Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Scope

I made some alterations to the text, which in effect put emphasis on a wider scope than Russia/Poland/Germany. I am aware of the fact that I didn't propose the change here first, but I remain in the hope that all or most of it will be seen as uncontroversial. /Tuomas 08:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] By situations

  • Poland (restored after "partitioning"): 1790s to WWI (mostly) Polish towns had alternate names given by the occupying states of Germany, Austria and Russia
  • Borders changed in aftermath of WWII: Districts that are now in states that they weren't in for much of modern history (eg: Szczecin, Gdansk)
  • Independance from USSR (any places that USSR changed town names that were restored after 1990?)
  • anther area/type of situation, etc

[edit] By modern states

Did I miss any other hot spots? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:58, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I'm weak on areas east of central Poland, does this list include things like St. Petersburg? Bwood 04:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I may remind that ther are two kinds of articles: main (about the city itself) and others, that is, in which city name is mentioned. Main article is e.g. Gdansk (Danzig), while other may be Stephen Bathory when Gdansk/Danzig is mentioned briefly. The compromise won't be exaclty the same for both kinds of articles.

References in other articles are a separate issue, but one that we can consider while we're all gathered. Bwood 04:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, it's very important (IMHO) that a link (as a comment, so seen in editing) to compromise should be included, preferably shortly explaining it, which - I hope - should save us some 20% revert wars ;-) ) Szopen 09:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agree, some kind of clue that prevents newcomers from editing the standard out of ignorance is definately a good idea. Bwood 04:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Factors to consider for the standard

[edit] Intro paragraph

[edit] 1: Is there a need to mention alternate names?

Yes, the amount of time in recent history justifies at least a mention of the official name used by the previous state. Bwood 04:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:20, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Why are we referring only to official names? What does this even mean in the context of the early modern period, for instance? john k 00:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good point. However, is setting a strict time criterion a good idea here? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:23, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
I think the significance of the name, and the prevalence of use of that name in English language literature, should be the key factors, rather than timescale. john k 02:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Stop right there, the significance of a name is a matter of personal views. We need to set some strict rules, otherwise the revert wars will not end - ever. Take note that the main argument of all who support adding names is that these names are important. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:50, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Halibutt, rules will be unworkable unless we try to use non-subjective criteria. Significance and prevelence should be discussed here and we should try to encompass those issues with the use of non-subjective, if possible. Bwood 02:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, surely if we can find English-language historical works that refer to the city by certain names, that would seem like the best way to determine if that name should be mentioned. john k 04:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1.5: Should names be rendered in their native alphabet(s) or transliterated?

Sorry to come in late with more issues. I've done a lot of editing of Ukrainian place names, which have changed names historically, and have been rendered in more than one alphabet. I'm guessing are probably ex-Soviet places that have had official names in Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, Mongolian, or Chinese scripts.

The consensus appears to be to use the Cyrillic name and Latin transliteration for each language, but there's no clearly chosen format. Some examples: Lviv, Polesie, Western Bug, Crimea, Khmel'nyts'kyi.

For Russian, Wikipedia has its own system for transliteration of Russian into English. Ukrainian place names are transliterated into English using the official Ukrainian National system (see Romanization of Ukrainian). Many places additionally have one or more conventional English names which don't follow a currently-used system.

—Michael Z. 00:11, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

[edit] 2: If so, then how many?

As many as fit the rule(s) (below, #3), but I can't think of any cities that would have more than one additional alternate name that was official but still recent enough to deserve a prominant mention. Bwood 05:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Think East: Wilno-Vilna-Vilnius (60 years), Lwów-Lvov-Lviv (60 years), Stanisławów-Stanislav-Ivano-Frankivsk, and so on. Since the German contributors suggest it should be last 100 years then a German and Latin names for the latter two should be added too (Polish, German and Latin were three official languages of Galicia). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:26, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, you're going to have to explain this further for me, I'm not familiar with the histories of these places. Could you break down the dates and situation for each name (for one place anyway)? Bwood 16:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No problem:
  • Wilno (in Poland 1918-1939 or 1945), then Vilna or Vilno (in USSR 1945-1991) and then Vilnius (1991-now in Lithuania)
  • Lwów/Lemberg/Leopolis (in Gallicia until 1918), then Lwów (1918-1939/1945) then Lvov (USSR until 1991), then Lviv or L'viv (since 1991)
  • Stanisławów (until 1939/1945 in Poland), then renamed to Stanislav after 1945, then renamed to Ivano-Frankovsk in 1962, then in 1991 renamed to Ivano-Frankivsk.
All these names were both recent (last 60 years) and official. This is the case with most of the Polish-Soviet borderline, as well as many other areas that changed hands after WWI and WWII. Another example would be Katowice (German Kattowitz until 1918, then Polish Katowice until 1953 - let alone the name changes during WWII -, then changed to Stalinogród, and then changed back to Katowice). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

One might note St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad/St. Petersburg, or Tsaritsyn/Stalingrad/Volgograd, as well. I'm sure there are other instances of this. john k 00:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 3: If so, then which ones?

