Talk:Hranice

German name variants

German name variants for places in this page are valuable to the purpose of this page. Per WP:DAB, "The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct a reader seeking information on a topic to the right page." While it is understandable that for example the Polish variants of these Czech place-names would be inappropriate, the German variants (due to their both historical and contemporary use within and outside of Germany) will aid a reader in accessing their desired page, rather than the page for a different town with the same name. Therefore, the inclusion of the German name-variants of these towns is appropriate per WP:DAB. Snspigs (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to substantiate the claim that the German variants have use outside of Germany and would thus aid readers in accessing their desired page: there is a disambiguation page for the name Rossbach and Weisskirchen, both of which link to (among a number of German towns) their respective Hranices. Snspigs (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense for these pages because the historical name matches the disamb. page name. But it's pointless here because the Hranice page deals with the name Hranice. If someone knowns the name Rossbach but does not know it is Hranice (Cheb District), he gets there via the Rossbach disamb. page, not via Hranice. The reader is directed to the right page thanks to the location description and the German name is not in accordance with WP:DAB. FromCzech (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not pointless on this page because despite the page deals with the name Hranice, the German name variants would be useful to someone who knows both the Czech version and German version of the name, but not its administrative district, a situation which would be just as likely (if not more) than them knowing the Czech version and district. Moreover, since the town is located in Czechia, people who know both versions would be more likely to search for the Czech version, rather than the more specific German version. For a reader to find the right page, they require a disambiguation page which allows them to distinguish their desired town from towns with the same name. The towns are distinguished by different alternate names, and their alternate names in most cases will be more likely to be known by the reader than their administrative district. What section of WP:DAB is this rationale not in accordance with? Snspigs (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You come up with very unlikely scenarios. And even if that scenario occurs, the user has to open at most three pages to find the right one. Common practice is to add only location information or nothing at all, disambiguation pages should be as brief as possible. See Jacksonville (disambiguation) as an example given in MOS. Look at Rossbach, where there are four municipalities in Germany, but no other information is given other than the location. This is how it should look. Check out all the other disambiguation pages. If you don't believe me, move the discussion to WP:DAB to hear it from someone else. FromCzech (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scenarios I provided are just as likely (if not more) as yours are in your first reply. Common practice is to add the name and location information, and the German variants are commonly-used. It's not as if this is adding a whole new category of information, and does not detract from brevity, adding only 3 words at worst. For towns listed in Jacksonville (disambiguation), there is no alternate version of the name. Same goes for the other towns named Rossbach. Surely, if we want something properly analogous, we should look to cities with multiple names. The first I thought of was the disamb. pages for Kolkata/Calcutta and Mumbai/Bombay, both of which have the alternate name after the most common version. In examples that are actually comparable, listing a common alternate name seems standard. I still am unsure of what section of WP:DAB addresses this issue, aside from how I outlined in my original paragraph. Snspigs (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the German names are not used since 1945 (only remained in German as exonyms), I consider the claim "German variants are commonly-used" to be highly exaggerated. Historical names actually are a new category of information, and information is not what geodis is for. I asked for a third party opinion on WT:DAB. FromCzech (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clarify, though a third party opinion certainly is a good idea, that this is not a matter of the German name being a historical name (though it is), but rather as an alternate name which is still used, though not as much as the most common form. I understand that disamb. pages are not for information, but rather are for the reader to find their desired article. Since there are alternate versions of these placenames, which are as well known (and thus helpful to the reader in finding their desired page) as the regions these towns are located in, it seems justifiable to include alternate versions of the name - not a new category of information - in the disamb page. There are plenty of disamb. pages which list alternate name spellings, for example: Sebastopol, Luhansk, and Marrakesh. Casablanca even includes an etymology - which actually does seem inappropriate there. Snspigs (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABSHORT tells us to keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. We don't usually include other-language names. However, I can see how they could be useful to a reader who knows that the Hranice they seek is also called Roßbach but not that it is in Cheb District or the Karlovy Vary Region. It seems borderline: I'd lean towards inclusion, but I tend to write longer dab entries than most. One pedantic point: per MOS:DABONE, we shouldn't be linking German, even via {{lang-de}}. Certes (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"And also we should add the number of inhabitants, as it may be useful to readers who know the size of the town but not the location." Sorry for the sarcasm, because otherwise I'm happy for your contribution to the discussion, but I wanted to demonstrate that while adding additional information may be useful to uniquely identify a place, that's not what disamb page should contain. After all, you also admit that objectively it shouldn't be there, even if your subjective view is a little different. When the common practice is not to put these informations there, I see no reason why this particular case should be any different, especially when it contains only three places and the potential delay for the user is minimal. FromCzech (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not comparable. The number of inhabitants is a whole new category of information. The rationale for including alternate name info applies to that because it is within a category of information already given, rather than a whole new category. You also say that the "common practice" is to not include the proposed information, yet as I have linked above, the disamb. pages for Kolkata, Mumbai, Sebastopol, Luhansk, and Marrakesh, all include alternate names – because it is not a whole new category of information. An additional note, pages where one city is well-known to be larger than others, that city is placed at the top of the page, so in a way, the size of the settlement is alluded to in the disamb. page. Not that it makes any difference. Snspigs (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse the alternate name with the historical name. In none of your examples I found an exonym not related to the name of the given page. MOS:DABSHORT is followed everywhere. Only names that appear in modern English are listed. So it's not the same case as Hranice. An additional note, the largest city is at the top of the page if it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is not the case here. But that's not related to this topic anyway. FromCzech (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the exonym is related to the endonym has no bearing on this at all. I could say that the geographic location is also not related to the name of the page. Also, while the German variants are 'historic', they are still alternatives, as much so as Bombay and Calcutta are both 'historic' versions and alternatives to Mumbai and Kolkata, respectively. This is why it wouldn't make any sense to have a disambiguation page for 'New York' specifying that one was called 'New Amsterdam'. That name is not used anymore, at all, whereas 'Weißkirchen':'Hranice' use ratio is higher than even 'Bombay':'Mumbai' use ratio. Snspigs (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta and Bombay were the official names until 2001, respectively 1995, and are still found in modern sources (I read in some MOS that the last 25 years are considered modern). Mährisch Weißkirchen, Julienhain and Roßbach were used until 1945, they do not appear in modern sources (unless they relate the period up to 1945, of course) and they are not alternatives anymore. It can be assumed that Calcutta and Bombay will disappear in a few decades and become only historical names. I would really like to know where you get the information that Mährisch Weißkirchen is commonly used in English. FromCzech (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google trends, https://imgur.com/gallery/bxUet4u. I include the graphs for Calcutta and Bombay as well to substantiate my 'Weißkirchen':'Hranice' to 'Bombay':'Mumbai' claim earlier. Granted this is not for "Mährisch Weißkirchen", just for " Weißkirchen" (it being the more commonly-used name aside from 'Hranice', therefore the one to include in the disamb page) Snspigs (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very weak source. Search results from German-speaking countries are also included, and searches for other places with names Rossbach and Weisskirchen are also included. In addition, I would like to point out that the only official name for Hranice was Mährisch Weißkirchen, not just Weißkirchen (see dewiki and cswiki, ref included; it is wrong here on enwiki). FromCzech (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the German names were far more-used than they seem to be - I'll remove that incorrect version of the german name from the page too. Snspigs (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]