Original Research, and forbidden by policy. See WP:NOR. Instead, Wikipedia should follow the lead of "most common usage" in major English-language works. Every English-language encyclopedia that I have checked, uses the form of "Meissen". If anyone cares to argue that a different form is "most commonly-used" in English, I encourage them to supply references so that others can examine them and verify the usage. --Elonka 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a variant to Meißen. It has one spelling: Meißen. Meissen is a misspelling. The fact that other English-language encyclopedias choose to insult their readers' intelligence by using this misspelling doesn't mean Wikipedia is bound to do the same. User:Angr 17:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually yes, it does. See WP:NAME: "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and WP:UE: "Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems", and "If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form." The most commonly-used version in English is Meissen, therefore that is what the Wikipedia article should be called, though the alternate spelling should still definitely be included within the first paragraph of the article. --Elonka 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, it doesn't. The quote from WP:NAME you gave is irrelevant since the majority of English speakers won't easily recognize this name under either spelling. The first quote from WP:UE you gave is irrelevant since ß is a letter of the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabet or writing system, and the second quote you gave is also irrelevant because "Meissen" isn't "the most common English spelling", because Meißen doesn't have an English name. The only relevant portion of WP:UE is "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example." There is no commonly used English name for Meißen, and German is a Latin-alphabet language. Therefore, we don't "transliterate" it to Meissen. As I said above, there is no city called "Meissen" anywhere in the world; there is only a city called Meißen. We shouldn't have article on fictitious cities masquerading as articles on real cities. User:Angr 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Meissen is not incorrect, it is merely an alternate spelling for Meißen in German but it is also the preferred and most used form for English. I wonder, do ß-ophiles exist? Since Meissen is used most often for the German name Meißen, Meissen is de facto the English name. That cannot be denied. Charles 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't an "alternate spelling". It's a misspelling. "Meissen" is no more the name of Meißen than "Brelin" is the name of Berlin. User:Angr 05:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You have provided nothing to indicated it is a misspelling. All yuo aer diong si bolwing hto ari. :-) Charles 15:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What sort of evidence do you need? Look at de:Meißen. Notice how there is no mention of a "variant spelling" "Meissen". Look in any German-language encyclopedia or atlas of your choosing. "Meissen" isn't a "variant spelling" because it is unused. And to show it's used outside of German as well, look at the corresponding articles in other languages that don't use the letter ß: eo:Meißen, es:Meißen, fr:Meißen, nl:Meißen (stad), pt:Meißen, sv:Meißen. Why should English Wikipedia be the only Wikimedia project that insults its users' intelligence by assuming they're too dim-witted to understand the article ß? User:Angr 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In German, ß is used when it is available. There is no need in German to omit it when it is available. The other languages also do not speak for English. Furthermore, those other languages are continental European languages that have alphabets containing diacritics. I would assume that the use of diacritics in neighbouring countries is familiar to them. Show me what is used in ENGLISH. I think it's safe to say that people coming to English Wikipedia to look at English information don't care about Estonian, Spanish, French, Dutch, Portuguese or Swedish information. You are the only person insulting anyone's intelligence by extending dim-wittedness to users. The native spelling is clearly indicated in the article. Charles 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Several things: Dutch does not use diacritics for writing Dutch words. Diacritics are generally not unfamiliar to English users, café anyone? People who come to this article are likely to be interested in Germany and would appreciate the best information, if they are unfamiliar with ß then the template at the top will provide them with valuable information. The name of the city, Meißen, is used in English texts, e.g. my guidebook (see above, I have now checked). The use of ß is sometimes avoided in texts, but there is no reason to do that here because of the nice template at the top. Finally, this long argument shows that people on both sides believe they are doing the best thing for Wikipedia, in such a case WP:RM should have been used before the move was made and the pointless edits to the redirect are an insult to non-admin users. Stefán Ingi 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

