Talk:Noorderkerk

	Reformed Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reformed Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Reformed Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Reformed ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityReformed Christianity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move these pages, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noorderkerk → North Church
Zuiderkerk → South Church
Oosterkerk → East Church
Westerkerk → West Church
Nieuwe Kerk (Amsterdam) → New Church (Amsterdam)
Oude Kerk → Old Church

Suggesting per WP:UE. I moved these to the English versions a few weeks back and met with some resistance. Now the moves have been reverted by someone else so here we are. The other pushback I received - as can be seen at User talk:Wknight94#Churches in Amsterdam - is that the proper English translations would be Northern Church, Southern Church, etc. First, I am not familiar with Dutch but Google searches appear to agree with North and South, not Northern and Southern, etc. Second, I was looking at these pages after vacationing in Amsterdam. While there, I took a few English-speaking tours and each of them referred to the churches as North and South, not Northern and Southern, etc. But feel free to support the -ern version instead of my suggestion. I am more resolute however in using some English version instead of the Dutch version. Under the Dutch names, I had difficulty even finding these pages when I returned from my trip! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what redirects are for ;-). Niels(F)^{? en |}^nl 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 - I support the current names. I am Dutch and live in Amsterdam, and can tell you the names West Church, East Church are incorrect translations, as I pointed out out to you previously. If you have to use English names, then it would be Western Church, Eastern Church etc. However it seems a bit a nonsensical to translate these names into English. Then you would also have to give the Prinsengracht as Prince's Canal, the Champs-Élysées in Paris would have to be renamed Elysian Fields, and so on. The rationale that "well that's what the tour guide said" seems a bit thin. Besides, Wikipedia is not Wikitravel. A more credible source is the Amsterdam municipality which uses Westerkerk, Oosterkerk etc in their English-language texts. Regards, Jvhertum 09:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with the same reasons. – Kaihsu 11:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support largely because the oppose votes above are wrong on English idiom; this follows my comments below. ~~I would still like to see evidence of English usage.~~ – Pmanderson 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For WP:UE to apply the English usage policy on names, the English version of the name should be common and well-established. Neither has been shown for these churches; hence the local name is prefered. Arnoutf 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if "our colleagues" at Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta use at least several of the Dutch language names, why wouldn't we. Create a bunch of redirects and everything should be fine... My "vote" is based on the first "criterion" mentioned here. Niels(F)^{? en |}^nl 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Oppose; WP:UE does not suggest that we should translate foreign place and structure names into English for article titles (though we should mention the translation, as these articles do, in the lead). Otherwise, the article on Côte d'Ivoire would be at Ivory Coast. When a placename has a very long-standing English name, we do use that (as in Germany vs. Deutschland), but this is not the case here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

North Church, South Church and so on, would be correct in Boston; it would be nice to see some examples of their being used here. See WP:NCGN for some reasonable way to demonstrate English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, my main exposure is just from my couple days there. I never heard the -kerk names the whole time I was there and I seriously had difficulty finding these articles when I got back to the home base. From Google searches, it's difficult to find a place where the Dutch names are given without the English names at least patenthetically mentioned. In that regard the Champs-Elysees counterexample falls flat IMHO. "Champs-Elysees" is so commonplace in the English-speaking world that I didn't even know it translated to "Elysian Fields" until yesterday. The -kerk vs. Church comparison, on the other hand, seems to be pretty equally split and in an equal split, I'd lean towards the English version on the English Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage would appear to be borne out by searching for "North Church" and Amsterdam on Google Scholar. I have rejected hits for New Amsterdam as false positives.

I find 46 hits for North Church of which the first is about this building, and the rest substantiate usage of the form.
Of the 12 hits for Noorderkerk, most are street addresses, which as WP:NCGN says, show Dutch usage, not English.
There are also 46 hits for Northern Church; but all of them are false postives. Some of them are discussing the Northern Presbyterian Church, where Church is a denomination not a building, and Northern means the Northern United States; half are discussing Karl Barth's Das altkirchliche Dogma in der kirchlichen Dogmatik (published in Amsterdam) and the "Northern Church" being discussed is the Chruch in Northern Europe. Compare this search. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gare du Nord, Paris, has not been translated to "north station". – Kaihsu 10:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor have any of the Churches in Paris, except the American and Scottish ones. Jvhertum 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Columbia article on Amsterdam ([1]) mentions the Nieuwe Kerk and the Oude Kerk. Niels(F)^{? en |}^nl 15:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encarta does the same: [2]. Niels(F)^{? en |}^nl 01:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use the English version it should be commonly used. The above account of North Church is a single instance, so hardly evidence of common usage. Therefore I would conclude the native name should be preferred. Arnoutf 16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Noorderkerk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040203233950/http://www.bma.amsterdam.nl/adam/uk/groot/nkerk.html to http://www.bma.amsterdam.nl/adam/uk/groot/nkerk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]