It depends on the length of time and how recent. A duration of 20 years, over 50 years ago, for example, would not be enough to qualify, IMO. Bwood 04:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strict rule needs to be set. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:20, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
The rule you propose excludes most of formerly Polish cities in the East - the inter-war period for Poland lasted only 20 years. All of those cities belonged to Poland prior to the Partitions, but that was quite a long time ago. Does this mean that Poznan is to be called Poznan from 1945 onwards since the Polish period prior to 1795 was too long ago and the inter-war period was too short? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:36, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
I should think that any name which was used officially deserves to be mentioned, at least. Or at least, any name used officially during eras when "official name" is a concept that holds any meaning, which I would say is probably from around the mid-18th century or so, depending on the place (before that, and for even longer in some places, Latin was used as an official language of record-keeping, and I don't think we really need to provide the Latin name for every city, unless it's particularly significant). BTW, Are we speaking only of cities whose names have changed due to border changes, BTW? For instance, St. Petersburg was known as Petrograd only briefly (10 years or so), but during an extraordinarily significant time period, and not to mention that name would be a bad idea. john k 01:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think most would agree that all alternate names need to be mentioned in the article, but what determines which need to get a mention in the intro paragraph? I would say that border changes are only one scenario (refer to the Scope section). My personal feeling is that when you go much earlier than the mid 1800s, you start to lose the need for a prominant mention, unless the world significance was strong in earlier times. Bwood 02:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that ancient Roman names generally ought to be mentioned only in the history section - Lugdunum, Lutetia, Londinium, Eburacum, Colonia Agrippina, Augusta Treverorum, and so forth. For the most part. In general, I'd say the late 18th/early 19th century is as good a time as any - by this point you're starting to get a more standardized feel to such things, as opposed to earlier times when cities can be known by many different names. But there are almost certainly exceptions. john k 04:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John's proposal seems acceptable to me. In the case of Poland that would mean that all cities belonging to Poland on May 3, 1791 would have their Polish names listed since (as far as I remember) it was the May Constitution that introduced Polish language as the only official language of Poland and abolished the existence of separate political entities inside of the state (such as the Lithuania, Ukraine and the the Crown). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:04, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Also, it's probably the first thing we agreed upon: no Latin names in the header. Good going! [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, unfortunately a problem arose: Gzornenplatz is starting revert wars over most of Polish cities. His argument is that the German names have changed and that the current German name of, for instance Wrocław is Wrocław and not Breslau. While this is not a huge problem, his statements are not supported by anything - neither by German wikipedia, nor by the German wikipedians. He also declared that he will continue to wage revert wars. That's why I decided to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names in order to let the Wikipedians discuss his proposals. I think it would be a better move than playing his game. Please participate. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:06, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you lie so shamelessly? My statement is supported conclusively by specific Google search results. No one has yet explained what's wrong with that methodology or suggested a better one. Gzornenplatz 21:11, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Noone, except for:
Let us continue this discussion here, ok? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:54, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
This is getting pathological. I challenge you to PASTE the explicit explanations as to what is wrong with my methodology or suggestions for a better one by you, Sicherlich, Bwood, and/or Radomil HERE. Gzornenplatz 22:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
I replied HERE. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:12, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 4: Is there ever an "English" name for these places, or did English speakers pick one version over another?