English borrows certain letters with diacritics, chiefly diacritics present in Romance languages. Meißen is given in the article at the top as the German spelling. Guidebooks are not the be all and end all of spelling. I will take note from existing encyclopedias over a guidebook for English usage of a city name any day. One editor's opinion that it is a misspelling and that the EB is wrong and another's opinion that a guidebook is absolutely correct don't dictate English usage. To allow such would be insulting to the intelligence of our users. Pretty weak arguments in my opinion. Charles 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that there is nothing peculiar about seeing diacritics in an English text, we don't have to reject Meißen on that ground. No text is the "be all and end all" of anything, editors have different opinions and priorities. I have very little hope that I can convince you that this article will be better off with the title Meißen, we will simply have to disagree on that. I would however like you to acknowledge that there are many editors here who feel that Meißen is a more suitable title and that these editors have arguments to support their opinion, you are of course free to classify these arguments as "pretty weak" but that is your personal opinion, you shouldn't expect everyone to agree. Elonka, who made the pointless edit to the redirect which locked non-admins out, stated above that there should be a discussion at WP:RM. In order to set that discussion up, the pointless edits should be deleted, then I can move the page back and you can set up the vote if you want. Stefán Ingi 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am not discounting the use of diacritics on the grounds that they may be peculiar or not... I am discounting the use of Meißen in English when Meissen is far more used. The location of Meissen at various other Wikipedias doesn't dictate where it is in English. What I was trying to get at is that maybe ß is more widely recognized in those languages. I do not want to hide the fact that it is Meißen in German and rarely in English, but I am also totally against moving it back to Meißen because English usage does not reflect that spelling. If it did, then it would be fine at that location. Yes, I do insert my personal opinions, but I am also trying to draw attention to what is overlooked everytime I come to this page: Encyclopedias and most other English works make use of the established spelling for the city in English, which is Meissen. Angr's suggestion that it is "wrong" is completely and utterly absurd. It's as wrong as spelling sulphur as sulfur. Meissen is simply more used in English. I would be in your camp if it were the other way around. If you want it moved back to Meißen, then set up a request move for that: I have been in votes where the consensus is ignored for the sake of what is actually common usage. In this case, Meissen. Charles 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia should only use exonyms as a last resort

As a non-germanic American born citizen I think it's disgusting that the real name of this town is not being used, and in it's place an exonym is used. I think it clearly illustrates American ethnocentricity as well as underscoring my personal belief that wikipedia is devolving into pure ochlocracy. When allowed Latin/German characters can be found in wikipedia. For example Führer or Federweißer, take special care to note the "ß" in that last one, it isn't an "ss." I respectfully ask that the artcle be renamed. Naufana:^Talk 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Name as it appears in English-language encyclopedias

This section is to collect information on how this name is spelled in major English-language sources. If anyone has access to additional encyclopedias, please feel free to add to this list. --Elonka 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Meissen - Britannica Online [5]
• Meissen - MSN's Encarta [6]
• Meissen - Columbia Encyclopedia [7]
• Meissen - 1979 (hardcopy) Encyclopedia Britannica

A procedural question

If the outcome of this vote should be inconclusive, then that would mean there is no consensus in either direction. Would that not mean that the article should be moved back to Meißen (where it had been for ever) from "Meissen" [sic], since no consensus was mustered for that move? --Stemonitis 06:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This move proposal is contrary to policy. Unless there is consensus to override WP:UE: If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form, it should not be done. Septentrionalis 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The move proposal here is an attempt to build a consensus, and so is by no means against policy; the previous move, one without consensus, might have been (I neither know nor particularly care). The distinction between "English spelling", "anglicised name" and so on are difficult in this case, and must not be over-simplified. Other -ss- proponents have argued elsewhere that this is not a spelling issue, merely a typographical one, and since Wikipedia is not paper, our typographic conventions need not match those used in other encyclopædias. It is all less simple than it might seem at first glance. --Stemonitis 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

English names

The condition that there is no English name is meant for places so obscure that there is no clear record of English usage on the subject, like Villanders (or Villandro) in the South Tyrol. To say otherwise is to suggest the absurdity that the French have a name for London (see fr:Londres) and the Germans do not (see de:London). Septentrionalis 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

American locations in German articles

Let's see how the German language wikipedia titles some of their american articles: (just to let you know I picked these 4 places at random and they are the only locations I looked up)

1. Florida
2. Atlantic City (New Jersey)
3. JFK Airport
4. North Dakota

The German articles spell these pages in the exact same way as the english ones, and we should do the same with our German locations.

Note: It's true though that the USA article is spelt "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika" but our germany article is titled "Germany" not "Deutschland."

