Talk:Plovdiv/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Consensus

Just a remind. Consensus should incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Some important naming conventions which the article's lead violates (WP:LEAD#General guidelines and WP:LEAD#Separate section usage): Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".' If the case is exceptional, common sense may be applied to ignore all rules. Please discuss to decide whether this is an exceptional case or not.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This currently can't be reasoned as an exceptional case. At least as long as there is no source, evidencing established modern usage in English-language sources of the name Philippoupolis. It was known for most its history by that name, but the city is not currently widely known by that name in the West. The two are different, see WP:Modern usage. The Turkish name Filibe comes out to be more often used than Philippoupolis according to the Google Ngram Viewer, which gives the following results: 111% Plovdiv, 32% Filibe, 15% Philippoupolis. But the search engine hits includes results of Shahba in Syria, also known as Philippoupolis, so - its actual percentage is lower than that. Turks are, by the way, the largest minority in the city making it bilingual to a degree. As search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another, let's use different sources. By 1911, Philippoupolis was the most widely used name for Plovdiv according to the Britannica edition, but as time changes, the current Britannica edition gives Philippoupolis, Filibe, Trimontium and Pulpudeva exactly equal significance as alternative names. Considering this, the lead needs a relevant fixation. If the Greek orthography of Philippoupolis will be kept in the lead, the Turkish is as relevant as per Britannica, search engine results and its second position as a speech among citizens. Sevt V (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You were using the wrong spelling of the Greek name in your Google n-grams test. Try "Philippopolis" rather than "Philippoupolis". You'll find the Greek name predominating over the Bulgarian name until the mid-20th century, and either of the two far outweighing the Turkish one, which remains completely marginal [1] (actually, even those attestation it has counted for "Filibe" are mostly wrong – many are inside Turkish text, some are referring to other things or persons, etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing indicating that this is an "exceptional case". Let's stop this silliness before it finishes starting: there is a "Name" section that can list all relevant names, but according to policy, the lead section should list the English name that is in common use today, and the most relevant official local name. LjL (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your correction is right, Fut. Perf. However the results of any search engine does not clarify how much of the hits of Philippopolis(or Philippoupolis) refer to Shahba, Syria or to Plovdiv, Bulgaria. As search engine hits are generally considered unreliable here, these hits completely doesn't matter. They send Wikipedia mirrors and have numerous errors. I am fine with the version of LjL, it is supported by the Britannica edition presented above, a reliable source. There is no need to start pointless disputes as there is a manual of style, for the exemption of this article from which not any convincing reason is provided.Sevt V (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: whether I am a "WP:NINJA" or not and whether Philippoupolis was the name used "in the West" for most of the city's history (see your revert) has no bearing over policy. Policy is very clear on this matter, and it has been linked to above and explained several times. Why does "in the West" matter more than other places, anyway? Why aren't we stating what the name was throughout most of China's history in the lede? There is a good reason why naming info goes in the naming/etymology section, and you're not helping this article or the encyclopedia by defying policy in this matter. LjL (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: what matters is not the naming practice "in the West", but the naming practice in English (which happens to be in the West though), because this is the English Wikipedia. And, to be more precise, what really matters is also not what name was used in English in earlier periods, but what name is used in English today, when referring to older periods. If it could be shown that present-day English sources still preferentially refer to the city as Philippopolis in contexts of older history (say, before its incorporation in the modern Bulgarian state), then a decent case could be made for giving this name fairly prominent coverage in the lede, WP:LEAD notwithstanding (which is a guideline, not a policy, and hence has to be treated with case-by-case flexibility.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In historical context the city was primarily known as such indeed, as it's already supported by inline citation. It's not a simple case of alternative naming but per wp:LEAD it's helpful for the reader to know that this settlement was once known as such and it's still known under this name for most of its history (from antiquity to 19th century).Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is liked by everyone or not, for many English-speakers places in the Balkans and Anatolia are more familiar under their Classical names. This goes for Greek cities: Thessalonica is more recognised than Thessaloniki, Turkish cities: Adrianople rather than Edirne, Nicaea not Iznik and yes, Bulgaria: Philippopolis rather than Plovdiv. This is because the Classical history of these areas is much, much more widely studied and known in the English-speaking world than their Medieval and Modern history. Also, whatever the transliteration from the Modern Greek, the city is known overwhelmingly as Philippopolis, not Philippoupolis, in literary usage in the English-language. Urselius (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that's true for some of the cities you mention (see Nicaea vs Iznik on Google Books N-Grams for instance), but not true for Plovdiv, the city in question, where this is how things stand. Quite a difference, I'd say. And WP:LEAD doesn't say you should list every name that may be "helpful" to the reader, when there is already a dedicated naming section. In fact, it says quite clearly the opposite, that you should only list the most WP:COMMONNAME in English and one official local name. Guideline or policy, to deviate from the Manual of Style, there needs to be a very compelling reason, and there is not one here. LjL (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be an inclusive article. I take down, at random from my bookshelves: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, Forin Curta (2006), I look in the index and Philippopolis is there, but not Plovdiv (though Pliska is there), then, The Empire of Manuel Komnenos, Paul Magdalino (1996) and again in the index - Philippopolis and no Plovdiv, not even "Plovdiv, see Philippopolis". These are both important English language works on the history of the Balkans and they are both comparatively recent. The prevalance of the use of "Philippopolis" in contemporary English language literature constitutes a very compelling reason. We should not require readers to look through half an article before they can say "Oh, Plovdiv was Philippopolis" - the use of Constantinople in the Wikipedia article on Istanbul should be our model here. Urselius (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact if this was in favor of Philippo(u)polis the title of this article should have been moved accordingly. But this altenative name is still essential for a smooth introduction to the subject. There are several occassions in similar articles where the lead is large enough & alternative names reveal essential information about the settlement (connected with the settlements' foundation, history, name etymology, etc.). Similar situation exists in Istanbul. Imagine Los Angeles, whithout the lead explanation that it's the City of Angels or in New York, Dutch collonists founded a settlement N. Amsterdam. Same situation in the lead of Paris (Parisii), London (Londinium, by they way it's a GAstatus article). As noted above when the lead is large enough there are cases where alternative name(s) need to placed in the appropriate place, like in this case: not in 1st line, but still in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the Instabul/Constantinople comparison on Google Books is in favor of "Constantinople": are you going to move the article there now? In our case, however, it is not, so the comparison is moot. As to "Londinium", it is its own article and linked not merely to mention a name, but to link to a part of the city's history. LjL (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above, I would question whether WP:LEAD#Separate section usage and WP:NCPLACE are in fact being invoked correctly by those here who cite it in favour of omitting the historical name from the lead. The guidelines talk about the situation where separate name sections have been created in order to de-clutter the lead, in cases where there would otherwise be too many candidates of alternative to be included (three or more). That is not the case here; we are talking about just a single alternative. Thus, the guidelines' recommendation against retaining the alternatives in the lead sentence doesn't apply here. In fact, the solution ostensibly recommended by the guidelines for such cases (Plovdiv (Bulgarian: Пловдив; also known by other names)) wouldn't be any shorter or more reader-friendly than something like Plovdiv (Bulgarian: Пловдив; historically known as Phillippopolis). As for mentioning the name in the text of the lead section (outside the lead sentence), the guideline has nothing to say at all, and since the lead section is generally expected to be a summary of all the notable contents of the rest of the article, there is nothing wrong in principle about repeating something there that's also in the separate "names" section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a general Wikipedia convention in these cases for including the previous/historical name in the opening sentence, or at least in the lead; for example: Helsinki with Helsingfors and Oslo with Christiania. No one here is seriously calling for the renaming of the article. There should be no problem with incorporating something as important as this in the article lead. Urselius (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, @Future Perfect at Sunrise: have you actually read the long Name section that does exist? Names mentioned there for the city are:

• Kendrisia
• Philippoupolis (Φιλιππούπολις / Φιλιππούπολη) / Philippopolis
• Calybe
• Pulpudeva
• Odryssia / Odriuza
• Trimontium
• Prineople / Sinople / Phinepople
• Philibe / Filibe

So I'm not entirely sure where you get the idea that Philippopolis is the only candidate for inclusion. LjL (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course. "Philippopolis" is the only one among these that has seen significant usage in English, and therefore the only one that has a prima facie reasonable claim for inclusion in the lead. Of course the others have to be mentioned, and of course that can only be done down in the name section. Why are you reducing this whole issue as if it were an all-or-nothing alternative, between having all the historical names listed in the lead together, and having none of them at all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not reducing anything: you're "reducing" it to the problem of a single alternative, when it's pretty obvious (and partly the reason why the guidelines about naming exist) that if we included one alternative, namely Philippopolis, other people would want to include other alternatives, which already happened with the attempt to include "Filibe", on the pretty reasonable ground that it's the Turkish name used by the very sizable Turkish minority in the city. The guidelines are being read and interpreted quite correctly, and the naming section lists many names and that's where they belong. LjL (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Philippopolis is the name most frequently used in English language literature when talking about this city. If I were catching a train in Bulgaria, I would of course be looking for the name Plovdiv, however, if I was to be searching through any English language literature published before c. 1920 or for most publications concerning history, even that published after c. 1920, I would be looking for Philippopolis. We really need both names in the lead - for reasons that are perfectly obvious and cogent. Urselius (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is it the most frequently used name in English literature when the Google Books n-grams, which are the biggest collection of computer-analyzable English literature we have at our disposal, say the opposite? LjL (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Google n-grams don't provide info about context of usage. We are talking about "Philippopolis" being frequent in literature concerning history, and Urselius gave you samples of that kind of usage in their posting above. On Wikipedia, we do regularly cater for such historical names in the lead, in the interest of readers who come to the article through links from historical articles. Izmir/Smyrna, Istanbul/Constantinople, Durres/Durazzo etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Durazzo" mentioned at Durres in the lead; there is just a hatnote that "Durazzo redirects here", which is an entirely different beast. As to Smyrna, it still beasts Izmir in the Google Books count, again contrary to Philippopolis; it also was the WP:COMMONNAME of the city until 1928, according to the article itself, which isn't the case for Plovdiv. It's all well and good when you people compare this to other articles (except WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always a good rationale), but I have yet to see an analogy that looks actually similar to the situation here - namely, where at a minimum, the old name is not predominant on Google Books. Because you know, if the "new" name is predominant, then maybe you can argue "but the old one is predominant in historical sources"... but if you compare to cities where the old name is predominant, then it's obviously not a relevant comparison. LjL (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Because a lot of the stuff, I use the word advisedly, incorporated into such searches is not "literature". I am talking largely about quality historical publications. I have even read historical works by Bulgarian historians who use the name Philippopolis! Urselius (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the famous "No true literature" argument. LjL (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, LjL, I don't know what's going on with you here, but with postings like this I'm afraid you no longer come across as quite as cool and detached as we'd all like to be during Wikipedia discussions. Urselius and I are trying to have a relaxed, matter-of-fact exchange about best encyclopedic practice here; maybe you should consider stepping back from the issue for a small while if you find yourself reacting that strongly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

How is pointing out a logical fallacy a "strong" reaction? It seems stronger to me to constantly make flawed analogies (with cities where the naming situation is different according to measurable data) and to single-handedly decide that only the specific literature that Userlius considers worthwhile factors into the equation. LjL (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, for starterts, Urselius' point wasn't a logical fallacy, and it wasn't a "no true Scotchman" argument. A "no true Scotchman" argument is an act of circular reasoning – like for example if Urselius had been dismissing sources as unreliable because they failed to use "Philippopolis", and then had gone on to argue that all reliable sources do use it. That's clearly not what he did: he selected sources that he knew on independent grounds to be reliable, and then observed what names they use or don't use. I'm sure you'll be able to see the difference yourself, once you look at it with a cooler head. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've read the No true Scotsman article and I reckon it matches almost perfectly. Urselius first claimed that Philippopolis was the most common name for the city in English-language literature; when I proved this incorrect by showing not even one counterexample like the fallacy require, but the numbers based on the bulk of English-language literature, Urserlius' stance basically changed to "it's the most common name for the city in true (relevant, historical, important, well-written, or whatever) English-language literature". The initial claim was incorrect, no matter how you turn this around. LjL (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me reverse the argument. LjL, please explain why the name that a city was known by for the vast majority of its history is not an important enough fact for this to be included in the lead of an article about it? Urselius (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