I have yet to see a version that is really an "English" version, we just use the one that is official at the time, or was recently so, since we have a hard time keeping up with things outside our own nation... Bwood 04:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Correction, there are some, I suppose, like "Munich" and "Cologne", but those examples don't apply to the cities of this topic. Bwood 07:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was always taught that there are three cities in Poland that have their generic, English names (as opposed to names importet from other languages). These are Cracow, Posna and Warsaw. Apparently the name Posna is currently out of use so we are left with two. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]
Cracow and Warsaw were in the Russian "partition", right? Did the Russians have an "official" name that was different than the Polish names? Again, sorry for my ignorance, what are the Polish names? (I'd recognize them, but don't know them.) Bwood 16:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
At your service, sire: Warsaw is Warszawa, the Russian official name being the exact transcryption Varshava. Posna/Poznan/Posen in Polish is Poznań and had an official German name of Posen. Finally Cracow is called Kraków in Polish and was in the Austrian partition (from 1846 onwards), but I doubt the German name Krakau was really used since the Polish language was never banned in Austria and less than 20 years after incorporation of Kraków the Austria-Hungary was formed, which granted Gallicia a vast authonomy. On the other hand a law is a law and theoretically Polish, German and Latin were all national languages of Galicia so the city of Kraków had three official names until 1918.
So, all in all those three cities were in three different Partitions and the period of usage of their official names varies. The thing is even more complicated than that since both in the Russian and Prussian partitions there were periods when the Polish areas had vast authonomy and the official names stayed the same, but there were also periods when the Polish language was banned from public life and the official names were changed to those of the occupying countries. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:44, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

There are certainly English names on occasion. For instance, the name "Vilna" for Vilnius does not really seem to constitute one of the names used by the official authorities for the place - the Russians used "Vilno"...in other instances, the French name was once commonly used in English, as for Regensburg-Ratisbon or Mainz-Mayence. I'm sure that as one looks closely, one finds instances of specifically English names here and there. I would further object, though, to the idea that just because the name used in English is one of the official names of the city at a particular time, that this does not make it a particular English usage. Often the "lag time" that BWood suggests between when the official name is changed and when the English name is changed is quite long - even centuries long. One would also note that in a place like Austria-Hungary, it's hard to determine what the hell is going on. The cities of Dalmatia, for instance, were known in English, at least, by Italian names until well into the twentieth century, even though they had not actually been ruled by Italians since the fall of the Republic of Venice in 1797! john k


I would argue that the "English" name isn't really a factor in the case of the "mention of alternate names in the intro paragraph". It might be in deciding the title of the article, or in what name to use throughout the article, but the whole "alternate name" issue precludes any "English"-ness considerations, *if* one accepts the "official"-ness concept as the major reason for intruding on the sanctity of the critical intro paragraph. All information in the intro paragraph needs to justify it's existance. *Recent*, *official* status is what most of us agree is the justification. Now if there is a truly unique "English" version, that isn't the current official name, nor was not a recent official name, then perhaps it deserves a place in the intro paragraph as well, based on only on that qualification. Bwood 03:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This seems fair. john k 04:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 5: What to do if there is more than one English name

This seems like a minor issue, but I guess it needs to be clarified too: what should we do if there's more than one English name? For instance in the case of Poznań there are historical English language sources referring to the city with its Polish name, German name and... as Posna, which seems to be an ancient English name. It is not used now, but should it be mentioned in the opening paragraph or not? Also, if yes then how? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:53, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 6: How should the standard wording be formatted?

Too early to tackle this point... Bwood 04:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 7: Should there be a relevency test for former names?

[edit] 8: Should a link to other alternate names be in intro paragraph?

[edit] 9: Where should the pronounciation key be placed?

Some time ago I added pronounciation keys (in .ogg files) to most of Polish cities. I used two systems: the link to the .ogg file is placed either under the bolded name of the town ('''[[Media:Koszalin.ogg|Koszalin]]''' for instance) or as the first piece of info in the following brackets, under the IPA key ('''Rzeszów''' (pronounce: [[Media:Rzeszow.ogg|[:ʒεʃuv]]]). That's how other encyclopaedia (both digital like Encarta and paper) do it.