Naufana : ^talk 03:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The way that the articles should be titled in any version of the Wikipedia, is by the most common way that that culture refers to that particular subject. Would you also have the article in the English Wikipedia on the city of Tokyo, titled as 東京? It would be completely against Wikipedia policy to use a different spelling on a Wikipedia article, than is the common usage in nearly every other English-language reference work about the same subject. Wikipedia follows the lead of outside sources. It doesn't go counter to them. Every longterm Wikipedia editor knows that one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is WP:V, and that information should not be placed in a Wikipedia article unless it has already appeared in an outside source. Following that same policy, a Wikipedia article title should reflect the most common usage in those outside sources. It doesn't matter what the native spelling of a city's name is, it matters what most common usage in English sources is. Take a look at the article on Pope John Paul II, and you'll see that it's not titled after his birth name, nor what he was called in Poland, nor in Italy -- his article uses the title by which he is most commonly referred to in English-language sources. Ditto with "Bill Clinton" instead of his full name of "William Jefferson Clinton." If the New York Times and Time magazine and the Encyclopedia Britannica start using the form "Meißen", then the Wikipedia article title can be changed to match. But as long as they use "Meissen," we have to use Meissen. It's standard Wikipedia policy. --Elonka 03:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not use the most common but the most correct information. Verifiability is not about

Why is it that the strawman chinese character argument is always repeated? Have I ever suggested that Tokyo be renamed 東京? Or have I ever advocated the use of non-Latin characters? My point is that the German articles spell their english articles in correct english. Meissen is not an anglicized term, it is nothing more than a misspelling, an error. Vienna is an anglicized term and that article deserves to remain as is, as do many others. On the other hand, if the "Bill Clinton" article on the German language wiki was spelt "Bil Clintn" would you not expect the German language users to demand it be spelt correctly? This is all I'm asking for, proper spelling. Naufana : ^talk 06:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your examples of how American place names are represented in German Wikipedia might carry more weight if you could also demonstrate that the names used characters not present in German orthography or if there were other German language sources that used other spellings. As it is, the examples have no relevance whatsoever to the present discussion. You claim that Meiseen is nothing more than a misspelling is incorrect. It may be a misspelling in German. However, ß is not an English character. There are authoritative English language sources that use the ss spelling. To claim that Meiseen is a misspelling is attempting to apply German spelling standards to English. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar discuisson about the use of the letter ð (which is not used in German) in Seyðisfjörður. The original spelling was kept. -- 3247 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that the Esszett isn't an English character is meaningless. WP:UE clearly says, "Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems...." It does not say English alphabet. The Esszett is a Latin character, therefore it has every right to be in the title of an article. WP:UE also states that, "There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð." This is exactly what we are discussing and it is my opinion that the Esszett should be used in Meißen, as it was when the article was originally created. If I am not wrong (which I may be) but when there is a spelling dispute then the first non-stub article title is to be used , that means it should be Meißen, not Meissen. Naufana : ^talk 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question about Bill Clinton. If, in Germany, every major German-language newspaper referred to Clinton as "Bil Clintn", and German-language books referred to him as "Bil Clintn", then yes, the German-language Wikipedia should absolutely title his article in the same way, as "Bil Clintn". It's not about correct native spelling, it's about "most common usage." See WP:NAME. --Elonka 01:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well in WP:NAME I found this, "In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist." And was there ever a WP:RM vote for the Meißen to the Meissen? Ultimately though, if your hypothetical Clinton situation were true I would really hope that some german would have to say, "What a moment, Bil Clintn is wrong!" On another note, I'm beginning to fear that this discussion is devolving into a blind dance, if you follow my metaphor. Naufana : ^talk 04:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear: I understand the point of view of the "native spelling" camp. In your opinion, most articles on Wikipedia should be titled with the version of the name that is the correct spelling of that subject, in its native language. This is a valid way that things could have been done. However, as Wikipedia was forming, a decision needed to be made on whether to title articles with "native spelling," or to instead use "exonym" spelling which reflected most common usage. This was debated extensively, and the community consensus was (and is) to use the "most common usage in English" exonym method rather than the native spelling method. There are plenty of examples on Wikipedia which show the result of these extensive consensus-building debates, such as for Bill Clinton or Julius Caesar. For other examples, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Elonka 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that Munich is preferred over München and Cologne is preferred over Köln -- these are different English names, not just spelling variants.

However, it is not so clear if the "English" name just drops the diacritics or replaces uncommon latin characters with others. Is Dusseldorf an English exonym or just a ersatz spelling used by those who can't type ü? What about Weissenburg vs. Weißenburg?

In my opinion, if in doubt, the spelling closer to the original one should be used. -- 3247 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See, again, Wikipedia:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Umlaut_and_ß. There is considerable deliberate avoidance of ß in English by publishers perfectly capable of using it; the umlaut is much more acceptable. In this case, there is no doubt; the English name of Meissen is Meissen. Septentrionalis 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)