For starters, the claim people repeatedly attempted to put into the lead was that it was the name it was known "in the West". Plovdiv is not even "in the West", and Wikipedia tries to represent a worldwide view of subjects. Why, indeed, not also include "Filibe" in the lead then, if that's what most Turks have always known it as, and Turks are even the number one minority in the city, for example? This sort of thing is why we have a guideline saying: just include the English name and one official name. LjL (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, things written within the corpus of English language publications and literary history have relevance here. You have not addressed my question, Surely in virtually all circumstances more information is better than less information. Urselius (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That's... no, that's not a sweeping general statement I can comfortably agree with. Fortunately, it doesn't have to come into play here, in any case, since nobody is proposing removal of any information, but we're merely discussing where it should be placed. And I cannot answer a question that is based on invalid premises, but if you change the premise to say "in the West", then the answer is that whether or not you're a particular fan of the West, the information can be in the section together with similar information about the names used in the East, North, South and where-have-you. The WP:COMMONNAME policy refers to the current common name in English, it doesn't extend to the "historically common name in the West". LjL (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They speak English, with other languages, in South Africa - the points of the compass are not very relevant here. What is relevant is what a city is and has been commonly known as in English language literature. The bottom line is what is good practise, the treatment of former city names in the English language Wikipedia articles for Istanbul, Helsinki etc, forms a corpus of precedence that should not be ignored here. Urselius (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And we certainly haven't been ignoring them since this quite long section is all about them. Yet for almost every single one of them I've shown that the situation is different (in some cases, the prevailing term in literature is the older term even on Google Books, while that's not true here; in other cases, there is no Names section so the guideline about it does not apply; even in Helsinki's case, the total number of names in the lead is still two, one that can be construed as the English name, and one as an official local name, so the guideline is being respected - nevermind the fact that Helsinki is a special case because Finland has two official languages with tension between them). LjL (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet another name

Philip of Macedon moved a lot of his more "difficult" subjects to Philippopolis, on the assumption that they would be less of a nuisance on the frontier with the Thracians than they were in Macedonia proper. As a result the city became known informally as "Poneropolis", which meant something like "Thugsville". Urselius (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that already in the article? I don't quite see what you're suggesting here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it? I proposed it in the past, but didn't think it had been included. Urselius (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Roughly midway down in the second paragraph of the "name" section? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Plovdiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706142758/http://www.geography.iit.bas.bg/2009/1-09/13-17.pdf to http://www.geography.iit.bas.bg/2009/1-09/13-17.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080418041917/http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org:80/_bg/?id=collection&prm=prehist to http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org/_bg/?id=collection&prm=prehist

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Inscription's suffix "t/on" or "s"

What was the ancient inscription of Philippopolis ? Why does the inscription on coins Philippopoliton[2] differs? Does the latter really means "to the citizens of Philippopolis"? Why then the ancient name of Byzantium is Byzantion, i.e. contains the same ending, is that a coincidence? Maybe a grammatical case? But is it applied on a single word, it should be something different. The coins of Edirne use the name Adrianopoliton[3], not Adrinapolis, the Athenian coins use Athianaion[4], those from Sofia use Serdon[5], those from Varna Odessiton[6], not Odessus.

As far as I know the suffix -on would indicate "of" or "related to" the preceding element. Thus andros means "man" whilst "andron" means "of men" or "concerning men"; e.g. Anax Andron (the title given to Agamemnon in the Iliad) means "King of Men" and the andron was the men's portion of an Ancient Greek house. Many Ancient Greek coins have the city name ending in -on, indicating that the coin was "of the" particular city.Urselius (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know when but both suffixes can apply for different things. For example some names, nouns, such as Apollon, Platon ... have this suffix. Are you certain that the coin indicates "of the" particular city or you suggest it? It is dubious because Anax Andron consists of two words, while the inscription of the coins is solely the word Philippopoliton. So, can the only word really be an adjective ? Imagine the same thing in English, an adjective without a noun instead? But, maybe different languages are not so comparable. It is difficult to find any examples of the original Koine Greek orthography of that name. The works in original Latin that I found- Historia Romana of Jordanes and Histria Naturalis of Pliny the Elder, they both use Philippopolis. I can't figure out what was the Greek inscription. It is hard to find works in Greek to figure out what was the original name. The only work in Greek I found was by Ptolemy, he refers to this city as Philippopoleos, but that is reflected grammatically by case. If nobody is sure, would it be an easy way to figure it out by tracing for example what was the ancient Greek name of Athens (Athianai or Athinaion), or the word for polis (polis or politon) ?130.204.88.58 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The only really relevant quantity here is 'what the city name is in English usage'. English is not an inflected language and it has adopted standard forms for names originating in the inflected languages of the Classical Era. Thus the coins of Naxos show Naxion, Messana show Messanion, Elis - Ealeion, Chalcidice - Xalkideon, Acragas - Akragantinon. None of these instances of contemporary inflected name endings affect the English versions of the names. The same applies to the name Philippopolis in English usage. Urselius (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Philippopolitōn is the genitive plural of the derivative form Philippopolitēs and means "of the citizens of Philippopolis". That was the standard way of marking coins, just as Athenaiōn means "of the Athenians". The "-on" in "Byzantion" is different; here it's the nominative form of the city name itself (and it's a short "o", not a long "ō"; omicron rather than omega). The "-on" in "Platon" and "Apollon" is yet something different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Are the toponyms that this link[7] uses wrong? Some cities as Thermos (Aetolia) (Thermon) keep the "on" suffix, is this case different? 22:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think they might be wrong? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Plovdiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081004220700/http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org:80/_bg/?id=collection&prm=roman to http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org/_bg/?id=collection&prm=roman
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081004220639/http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org:80/_bg/?id=collection&prm=medieval to http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org/_bg/?id=collection&prm=medieval
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081006141314/http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org:80/_bg/?id=collection&prm=thracian to http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org/_bg/?id=collection&prm=thracian
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091011105414/http://plovdiv.imotibg.com:80/plovdiv/%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B2-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8-%D1%82%D1%8A%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%8A%D1%80-enno170932.html to http://plovdiv.imotibg.com/plovdiv/%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B2-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8-%D1%82%D1%8A%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%8A%D1%80-enno170932.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080410085650/http://www.uft-plovdiv.bg:80/index_ie.htm to http://www.uft-plovdiv.bg/index_ie.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Including historical names of the city