However, Nohat suggested that the pronounciation is not that important and it should be placed at the end of the opening paragraph, as a separate entry. For me correct pronounciation seems much more important than the alternative names and that's apparently what other encyclopedias think as well, but perhaps we should addopt some other policy? What do you think would be the best place and format? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:27, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that pronounciation guides (sound files and even phonetic representations*) should be provided when available. I think they should be in the first line. I'd like to have them for any name isn't obvious to the average English speaker. *(By phonetic, I mean the kind that's like this: "FOHN et ic", not the esoteric linguists code, which the average person doesn't understand.) Bwood 04:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In technical terms: you're against IPA and support SAMPA. I like the earlier more, but that's perhaps due to the fact that most encyclopaedias, dictionaries and other such publications use it, and that I simply know it thanks to my studies. However, apparently not every country has IPA as a part of high school education, and that's the advantage of SAMPA. It has lots of drawbacks, but it's probably more easily readable for an average reader (or at least an average reader could think that he got that strange thing right, because it's not that easy either, the system is the same, only the signs are different). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:15, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
SAMPA is just an ASCII transcription of IPA. It's easier to type and doesn't require special fonts, but no easier to understand. I think it's fine for authors to type in SAMPA when it's convenient, but nice to convert it to IPA when possible. When the English-language Wikipedia switches to UTF encoding, the technical burden of entering IPA will be somewhat reduced. —Michael Z. 23:36, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
You correctly identified IPA, but the system that I feel most of us idiot Americans can use isn't SAMPA, not even sure it has a name, it's more "common usage" than anything else. And any word that is keyed using it may have dozens of possible spellings, depending on the author. For example, I might key "author" as "AW thore". Someone else, might do it as "AH thor". However, that method is probably too problematic, and we probably shouldn't fill up the first line with four or more types of pronunciation keys (2 sound file links, 2 text keys), so we should probably just do one sound file and link to others (if they exist) down in the article, or put them all downstream and have a single link to them all. If there is only one, it could be by itself in the first line. I wonder if .ogg is playable on most browsers, isn't that a Linux format? They don't play on either my Netscape nor my IE browser and they are fairly recent versions of both. I seem to remember trying unsuccessfully to download and install files to play .ogg files before for some entirely different purpose. Bwood 08:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, I figured that Windows Media Player 2 will play .ogg files, but I had to manually configure both browsers to use MP2 to play them. The average user wouldn't have a clue. Bwood 09:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Some sort of pig latin, you mean? Haven't thought of that... Nyah, that is a bad idea. Firstly, one would have to rely totally on the English language pronunciation instead of local pronunciation. I bet most of the English speakers already know how would they pronounce the name in question, the only thing they don't know is how the locals pronounce it. And you can't put down Polish, German or any other names using the English phonetical system. All results would be really distant from the original. Some sounds simply cannot be represented in English and making them look like ordinary English would only cause confusion. Just imagine: you see the name Wąbrzeźno put down as [vohnBZHEZHnoh] - and you'll most probably read it as something like this. I suppose it'd be better to stay with IPA. If there is a .ogg file - there's no problem for the "non-linguist". And if there's none - it's still much better when only 20% of people read the name correctly instead of 80% of people reading it wrongly. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:30, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

To help all those who have problems with both IPA and ogg pronounciation keys, i started using the Image:Ltspkr.png picture and the following intro bracket: Szczecin (pronounce: Image:Ltspkr.png ['ʃʧεtɕin], German Stettin). Hope that helps. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 01:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rest of article

[edit] 1: Should only one name be used throughout the article about a city or should it depend on historical period, and if so what would be the criteria?

Using different names for the same thing in one article, does not provide any added value. As long as a portion of the article explains those differences in the naming across the ages, there is no need to change the name used for the subject of the story. Are Polish Lwowians really turning in their graves when you talk about XVII century and call the city L'viv? Doubt it. Using different names leads to inconsistencies and endless argument about criteria, by which the name should be determined. Space Cadet 01:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what dead Polish people from Lwow or dead German people from Danzig are going to think if we call the city by its modern name. My feeling is that cities should be called in Wikipedia by the name which would normally be used in English to describe them in this period. Gdansk is always called Danzig when discussing it during the period of the Free City, for instance. It just looks odd to call it "Gdansk" at this time period. john k 02:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Always" except for Britannica, right? It's just an overkill, as if we used the Shakespearian English to describe XVI century, to, sort of, "give the climate of the era". Quantum mechanics also looks odd, but we're here to educate and share knowledge, using consistency and logic, not sentimentality, or stereotypes people know and love. Space Cadet 02:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yup, that's exactly the good'ol Battle of Volgograd example. Although the article on the battle itself would have to be placed under the normal name, the city article history section would mention a battle in Volgograd if we decided to name the city consistently. That's not a good idea. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:28, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Volgograd was RENAMED, so it falls under completely different category, since (if I remember my Polish history correctly) Danzig, Stettin, Allenstein and even Habelschwerdt were never RENAMED, but always (or at least almost always) had Polish and German names. Isn't it ironic that I'm explaining this to you? Rübezahl 02:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was but an example, there are zillions of other names that follow this scheme eventhough there was no official renaming decree. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:04, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Volgograd and the battle, but common sense tells me that an article should have consistancy in voice and other factors. However, in a running description of the history of a town, if the name change is clearly explained at the beginning of each section, then that name could be used *in that section*. This will be where the greatest contention will be. Some will insist on using only the current name (as used in the article title). I can go either way, but when you consider an extreme such as Gdansk, where over 75% of the historical section would seem inappropriate to use the Polish name, I lean towards using the name that was official at the time being described. Outside of a timeline-based description, for example in referring briefly to a previous time when an alternate name was official, I would stick with the current name. Bwood 03:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this seems like a fair way to go about it. That way we aren't referring to it by multiple names in the non-history parts of the article, where it can be confusing, but we're also using the name it is most commonly referred to by for that historical period in the historical section. john k 04:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

