Talk:Okopy, Ternopil Oblast

Name

Should town names be translated even if there is no commonly accepted translation? I suggest we moved this page back... //Halibu tt 20:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Halibutt, I haven't had the pleasure lately. I have a few matters that I have been meaning to get back to you on. I promise that I will. In the meantime, Okopy Swiety Trojcy, means nothing to an English speaking person. It seems alright for now, with the Polish translation added. I'm not sure that okopy is best translated as rampart or stronghold. I always thought the word meant trench, or something "dug out". Dr. Dan 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it was a name of a town (even if strange), you would not translate it, would you ? I think it was renamed out of ignorance. --Lysy^talk 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Dr. Dan 01:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree too. To be honest, I only reverted Molobo's move back to the Polish name because it was a revert by Molobo against Matthead. If it had been anyone but Molobo, I'd have left it alone. There is no commonly accepted English name, is there? The only one I can find is Okopy. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And does'nt Okopy mean, trenches? Dr. Dan 04:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does. --Lysy^talk 04:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, I asked Matthead to drop in and explain whether translation of toponyms is a new trend, or was it just him. If so, there's plenty of names to translate. Berlin to Sceptre town, Paris to Cauldron (city), Munich to Monktown and so on..

I also asked Piotrus to move the article back (can't do it myself now; I could only correct the translation). As to the term okopy - in modern Polish it's reserved for trenches and ditches, though in the time of the Okopy's existence it signified practically any earthworks, including trenches, ramparts and so on. //Halibu tt 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, were is the town situated? Only rivers are given in the lead. Oh, and its not even an inhabited place, just some ruins? One has to read until the very last words of the article until the secret is revealed: "Category Castles in Ukraine". How come there is no name given in cyrillic? In "Category:Former castles, palaces, and fortresses", most of the places have at least partial English description, which makes sense as a palace is different from a fortress. The ramparts may have been build and named by Poles, but then the pyramids have been built by the Pharaohs, yet the English Wikipedia article on them is not in hieroglyphs either. As it seems the place belonged for most of the time to Austria anyway, why not name it "Festung der Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit"? Speaking of religion, the fortress was named to put emphasis on Christian resistance, else it just would be named "Jan's Castle" or similar. So make that clear by using Holy Trinity rather than an obscure "Okopy Świętej Trójcy". Besides, the naming in "English" Wikipedia is already a little, well, asymmetric? Churches are called Cologne Cathedral and Brunswick Cathedral in one country, but Bazylika Mariacka, Kraków and Sanktuarium Matki Bożej Bolesnej Królowej Polski, Licheń in another. Anyone willing and able to put that straight? BTW, there is a German song: "Wir lassen den Dom in Kölle, denn da gehört er hin".--Matthead 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the cities are not translated. If a city has an English version, we will use it, but simply translating this name is as good of an idea as moving Łódź to boat. See also discussions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This move should be reverted, although I'll wait a day or so to see Matt's reasons for this move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good hint. The article on Boattown needs to be moved to Lodz, or even better "Lodge (Poland)". Is a little hard to understand why the "single widely accepted English name in modern context" is written with 75% non-english-alphabet letters, while Monktown or Colonytown in another country get artificially limited to a maximum of 0% of non-english-alphabet letters.--Matthead 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One also doesn't generally "translate" persons' names or book titles (e.g., Polski słownik biograficzny to "Polish Biographical Dictionary." KonradWallenrod 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case this matter is hopefully done with. Piotrus, I'm not sure that the Lodz analogy is why the mistake was made. In my case, I thought we were talking about a fleeting military installation. Mea culpa. Incidentally, there is a very big difference between a rampart and a trench. BTW, is this place visible on any old maps? Is is shortened to Okopy, instead of OST? Dr. Dan 11:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Matthead interspersed his comments in the text. Sadly, he has not given an explanation as to why did he invent some name for a town (not even a translation of a toponym as Okopy hardly means a Fortress).