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in the discussion. The comments are thought out but to evenly split. One view is to follow MOS:LEAD#Separate section usage, but there are problems with this argument as the guideline specifically mentions the lede sentence. The removal in question is in the second paragraph. The other point of view is that the name to be removed is used in other articles and it may be confusing to readers following those links. That the name is used in RS, though they are not recent they may be of use to those studying history. AlbinoFerret 16:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Should the lead section of this article only mention as "Plovdiv" as the common English name of the city and "Пловдив" as the most prominent official local name, leaving other historical or alternative names, in particular "Philippopolis", to the extensive "Name" section? LjL (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support (as nominator): I think MOS:LEAD#Separate section usage is pretty clear on the subject ("Once such a [Names] section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line"), and although in previous discussions on this the situation was compared with that of other city articles, those often don't contain a Names section in the first place, of an historical name is still the most widespread in modern literature, which does not appear to be the case here. LjL (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose complete omission from lead section. The widespread historical English name "Philippopolis" needs to be there. We have large numbers of incoming links from other articles of the form [[Plovdiv|Philippopolis]]. Per the principle of least astonishment, readers coming in through them must be informed they are on the right page; they shouldn't have to scan halfway down the article to understand it's the same place. The rule in MOS:LEAD was never intended to counteract this basic principle of synonym management; its intention is to avoid unneccessary cluttering of the lead sentence with overlong lists of minor and foreign variants (especially where there are three or more relevant items competing for space in the lead, which isn't the case here.) However, I'm open on whether the mentioning of "Philippopolis" should be in the lead sentence or somewhere within the following sentences of the lead paragraph, as it's been done in some other historic city articles and as was the stable state of the article until a few days ago (e.g. [8]). Note that the cited rule of MOS:LEAD#Separate section usage only applies to the lead sentence and that neither its spirit nor its letter are against duplicating such information in the lead section, since this is a normal part of the lead summarizing the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD#Separate section usage merely makes an assumption that, before being moved to a "Names" section, the alternative names were in the first line. This is shown by the part where it says "As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead." (emphasis mine), implying that other names should in fact not be retained (anywhere) in the lead once a "Names" section is created. LjL (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the guidelines were created without overt recognition of the special circumstance of places with prominently used classical names. Plus it is a "guideline", to be employed with the application of common sense, not holy writ. Urselius (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You do not quote the complete guideline. You cite the only the abbreviated manual of style. The misunderstanding is due to this. The guideline claims that all alternative should be moved to the Name section if they are three or more with a link ion the leading sentence (known by several alternative names). WP:NCGN#General guidelines#2. The lead:

• Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
• In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
• Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)". 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Policies and guidelines should be respected when building consensus which is not the result of a vote. In case of dispute, instead of merging complicated viewpoints the easiest way is to follow up the guideline.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support per LjL's neutralization. The guideline is clear - any alternative English names should not be moved out of the name section. As it is stated above, the only provided reliable evidence supporting the usage of Philippopolis in English is the 1911 Britannica article which the current edition disproves as outdated. Search engines are unreliable for such comparison and furthermore Google Ngram Viewer includes the hits of a Syrian city by the name Philippopolis. I support the LjL's revision unless a reliable evidence proving a special usage of Philippopolis for Plovdiv in English will be provded. So far, from the discussion above I haven't noted anybody providing any source for this.Serdik (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at any of the many academic histories in English concerning the Balkan region and you will find the use of Philippopolis far outstrips the use of Plovdiv. Do a comparative search of Google Books or JSTOR, it isn't hard. I have perhaps 30 books on Byzantine and Seljuk/Ottoman history, and I cannot recall one use of "Plovdiv", even in maps. Urselius (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

lengthy rebuttal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your statement is misleading, you have provoked me to disprove that, providing a lengthy explanation. There is a section for these times, context is important - see what Wikipedia:Place#Use_modern_names says: (For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use). I emphasize now use. Pre-World War I sources are therefore not serious for backing such claims, but up to date sources are. I've provided the 1911 and the up to date Britannica edition to contrast the difference at an encyclopedia article for city with a lead similar to Wikipedia. The old edition names the city Philippopolis, but the modern Britannica edition considers all names other than Plovdiv equal by significance. Your books are only historical, which means that an an older name should be used for historical contexts, not for the lead.(see the policy I have just cited above) Not your books, but other up to date historical books use the name Plovdiv for Byzantine periods[9] and Filibe for Ottoman periods[10]. Your library cannot measure the usage of terms and such personal guesses are WP:OR. You rather need up to date source saying "X is a name conventionally used for this entity" or something similar backing its usage in at least a context. National Geographic mentions Byzantium and Constantinople at an article about Istanbul [11], but Philippopolis is not stated for Plovdiv[12]. See United States Board on Geographic Names, e.g. compare Florence with Plovdiv, Florence is considered the conventional name and Firenze the approved, while Plovdiv is credited as the only conventional and approved name. See Oxford Atlas of the World, English-language news media, up to date encyclopedia articles, Cambridge history. Per WP:WIAN reliable are standard Cambridge Histories and scientific studies of the area in question, whose modern editions name the city Plovdiv, both on maps and on text [13]. Their articles update as the names change, but you insist to back the Wikipedia article one century earlier. Then I suggest to restrict the resolution (black and white) for the article to secure a retro look. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the unreliable search engines and the outdated sources, with which you back your claims, make your point less convincing, not more such.Sevt V (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural note: please do not interrupt this RfC with lenthy rebuttals and threaded dialogue. We've had plenty of dialogue above; RfCs are meant for brief opinion statements, one from each participant, giving (preferably) outside commenters a chance to state their view without being hassled with countless refutations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I also personally think it's best to be succint here, but where is this procedure documented, please? At WP:RFC, I read: "Responses may be submitted in a variety of formats. Some RfCs are structured as a series of distinct responses, one per editor. Others result in a threaded (indented) conversation involving multiple editors. [...] Other RfCs combine polling with threaded discussions.". LjL (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Added brief correction: Ursulius, Philippopolis does not far outstrip the use of Plovdiv among academic histories. This is your guess, containing OR. Here's a disproof, per WP:WIAN reliable are standard Cambridge Histories and scientific studies of the area in question, whose modern editions use the name Plovdiv for the city, both on maps and on text [14]. Philippopolis' usage in English is backed only by outdated serious sources, get familiar with Wikipedia:Place#Use_modern_names: (For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use). I emphasize now use.Sevt V (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support for the proposal of LjL. Per WP:Consensus: (Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Let's imagine, that we all exempt the article from them and simply ignore the policies, maintaining the view that an alternative English name should be kept in the lead, because somebody have made claims that it has a significant usage in English. Even if we all agree to do that or if the policies do not exist, such an exemption would be wrong again, because these claims are not reliably verified, as Serdik said above. Therefore the oppose stance here is still named WP:OR by me. That any alternative English name of Plovdiv is a significant name in English has so far been an allegation, that contains original research. Thus making an exemption from the policy for adding Philippoupolis in the lead is unverified and unjustified. I have asked the provision of sources backing this claim, but instead the hits of the search engines, unreliable for measurement, were tested again. See WP:EN#Divided usage in English-language sources:(Search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another). How we are sure for that most of the hits of Philippopolis are not of the city of Shahba (the ancient Philippopolis)??? This uncertainty makes the point for the exemption empty and unconvincing. It would be the same as discussing an exception for the inclusion of the Turkish name Filibe, because there is a significant Turkish population in the city. The pronounciation of Philippoupolis is also hard to read for some readers.Sevt V (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have argued for "Philippoupolis" to be changed, it is a transliteration of Modern Greek and not a usage in English language literature, which is "Philippopolis".