that being said, the question of what the "official name" at any given time is has proved troublesome. For instance, Gdansk, from 1454 to 1793 was a largely self-governing autonomous city-state populated mostly by Germans, which was a part of the Polish Commonwealth. As our buddy PolishPoliticians has pointed out, the official language of administration at this time was Latin. So what's the official name of the city in the 18th century? "Danzig" would be the name which was used by most of the inhabitants. But it was not the name used by the Polish government of which it was a part (a similar situation might be seen with "Lemberg", which was called that by its Austrian rulers, even though its Polish inhabitants called it Lwow.) So, when you get down to the nitty gritty, things become more difficult. john k 04:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the case of Gdansk is a bit extreme, though it shows several important things. If we go after "official names", that is the names used by the government of the country, then the name of the city is Gdansk throughout most of its history (this is explained several times in the Talk:Gdansk, no need to repeat here). However, if we go after "common sense" names (for instance the names used by the majority of the population), then we lose a measurable criterion. In the case of Gdansk this would mean that Gdansk should be called Danzig from 1308 to 1949 or 1950, without any exceptions.
The case of Lwow is a tad different since the Polish name never ceased to be official there. For some short period after the partitions the Polish language was withdrawn from public offices, but unlike in other two partitions it was never banned. So there were three official names in use since the partitions until the end of WWI - Polish, Latin and German.
Perhaps the best solution would be to use one name throughout the article and add a separate ==City Name== section at the top of each article which would have a standarised (perhaps even a template) info that the town changed its names several times and that some texts might use other names. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:04, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that! Space Cadet 13:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, somehow I missed these responses. In the interest of restarting debate, I'd note that the idea that Gdansk/Danzig had an official name in the 18th century and earlier is highly dubious. Poles in Cracow and Warsaw called it "Gdansk," its own inhabitants (including, presumably, those who ran its autonomous municipal government) called it "Danzig," and probably most official documents used its Latin name. As to Lviv, indeed, the name Lwow was never banned. But the name "Lemberg" was also in official use. Clearly, between 1772 and 1918, both names should be considered the official name, and the German name was more commonly used in English (the 1911 Britannica, for instance, has its article at "Lemberg")...the situation of Gdansk in the 18th century and Lviv in the 19th still seems essentially similar to me. At any rate, I don't see why usage of "Danzig" between 1308 and some point shortly after 1945 would be inappropriate. This is what it is usually called in English, and this is what its own inhabitants (basically) called it... john k 21:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


But how could that be turned into a common and consistent rule? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:40, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

A fair question, which I wasn't really trying to answer in the previous post. I've suggested before that we should use the name that is typically used in English. In practical terms, this would mean that numerous Central European cities would be known by German (or sometimes Italian, &c.) names up to 1918 or 1945. Of course, at times it becomes difficult to say what the standard English usage is, so this becomes problematic - there does seem to be an increasing tendency to use Slavic names when discussing earlier time periods. But, as I've noted, the "official" name can be equally problematic. A not extraordinary amount of research should be able to determine which name standard English works use, though. But I really don't think the problem here is so much practical. All of the potential solutions present practical problems in application, or else obvious disadvantages which make their use inadvisable. This often happens on Wikipedia, but in most instances we seem able to devise a solution that everyone involved finds acceptable. It seems to me that the real problems arise out of different issues - not only what are obviously deep-seated resentment against former German and German-language hegemony in central Europe (as well as, perhaps, native English speakers' insensitivity to this issue), which is, I suppose, difficult to argue out, but also some basic disagreements as to what exactly this naming policy is supposed to accomplish. I think, to make progress, it might be a good idea to go back to the latter issue. What are we trying to do with these policies? What is their purpose? john k 01:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good question indeed. In my opinion this naming policy is sort of a war to end all wars. Ideally, we should be able to find a consistent naming policy for all names in Europe (or at least the part of Europe that uses the latin alphabet). I doubt we could find a solution that would suit all of fellow Wikipedians, but that's how this world works. In my honest opinion this policy is to:
  • State a strict rule as to what the names of the cities are
  • state a strict rule as to what names should be included in the header (or a separate Names section)
  • state a strict rule on how to refer to the city throughout the article
So far all of these issues were handled on a cas by case basis which left a lot of troubles for everyone, especially that it is easily visible that there is a certain unequality when dealing with different names. The most elaborate compromise we managed to work out so far is with Gdansk/Danzig. I didn't like it personally, but it was a decent compromise - and at least it was somehow consistent (only the time periods were somehow blurry). However, it was but a work-around to end one of the conflicts and there are zillions of other similar issues. I also noted a growing resentment among some of the fellow Wikipedians who believe that Gdansk should be called Danzig throughout its history, but at the same Vilna should be called Vilnius and Lviv should be called Lviv only. That doesn't seem fair to me. Anyway, when all of the above points are stated as a rule and accepted by Wikipedians, we could easily avoid several of the most common revert wars:
  • "The city was/was not called XXXXX back then"
  • "The city is not called XXXX anymore"
  • "The name YYYY is/ is not important enough to be in the header"
  • Battle of Volgograd complex
  • Warschau complex
  • "But the city of XXXXX uses different policy" complex