Sure, the article's header is probably insufficient and could be expanded. However, it states explicitly that Okopy Świętej Trójcy was a town and a fortress. Neither names of towns nor names of fortresses are commonly translated.
There is no name in Cyrillic as the town ceased to exist some 250 years prior to the annexation of the area by the USSR. Before that it was in Austrian Galicia (no Cyrillic), before that in Poland (no Cyrillic in use either) and before at times in the Ottoman Empire, Hungary, Crimea and so on (guess what... no Cyrillic there either).
The town and then a village has existed for quite some time there, while the fortress that gave name to it was but a replacement for the nearby fortress and was abandoned relatively quickly. Yet you're inventing a new name for a town. Why?
Why not Festung der Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit? If you read the article, you'd probably notice that the town ceased to exist around the time the area became a part of Galicia. And even then the Austrians did not rename all toponyms to German language as... Polish, German and Latin were all official in Galicia. Besides, I doubt anyone felt a need to rename a heap of rubble and a tiny village, as it was back then.
As to naming of churches, you're right: for one country they are named Ulm Münster, Marienkirche, Lübeck, Berliner Dom and Dresden Frauenkirche, while for other they're named Field Cathedral of the Polish Army, Church of Peace, Archcathedral Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul, Poznań, Wrocław Cathedral and so on. Anyone willing and able to put that straight? BTW, the song is nice, but could you possibly translate it to some understandable language? //Halibu tt 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle or Village

Is this supposed to be an article about the castle or about the location? In the former case, lots of stuff needs purged. In the latter case the article should be moved to the modern name of this Ukrainian village Okopy, Ternopil Oblast (there is also eponymous village in Lviv Oblast). The rest belongs to the history section and should be covered within the article text. --Irpen 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why not Okopy Sviatoi Triytsi? After all that's how the place would be called in modern Ukrainian - if only it still existed... As to the scope of this article, I believe it should be left as it is. That is, I'd rather this article covered both the fortress and the town, with some mention of the later village of Okopy. Note that all of that is already in the article. //Halibu tt 15:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we need to do a RM. Should we do a vote between several propositions mentioned above or should we ask for RM to Okopy Świętej Trójcy, the original name the article was created under, right away? On the other hand Ipren raises good point that if the village still exists, we should consider the local name. Still, the village is usually known under the Polish name popularized by Krasiński...hmmm, hard decision. A vote?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can just discuss this first. A vote is necessary only if we can;t come up with mutually agreeable decision. --Irpen 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following for your consideration. The location is called Okopy and the article is about the history of it. The well established English name doesn't exist because the place is too little known and we should use the local one Okopy, Ternopil Oblast. In the history section we can call this for what its name was at the time, like we are using Lwow in the text of the Lviv article. We create all sorts of redirects. Another solution is to have a separate article about the castle, but this article is broader than that for now. If this article is about location and location has a modern name, such name should be used according to Naming Convention. This is not Atlantis, it exists and should be called as such. --Irpen 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tentativly support this proposal, especially as it is the decision recommended by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). What about 'Okopy Sviatoi Triytsi' as Halibutt proposed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okopy Svyatoyi Triytsi is not the modern name of the location. Since the modern name exists, this would be the name of the article. "Literally Ramparts..." would be mentioned of course. --Irpen 19:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the difference that the place no longer exists as a separate entity and the name of Okopy (or Okop) is purely historical. There are several other villages of that name though, including one near Ternopil. //Halibu tt 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The place does exists as a separate etnity as a village under the name of Okopy. There is one other village in UA under the same name and that one is in different Oblast. --Irpen 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could a "vote" be averted if we called it by its "Altaic" name, since it was probably occupied by the Golden Horde at some point? Dr. Dan 00:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've seriously been considering renaming England to Albion, for some time now.[reply]

Suppose that article must be about Castle. Village in Ukraine more than 30 thous., but Castle only several groups of ten. Name or present - Ramparts of the Holy Trinity or Okopy of the Holy Trinity--Yakudza 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any human settlement, a town or a village, is worthy of an article no matter how many villages there are. The issue is whether this is the article about the settlement or this is the article about the castle. Since this is the former, it should be under the settlement's modern name. I have no objection to an existance of a separate castle article if someone wants to separate this info from the settlement article. --Irpen 03:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my experience that often castle or other structures on Wiki will begin their life as mentions or sections in article about villages/towns/etc. and only later they will gain their own articles; it is rare to see it happen otherwise. I certainly think this article should be about a village, with a section on history and castle.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For once I agree with Piotrus. We should move the article to Okopy, Ternopil Oblast, as Irpen suggests, and see how it goes with the fortress. A parallel might be the article Loch Doon in Galloway, Scotland, which is a lake, a castle, and a modern village (well, a clachan really). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, do as you please. I wrote the article, you can argue about the title. I'll go on and write another article so that you had something new to dispute its title. //Halibu tt 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly. I like this trying to present this totally non-controversial proposal as if there is anything disruptive, like taking articles others wrote and do nothing but weaselizing the terminology. Anyway, this is indeed a totally non-controversial move I believe. --Irpen 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

totally depopulated, as a result of forced migration of Poles to Siberia.

The source, please. Xx236 10:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]