• Oppose For all the many reasons I have given above. The cases of the Wikipedia articles on Istanbul, Helsinki, Edinburgh, Saint Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Ankara, İznik, İzmir, Nesebar (in Bulgaria), Niksar, Split, Croatia, Latakia, Antakya, Mumbai (and many others) make a compelling precedent for the inclusion of former names of cities in the lead and even first sentence. The Istanbul article has two former names in the lead! It is the case that virtually every city that has a well-known and well-used former name has this included in the lead. I think we should go by this very strong precedent. Those who have voted for the above motion, please reconsider your position. Urselius (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) I have just done a Google Book search, the first page of hits using "Plovdiv" as the search term just brings up travel guides to Bulgaria, if you do a similar search using "Philippopolis" then the first page is filled by academic history books. This is an important distinction, is Wikipedia just here to cater for holidaymakers, or is it here to serve an educated reader looking for a quick introduction to Balkan culture and history? If Wikipedia is to be totally lightweight, and be perceived as such, then vote for this proposal. Urselius (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC) I have just seen that York has two of its former names in the lead, one of which stopped being used c. 1100 AD the other c.450 AD (except in ecclesiastical use), and we are arguing about the incorporation of a name that is still widely used in historical literature and stopped being employed generally in English language works in the 20th century - unbelievable! Urselius (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You imply frivolously that Plovdiv is a name of travel guiders but Philippopolis is the one of scholarship. New Cambridge histories've been quoted and they use Plovdiv as the widely accepted English name. Hits can appear for a variety of reasons. As Philippopolis is a historical name you'll of course get hits of historic books, the same'll be if you do a Google search using the other names Trimontium and Pulpudeva. This is not a good reason to reconsider my position. A city has contexts other than historic. Academics study sciences other than history. As you promote academics here try doing a Google Scholar search for Plovdiv, whose results'd be predominantly studies [15] and then do a search for Philippopolis[16] you'd get mostly historical citations without any studies. As in most languages, its lack of usage in English anywhere else except history means that Philippopolis is a historical, not a conventional name. In the 20th century Philippopolis was the name for travel guides and scholarship but then the name ceased to be conventional, now Plovdiv serves for both. This is not the case of Bombay and Mumbai, they are used in English for any topic but Philippopolis is used only for history. Do you get the difference?Serdik —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand that we are not talking about replacing Plovdiv with Philippopolis as the title of article or as the major referent to the city within the article? Because it appears that you do not. Yes, I understand the difference between modern and historical names for places, do you understand that historical names remain important in historical literature? Including the name Philippopolis in the lead is merely to make things easier for the reader. I know that many English language speakers will come to Plovdiv via the historical name of the city, precisely because this name is overwhelmingly used in English language academic histories that are not specifically about modern Bulgaria or the modern Balkans. This may be good or bad from your point of view, but your point of view is irrelevant because the situation exists as I have described it. As I have said before I have many, many books on Byzantine, Balkan and Turkish history and they all use Philippopolis, in many of them there is no mention of Plovdiv. Do you understand this simple context? History matters! Are you concerned that the historical name invalidates the present name in some way? Urselius (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the date of the latest such book you have?Sevt V (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not including second editions and re-issues, 2006. Urselius (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Although not my personal vote, I have added the vote of the majority in the lead. What is the name of the latest your book using Philippopolis as an English name trendy? Add your book in the lead, so we can know what was the latest period when Plovdiv was known by that name. The latest I have found is the 1911 Britannica article so I added that as the latest source in the lead. Plovdiv is not currently known as Philippopolis in English as modern Britannica suggests.[17] Only historical books may use it as you say, but that is used only for past periods I suggest, as history do not deal with the modern. That's why Philippopolis is not in use for any other matter besides history. Instead of voting for all these past names in the lead, we can argue whether to add the pronunciation of Plovdiv, certainly more useful information for the reader.Sevt V (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

remark: the 1911 Britannica edition says that Philippopolis is a city in Eastern Rumelia in which Greek and the name Philippopolis were official. Any reliable evidence backing English usage of the name since it's been unofficial, any publications? Why don't anyone cite? The provided verification so far means that English usage had matched with an official name in Eastern Rumalia before the domestic name changes gradually discontinued the usage of Philippopolis. We don't need the date of this event. Since Britannica, BGN, Cambridge histories and the media now use Philippopolis as a regular foreign name, this is a reliable proof that the name has already discontinued its usage in English. Ex-names remain only in historical literature, where else? This name does so, does it? An excuse for inclusion in the lead can be a name what English sources now use, if they use it in historical context the names should not be used for articles dealing with the present(the policies dealing with modern usage say it very clearly).Serdik (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As noted above. Apart from the above mentioned examples, it appears that this is a well established lead approach: see also lead in London (Londinium), Paris (Parisii), Los Angeles (City of Angels), New York (N. Amsterdam) to name a view.Alexikoua (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise. Readers who click on a link that says "Philippopolis" (such as the ones in Constantius Chlorus, Isaac I Komnenos, and John V Palaiologos) should be able to tell they are in the right place just from the article lede. The premise that MOS:LEAD says this can't be done is simply a misreading of the guideline, which only talks about the first sentence. London mentions Londinium in the second sentence, and, as a Good Article, has been judged to meet the criteria in MOS:LEAD. If this alternative reading of MOS:LEAD were correct, it wouldn't. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise. Keeping the alternate name in the lede is useful to our readers. None of the arguments against are convincing. Athenean (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Parisii is a tribe not an alternative name of Paris. I have removed Londoinium per the guideline without any objection. City of Angeles is a nickaname. All these examples are invalid. There is plenty of useful information but only part of it can match the size of the lead. Avoidance of the policy can lead to an unbalanced introduction.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Londoinium per the guideline without any objection. Well, I wouldn't call getting reverted less than six hours later by Glossologist "without any objection", but to each their own. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support for the proposal of LjL. Per Serdik; his opponent's arguments rather validate his reasoning instead. Apcbg (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support as per the reasons of LjL and Serdik. Apart from Wikipedia policy being clear on the matter, the city contains no significant Greek minority (if at all) nor is it within Greece for it to warrant the name Philippopolis in the lede. In a historical sense regarding the matter, the name Philippopolis has been catered for in the "name" section of the article. Policy should be followed, not precedents on other articles that have no grounding in policy.Resnjari (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The supporters for this proposal have given two reasons: (1) It is a former name - no one is disputing this anyway, and (2) they quote MOS:LEAD guidelines, which they are misinterpreting. These guidelines are obviously not applied in the manner that is being suggested as very many articles (referred to above) have former names incorporated within the lead. The proposers seem to have no rational argument, merely personal preference on their side. The nationality of the inhabitants of the city is entirely irrelevant, York has no viking population but it is still known by a variation of its Norse name, its Old English name was Eoforwic; if the English were to be stupidly nationalistic then its modern name would have been changed from York to something like "Everwich". Urselius (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment:Interesting you say that. However, my arguments are not "nationalistic" and my "rationality" is not in question. See: WP:civil. Also don't place an interpretation on my viewpoint. Not all articles on Wikipedia have a old name as you say and the name Philippopolis is catered for in the article in the name section. The city is in Bulgaria and its Bulgarian name which is current and most commonly used in English too should be the only name in the lede. Pushing Philippopolis in the lede could be considered nationalistic, as the name is defunct in modern times apart from Greek speaking usage and some scholarly works dealing with the past era. That is not enough to warrant its inclusion in the lede.Resnjari (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