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:28, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

No offence intended, but please try to give up this idea about "fairness". History hasn't been fair. Neither to Poles, nor to Finns, nor more recently to Russians, and overall not at all to ordinary people. Greater powers aren't fair. Never. English is a language that is dominated by two powers of significant importance. Hence English is severely tainted by the highly unfair perspective of the power elites in these empirical constructs. There is not much to do about that, and trying to use Wikipedia to educate away this basic unfairness is a Sisyphos task I wouldn't ask my worst enemy to take up.

More to the point: Wikipedia as a social community is not fair. Wikipedia has plenty of fancy rules, but in reality, sher force and élan is much more appreciated than fairness. I can't help but to believe that Wikipedia's function stimulate combative people to become more aggressive (that's including myself) and scaring those who believe in rules and policies away to other leisure pursuits. (For a more detailed account of my most recent experiences, see the edit history and talk page for Anti-American sentiment.)

So, what to do? In my opinion, it's most pragmatic to do our best to find a policy wording that as closely as possible follows what can be expected to become the probable outcome in most cases. Therefore established English usage is much more important than any kind of "fairness", and for the rest, it's only to realize that there for instance are more Russian immigrants to the US than there are Finnish, which is why I think it would be a waste of energy to try to argue against their wish to call the town where my grandmother was born, and where Finns and Finnics had lived for thousands of years Vyborg instead of the Finnish Viipuri, the German Wiburg or the Swedish Viborg. In their opinion, Vyborg surely is the dominant form in the English they know. In historical contexts, strong arguments would exist for the German and Swedish forms being dominantly used in English texts, but Wikipedians as most other people aren't interested in facts that contradicts their beliefs.

My sincerest advice to you who are much engaged in this issue is to try to forget the towns you feel strongly for yourself, and analyze the problem for towns you know little or nothing about. That's the way I think you may arrive at a policy that has chances for getting accepted by the most wikipedians.

/Tuomas 07:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suo whuat's yuour point? Space Cadet 15:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  1. Forget the concept of fairness
  2. be pragmatic if avoiding edit-wars is your goal
  3. forget the hopes that any "wikipedia community" will step in and enforce wikipedia policies
  4. work out a policy for cities you are not emotionally involved with
  5. apply this policy also on the cities you are emotionally attached to

/Tuomas 16:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tuomas,

  1. No way
  2. we all try to, that's what we are here for
  3. I saw that happen a zillion of times. Just take a look at defence of "what was agreed on at the talk page".
  4. Again, that's why we listed all possible hot spots instead of treating them separately
  5. see above

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:18, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt, I agree with your basic premise - that we should devise a common policy that will allow us to say without difficulty how we should deal with those issues whenever they arise. I think it's clear that this is attractive to just about everyone, to an extent. The question then becomes "What should the criteria be?" I think this is where we hit problems...Personally, I am in basic agreement with Tuomas's main point, which, as I take it, is to forget historical rights and wrongs and oppressions and just follow conventional English usage, however unfair/imperialistic/whatever it may be. On the other hand, I think Tuomas is wrong to say that a "wikipedia community" will not step in to enforce a policy if one is devised. If we can all iron out a policy, and then put it into a policy page, I think it would be relatively easy to maintain it, so long as it is not so obviously ridiculous that a large percentage of wikipedians who were not involved in coming up with the standard decide to protest it. The whole problem at the moment is that there is no policy to enforce. Also, I'm going to move this page to the Wikipedia name space. john k 20:41, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also agree that the articles should be placed under their current English names (eventhough at times this criterion is somehow blurry). The problem arises when we come to details. Anyway, let's get back to the topic. Also, should we invite some more people who might be interested in the discussion? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:06, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

We should definitely invite more people to participate. Kpalion might be a good person to ask. Also Przepla, David Gerard...hmm...at any rate, people who've been involved at discussions of this issue at various individual city pages. john k 18:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is so hard here? We use the current English name as title and then list any local-language and former names, except where that list would get too long in which case a separate paragraph may be used to explain all alternative names. The main problem here seems to be that some people have a problem acknowledging that some names are former names, e.g. pre-1945 German names of Polish cities: no one would ever refer to present-day Piła by its old name "Schneidemühl", or to Bystrzyca Klodzka as "Habelschwerdt" - those are nothing but historical names. Those cities were effectively renamed in 1945, even if there was no particular decree and even if the Polish names were not new and have been used in Polish before - now they became official, while the German names not only are no longer official but are no longer used by anyone, since there are no relevant numbers of Germans living there anymore, and people in Germany use the Polish names today. Gzornenplatz 15:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

No, you didn't get the point. It's perfectly ok to say that a city was once known under other names. However, saying that Piła (formerly Shneidemuehl) is only half of the truth since it apparently could be replaced by Piła (formerly Piła). The problem I have is with wording, not with general idea. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:28, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't get it. Just what sense would Piła (formerly Piła) make? Gzornenplatz 10:16, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz, while I generally agree with you - especially with cities like those you are referring to, there remains the question of historical reference - how we should refer to these cities during the time when they were known by another name. This seems to be the more contentious issue. john k 16:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We should generally use the name the city had at the time in question, unless there is a specific reason to make an exception. Gzornenplatz 17:09, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

I believe that some of the questions have been answered by the community already and can be concluded. Correct me of I'm wrong, but the present state of our discussion is as follows:

question answer remarks
Intro Is there a need to mention alternate names? yes
How many? As many as fit the rules
Which ones? official language names since late 18th/early 19th century
English names? list if historical, name the article that way if current
More than one English name? still undecided see above
Standard formatting still undecided perhaps still too early to tackle this point
Relevancy test?  ?  ?
Link to other names? still undecided
Pronunciation IPA and ogg key still undecided
Rest Should only one name be used still undecided