How much more defunct are Jorvik and Eboracum? Many articles place former names prominently in the lead. This is a fact. From this there are only a limited number of possibilities: that MOS:LEAD guidelines do not imply that former/historical names are excluded from the lead, or the MOS:LEAD guidelines do imply that former/historical names are excluded, but that they are not enforced and are irrelevant in practise, or that MOS:LEAD guidelines do not meet the needs of certain articles and should be modified. Therefore Wikipedia policy as it is implemented is not clear on this matter. The lead is not a sacrosanct holy place, it is there for a function. Its function is to introduce a subject and include as much information as will make the reader aware of key facts concerning the subject of the article within space constraints - adding "formerly known as Philippopolis" is not going to challenge space constraints. It will help the reader, why do you want to make things unnecessarily difficult for the reader? Urselius (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment:As different interpretations have been given on clarity and non-clarity (by yourself) regarding policy on the matter, than not having Philippopolis in the lede suffices so as neutrality is preserved and no POV pushing. The reader is introduced to the subject which is Plovdiv. The article is not written for a 5th or 6th century audience who knew the city as Philippopolis. In modern times the city is called Plovdiv and that is the name employed in modern English literature today (apart from scholarship who uses the Philippopolis for past times). When the reader delves further into the article, they can see other historical names (that might be current in other languages) of the city.Resnjari (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Plovdiv is the modern name for the city, or that "Plovdiv" should be used as the major referent to the city. However, scholarship is important, it should be very important to any construct aiming to be encyclopaedic. I am a scientist by training and profession, but I have a great interest in history and like many other native English-speakers I approach the Balkans, Anatolia and the Middle East from a historical perspective. Because of this I and many other native English-speakers, and this is the English language Wikipedia, know and think of many places in these regions primarily by their former names - Alexandria not Al Iskandariyah, Dyrrachium not Durres, Thessalonica not Thessalonki, Nicaea not Iznik, Antioch not Antakya. Why not accommodate the many people like me, rather than make life difficult for them? Urselius (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to be corrected here. No one is also disputing that Philippopolis is a name referring to the city for its past times. But this name is not used now in any English science except history(again for past times, excluding significant sources such as Cambridge), which warrants it place only in historical articles, as it is proven above.Sevt V (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment to Urselius. Yes scholarship is important and so is historical perspective. However not all English speakers know these cities by the names you have said. Sure Alexandria, Thessalonica definitely. Antioch, and possibly Nicaea, but highly doubtful for Durres these days (and in many English writings of the 19th century the Italian from Durazzo was used, not Dyrrachium). Remember English is now spoken well outside the contours of Britain. A English speaker in Jamaica of even the US (a country known for its geographic illiteracy) would not be aware of the (historic) names you have cited (or even the modern names). If a reader cannot be bothered going down a a paragraph or two in seeing the name section well i cannot do much for that. The name Philippopolis has been cited in the name section were it is appropriate. Modern usage of the city name is Plovdiv and that name should be the only one in the lede.Resnjari (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, there are many people with many backgrounds and interests. However, like I said earlier, why make the article less accessible to any group of potential readers, when it is so easy to ensure that it is accessible to all? Urselius (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

One the policy can go either way and is not specific. Two the English speaking world no longer consists of Britain which used or uses classical names for places. Three (no offence to people from Plovdiv) but apart from Balkan capital cities, most places in the Balkans are obscure places and when people do aquatint themselves with a Balkan place these days (say in a travel brochure, travel guide, internet travel sites etc)it is always by their modern name. You and i may have access to an abundant corpus of scholarship and academia (that may use the name Philippopolis for a certain point of time in the city's era, but not for the period throughout) but that is not the a case for most people here editing or for the wider public who have been introduced to the city as Plovdiv, not Philippopolis. The name Philippopolis is catered for in the name section of where it belongs. By having it in the lede you are equating the name as being of current usage in modern times which is not the case even in the contemporary English speaking world. I will also invoke some advice given in Wikipedia guidelines that discuss bias > WP:BIAS. We have to be wary of a (Western) European or Western perspective/s on regions (like the Balkans) and areas around the world who are often not associated as part of it or its conceptual frameworks as outlined for example by Dr. Maria Todorova influential work: Imagining the Balkans. The Balkans is one place where other views about matter have been imposed, even small trifling names such as this. Take that also into consideration. Philippopolis is a classicist name that may be popular amongst the elites of Oxford and Cambridge, but beyond that scope, very limited.Resnjari (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support, Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. Simple and plain, if there was need for further interpretation would have been elaborated more. The article has a complete section for the name and its variants, referenced and in good shape. --Mondiad (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the lead section not the first sentence. This being the case, how is your quotation relevant? Urselius (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes.--Mondiad (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Above "Strong Support" votes (Mondiad & Rensjari) come from editors that are usually following me, no matter the subject of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not that we are following you, you are following us. In every discussion, you focus on who is who, who said what to who, rather than give any opinion of your own. Most of your contribute goes acting as an intelligence agent, reporting Albanian or pro-Albanian users, and trying to revert their edits, rather than adding any material.--Mondiad (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: "come from editors that are usually following me, no matter the subject of the article." Excuse me Alexikoua yet i have over 500 articles in my watchlist and increasing due to certain editors not seeming to adhere to peer reviewed material. I am adding as i go. Sorry to disappoint you, though considering you are interested in Balkan topics and i am also of course we will come across each other. You are not the only editor interested in Balkan topics. If you think i am contravening policy in any way, please take your allegations to the appropriate forum to be dealt by administrators. Otherwise your opinions (of which you have many and often POV push and much of time based on little to no policy from Wikipedia) about fellow editors are that. I remind again as i have now many times of Wikipedia policy about having good rapport with other editors (See: WP:civil). Please adhere to that. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The city has a continuous history stretching back to Antiquity, and during most of this time, it was known both locally and in the international scene as "Philippopolis". Usage in English arguably remained prevalently the same until the early 20th century, when countries started insisting that the current "national" names be used instead for all international reference. Ergo the name "Philippopolis" is relevant and important to the city when discussing it a) in any ancient or medieval context and b) in English-language literature from the past. This is pretty much the same case as Istanbul. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

With at least the difference that if you check usage in literature of Philippopolis vs Plovdiv, the modern name wins in the past half a century, while if you do the same with Constantinople vs Istanbul, the old name wins. LjL (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite as expected, since the city was never as important as Constantinople/Istanbul; therefore obviously at any given time the larger share of references will be to the modern city, and it will be called the name current at any given time. However that is why the b) part of my argument is important, i.e. the results before the "past half century". There is a considerable corpus of English-language sources that uses "Philippopolis" for the early- and pre-20th-century city, and this cannot be disregarded. Constantine ✍ 20:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. This is an encyclopedia written now, and the fact that cities were more widely known by different names in the more-or-less faraway past is a good historical note to have (in a "Names" section as guidelines suggests), but doesn't belong in the lead. LjL (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In Curta (2006), a very major recent work on the Medieval Balkans, published by the Cambridge University Press, the index has: "Serdica, see Sofia" for Plovdiv there is no entry, though Philippopolis is there and the name occurs on many pages. This example of current scholarly usage alone should be enough for the name Philippopolis to be included in the lead. Urselius (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If parameters are properly set you get different results.Sevt V (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

... uhm, no, I don't...? Those are the same results as I posted, just zoomed in. Plovdiv wins for recent times, just as I said above. That is not the case for Istanbul, as I also said. Oh, and a smoothing of 30 is way overkill, not "proper". LjL (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would actually argue that the fact that the modern name has only overtaken the Bulgarian name in English sources in the past 50 years despite it being de-facto independent since 1878 shows that the historical name is important enough to at least warrant a mention in the lede. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

These results include the hits of Shahba, Syria!Sevt V (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Fut Perf and Urselius. The city has a long history under Byzantine and other non-modern Bulgarian rule, and the academic study of the city during those times often refers to it by the name Philippopolis. If only the common English name Philippopolis was retained in the lede, and the Greek name expanded upon in the "names" section, that would avoid all conflicts with MOS:LEAD#Separate section usage and WP:NCGN regardless of if it was in the first line or not. I also have to point out that least one of the people supporting this RfC are taking it to absurd lengths, and are using a strict application of the relevant guidelines to justify things like removing mentions of Byzantium and Constantinople from the Istanbul article.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: On Wikipedia there are a series of articles of big cities which do not have previous common English names in the lede, though are catered for in separate name/etymologies section. For example Trabzon - no Trebizond, Antalya - no Adalia, Bursa - no Prusa, Kayseri - no Caesarea, Kahramanmaraş - no Marash , Zadar -no Zara, Osijek - no Esseg, Beijing - no Peking etc. This is due to colonial, ethnic disputes, or other socio-cultural sensitivities. If Philippopolis is placed in the lede, so as to avoid any POV pushing issues, a lengthy explanation would have to be given. For example "Philippopolis, was the historic name of the city during the Greco-Roman and Byzantine period is an alternative name in English, though seldom used today." Or something like that. Considering that the policy says "Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence." if such sentences become a bother, while not having them especially for sensitive articles such as this, then it may have a problem of bias and constant edit warring, vandalism and disruption. The name section therefore caters for it and is the neutral option. Also that Wikipedia's policies on the matter (i.e: WP:COMMONNAME is ambiguous, while MOS:LEAD#Separate section usage is also problematic as it mainly pertains to alternative names of equal usage standing. Philippopolis is not a contemporary name but an archaic one only used in a historical context or a classicist one and that in some scholarship. As the polices are also vague and that such a standard is not uniform throughout Wikipedia (as i have also located a number of prominent examples), those making a final decision on the matter need to err on the side of caution about whether having Philippopolis in the lede as a consensus on the matter has also not been established.Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Caution would certainly lie in inclusiveness rather than self-censorship. The examples you give should, in my opinion, have the former names included in the lead so that it is immediately obvious to the reader. The English language Wikipedia should put clarity and scholarship before alleged cultural, national or regional sensitivities. Wikipedia should not act as a handmaiden to nationalistic bias. Once again the "opening sentence" is raised, though we are talking about 'somewhere in the lead', not the opening sentence. Urselius (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Censorship" is if the other names are not cited in the article at all. There is a specific and dense name section to cater for such things in this article. Your claim of Wikipedia being some "handmaiden to nationalistic bias" would be such if the alternative name which is only used in limited contexts (such as medieval scholarship or in a classicist sense by Oxford and Cambridge types) these days becomes part of the article. Regarding the other articles, you can make the case there, yet considering that Wikipedia policy is somewhat vague, ambiguous and more or less a decision left to choice and aesthetic taste, having the archaic name even within that section does not suffice. The article will probably attract vandalism and POV pushing amongst other things. The names section is neutral.Resnjari (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Include the alternate name - Called here by Legobot. If, as it seems on some review, Philippopolis was really a very notable alternate name, is used in disambiguation and is used in renamed hyperlinks, and Wikipedia has three articles called Battle of Philippopolis, then i see no policy-based reason not to include it in the lede, and it seems like it would serve the reader, which is after all our goal, right? SageRad (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unless this [18] containing weasel wording, undue weight, POV-pushing, nationally motivated agenda, etc. will be corrected. The source does not claim that the city was known in the West by that name or that the name is Greek, or that the founder is. Moreover, the man who gave the name is likely Philip the Arab. Judist (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this RfC is based on a misinterpretation of MOS:LEAD#Separate section usage, which talks about the lead sentence, not the lead section. Many of the "support" votes are based on this misinterpretation or a shade of it. It is quite useful to the readers of the article to have a notable (albeit historical) alternative name in the lead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Plovdiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120306054931/http://www.mfa.bg/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7915&Itemid=367 to http://www.mfa.bg/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7915&Itemid=367