Am I right? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:20, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think the question of how the city should be named in the history section of its own article, and how it should be named in other articles that mention it at a particular time should be distinguished as separate issues, as several people have in the past suggested that they would be comfortable with using the old name in the latter case, but not in the former. I'd also suggest that names other than "official language from late 18th/early 19th century" names should be mentioned somewhere in the article, just not first thing. For instance, the name "Londinium" is mentioned in the intro paragraph of London. The name "Eboracum" is mentioned early in the history section of York, and the same is done with "Lugdunum" in the Lyon article. Roman names (as opposed to Latin names for cities never ruled by Rome, which should not be mentioned) ought to be mentioned somewhere, but probably the history section is sufficient. john k 00:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about creating a separate ==Names== section just under the header with all those not-so-important names, just like in the Gdańsk article? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 01:09, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I am in agreement with everything in the table above, although I would argue that there are no (except possibly two) "English names" for any current Polish cities. English speakers just choose one of the available official names, based on their background and the audience. The major unresolved issue in the top part of the table is the formatting. I believe that most reasonable contributors fall into the two camps: whether or not to prefix earlier official names with the word "former" or not. Those who object to the use of "former" seems to do so as they feel it implies that the name is no longer used or valid. I, however, argue that that is only one way to read the text and is not necessarily how the average reader would read it, and that it imparts more useful, correct information than not having it. It just means that at one time it was an official name. It doesn't have to mean anything else, unless one forces it to in their mind. If there are too many, however, who can't see past that, I suggest an entirely new compromise, which is to precede the former official names with the text "former official names: ", but I'd rather not add that much verbage and baggage. We also need to decide exactly what styles to use (bold? italics? If italics, which part?) Bwood 03:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the issue of usage within the article when discussing the history, I advocate that the official name at the time being discussed is used, but only when it has been clearly and prominently introduced that the official name changed at its particular date. I think of this as similar to when a person has a sex change operation. If I were to write a biography of that person, I would use their birth name until the part in the discussion where the operation occurred, and then use the other name from then on. If that person had a change of heart and reversed the operation (as far as possible, or at least made it known that they changed their preference of which sex they wished to be considered), then I'd use the original name from that point. And please don't try to tear down this analogy on the basis of who is choosing the names. Bwood 03:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that pronounciation guides (sound files and even phonetic representations*) should be provided when available. I think they should be in the first line. I'd like to have them for any name isn't obvious to the average English speaker. *(By phonetic, I mean the kind that's like this: "FOHN et ic", not the esoteric linguists code, which the average person doesn't understand.) Bwood 04:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I advocate including the link to other names? (where "%" is replaced with the correct anchor letter), if (and only if) there is an entry in that article. Bwood 04:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to note, we're not only discussing Polish cities, but European cities whose names have changed, more broadly. As to "formerly," I would agree with you that this is the most natural way to do it. I also agree with your general idea about using different names at different times. Certainly it should be used only when it is clear why we are using a different name. One could see the same thing with British peers, who frequently can be known by as many as three or four different things over the course of their careers. (the 1st Duke of Leeds, for instance, was "Thomas Osborne," then "Lord Latimer," then "Lord Danby," then "Lord Carmarthen," then the "Duke of Leeds") I have no particular issue either way with pronunciation guides. john k 15:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, gang, we need to make some progress here. Perhaps, we should take a suggested wording and argue the pros and cons, but this has been done ad nauseum in so many of the articles and I'm frankly getting to the point where I wonder if this is a lost cause. Let's look at this example: "Poznań (in Polish pronounced: ; ['pɔznaɲ]; full official name:The Capital City of Poznań, Latin: Posnania, German: Posen) is a city in west-central Poland " This is too much info for the article intro. This one is probably too sparse: "Chodzież (German Chodziesen, after 1879 Kolmar in Posen) is a town in north-western Poland " I think most would agree with "Chodzież (former official German name: "Chodziesen"; 1879 to 1919, "Kolmar in Posen") is a town in north-western Poland". Please record either a vote for this wording, or make an alternate suggestion and state your case. Bwood 16:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As Halibut urges, the Gdansk article is close to what I'd consider good, in that there is a separate Names paragraph below the intro to discuss the matter in more detail. I would argue that the Gdansk article intro should have the Latin name removed from the intro (it's dealt with below and has been out of use too long, few readers will have encountered Latin names, but many will have encountered the German one), and possibly even break the pronounciation material out and make it its own paragraph, just below the intro paragraph. Bwood 16:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's great to see how this discussion has progressed almost amicably -- amazingly without my meddlesome comments! However, let me just make one point or suggestion: Wouldn't it make sense to refer the city by the name by which its inhabitants, or a majority of them, referred to it at the time being discussed – EXCEPT in the case of cities for which a standard (often non-native, either current-native or former-native) English equivalent has long been used by native English speakers?

Thus, Moscow would remain Moscow in all references, and would not be referred to as Moskva; Warsaw would stay Warsaw in all references, not Warszawa; ditto for Cracow not Krakow, Munich not München, etc. But Gdansk, to cite an oh-so-shopworn example, would be referred to intially, as Gdansk -- with a (brief!) explanatory sentence somewhere reasonably high in the entry about its ethnic history and previous name -- and would be referred to as Danzig when discussing the period in which it was inhabited primarily by ethnic Germans who themselves referred to it as Danzig (or Dantzig, etc.).

The difficulty of course would be agreeing on just when the city in question, and others such as Wroclaw/Breslau, became predominantly German. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the principle enunciated above is one that would serve historical veracity.

Just one more tiny little point: I still think that "(formerly Danzig)" and "(formerly Breslau)" are simply helpful notes to the reader, who may be aware that a city bearing such a name existed for quite some time. For example, as explained elsewhere, many Anglo readers will be aware that Hitler started WWII in part over (or ostensibly over) "Danzig," ie. used it as a pretext for aggression. But to most Anglo readers, "Gdansk" will not have the same connotation, and instead will be associated most probably with Lech Walesa, Solidarity, etc.

I don't see how this approach casts aspersions on any nationality or embodies value judgments about the various wrenching events that occurred.

I apologize for weighing in at this late date.

Sca 20:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which would make half of Central European articles a complete mess. Just take note the border shifts in last 200 years. Also, a large part of smaller towns in the area had the biggest national group being Jews, regardless of the state. In many cases they constituted even more than 50%, while in many others they were the largest group with ca. 30%. So, should we name those cities in their language? And if so then which one? Hebrew or Yiddish? Or perhaps Polish or German or Russian, as these were the most-commonly spoken languages of Jews in Poland? And if Yiddish, then which name to chose since in most cases the towns have several Yiddish names instead of one...
Anyway, it's a pity this project died. But apparently people are less interested in solving issues than in fighting. Halibutt July 2, 2005 13:46 (UTC)