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Quote the source

According to the following table from the first inline, the Gudilas are not always considered a majority and the removal of the statistics from the table are not yet justified. (first inline) The second inline of Tzovras, p.34 is actually a quote from Raymond Detrez who writes about the Gudilas and is not nationally biased, and describes the Gudilas only as Hellenised Bulgarians: In Plovdiv the Hellenized Bulgarians were called gudili-singulargudila-a word of unclear etymology. The Greek equivalent was goudilas or the local pronunciation ghoundilas. Although gudila was basically a nickname just like langera the Hellenized Bulgarians also seem to have called themselves gudilas second inline The source is inappropriately used to back a claim, that the source actually does not back. Could you quote a statement describing the Gulidas or the majority of the city as being Greek? It is still not verified. Only the claim that the Hellenized Bulgarians were sometimes considered a majority is backed and the conclusion written in the article is self-arbitrary, not a sourced conclusion.--130.204.187.183 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually the part that you insist to remove is the following: [[19]] According to records provided by Bulgarian scholars, although the city had an ethnic Bulgarian majority in the first half of the 19th century, a major part of it was fully or partly hellenized, described under the name "Gudilas". Thus, the city could be considered of Greek or Bulgarian majority in 1830, on whether the Gudilas were considered part of the one or the other community.. Surprisingly Detrez claims exactly that: [[20]] "deciding whether Plovdiv had a Bulgarian or a Greek majority depends on whether the gudilas are considered as Bulgarians or Greeks". I assume it can't be clearer. Thus I'm going to restore this part, unless you can prove that the specific author spreads nonsense, something I really doubt.Alexikoua (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I insist for the removal only of the first sentence concerning the statistics Bulgarian scholars because they actually refer to a small part of the central part of the city, populated by a few hundreds, that is not the larger city itself. Non-Bulgarian authors obviously claim that, so go ahead and feel free to restore the second sentence about the Greek or Bulgarian majority of the city, but the statistics of the households themselves should not be removed meanwhile. We replaced each others' sourced edits, so it seems this was a misunderstanding. The author says that Langeris are clearly Greeks, although he says that the majority depends on the definition of Gulidas as Bulgarians or Greeks, he clearly notes that there is a little doubt about the Bulgarian origin of the Gulidas.[21]--130.204.187.183 (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Name

Please stop the game with that jokes. None of the sources claims that Eumolpus had found the city from the Vestal Virgins evmolpeya and that the name then was derived. I heard rumors about this, but it is likely not true. So, better write it in the parody encyclopedia instead. A requested citation was provided, tracing that original name as Eumolpiada[22].87.227.208.188 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No concensus

Since an endless discussion about a specific part in lead reached (Talk:Plovdiv/Archive_2#Including_historical_names_of_the_city) "no concensus" I'm going to adjust this per Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Although it had a slight majority in favor to the inclusion of the alternative name "no concensus" should be respected by all parts.Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, seek consensus for your interpretation. There were many different versions prior to that. The version on 6 December when the discussion started was this [23]. You may read Consensus#Consensus-building and maintain a rational and neutral view, not being ideologically invested in winning an argument. It commonly results, not always in retaining a previous version of the article. Still there is WP:CONLIMITED that states Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale, i.e. policies. The wider community agreed that foreign names and inscriptions cannot be moved in the intro since there is a separate section. Regarding WP:NOCONSENSUS, was there a "deletion discussion" for the foreign inscriptions specifically and was there a previous consensus to include foreign inscriptions specifically? Consensus is not the number of votes but arguments. No consensus means that after dispute resolution an intermediate solution should be seeken, not just one of the versions prior to the dispute. After arguments from two sides of equal weight had been presented at least an intermediate version must be achieved, possibly excluding foreign inscriptions. I propose this as per WP:CCC.Sevt V (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal above. Arguments have been presented by both sides; since no consensus could be achieved, the most neutral solution should be used, as to avoid any potential controversies. --Reollun (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's only "controversial" if you have a problem with mentioning that it is the Greek name. Philippopolis is not the "ancient" name (there are other ancient names, e.g. Pulpudeva), it's the Greek name, both ancient and modern. It seems you are intent on hiding this from our readers. Why is that? Athenean (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There were other Greek names, e.g. Poneropolis. Compromise, which the user said, is much less dirty word than "hiding".Sevt V (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't be serious. No one uses Poneropolis, whereas Philippopolis was universally used until recently. And yes, "hiding" is exactly what is going on. "Compromise" is when all sides agree. You tried the same thing at Istanbul, and were defeated in humiliating fashion. By the way it's really interesting you showed up just in time to revert after 6 months of inactivity. I mean, what a coincidence. Athenean (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The arguments against the inclusion of Philippopolis in the lead were to a great extent based on a misreading, possibly deliberate, of guidelines and an equally erroneous apprehension that it was to be inserted in the lead sentence. Given that many of the editors objecting to the inclusion of Philippopolis in the lead were labouring under misapprehensions at the time they voted, the weight of opinion was effectively on the side of inclusion. Urselius (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Urselius, placing a interpretation of the sort for most editors at the time who held a different view point on the matter is a little uncalled for when even the Administrators involved did not do so in that context. Moreover during the discussion Wikipedia polices cited for either side went both ways. Its why there was neither a decision for one or the other due to the vagueness of the matter without there being a decisive outcome. Placing the name in lede will be complicated due to the vagueness of the outcome and may start a whole cycle of disruptive edits another extensive discussion as was had previously. If editors feel that the name should be in the lede, they can start another discussion on the matter and see if there is a decisive conclusion this time around. My position as an editor was then as is now (and outlined extensively in the talk during that discussion). For neutrality purposes, the Greek name should be accounted for in the name section which renders the Greek name not being hidden as some may have those concerns.Resnjari (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please look through the arguments, they support my thesis unambiguously. Many of the objectors to inclusion were labouring under the false impression that it was being proposed to include the name Philippopolis in the lead sentence, and/or that the guidelines inveighing against inclusion of alternate names within the first sentence applied to the lead paragraph as a whole. Any editor voting under either or both of these misapprehensions was insufficiently informed on the subject to allow the expression of a cogent opinion. Urselius (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Greek name is not just any other name, it was the name used in English historiography until recently. As far as I can tell, all the "arguments" (if you can call them that) against having it in the lede boil down to various forms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from editors with Balkan backgrounds. Athenean (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

My concern was that the policy was vague and went either way. The way the Greek name is in the second paragraph of the lede now is ok, with an additional explanation which was importantly lacking that precipitated the whole discussion from past times. It was due to many other additional names (some obsolete or little used) being alongside Plovdiv in the very first sentence that was seen as POV. As long as there is clarification in that form as currently stands such as its use is cited as being historical, it ok. My preference in general for such matters though (unless a certain ethnic group still resides there) is for additional names to be in a name section if it exists. Less headaches we don't have to deal with vandalisation. One thing from the discussion had last year was that Wikipedia needs to clarify polices regarding toponyms and use in the lede more better. Regarding this, others may have a contrary view. I hope it does descend into farce and vandalisation of the page. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I added the Thracian name to the lede in the sentence that discusses it as a Thracian settlement, due to importance of names (as various names also stem from it) in order for the lede to maintain neutrality. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Resnjari. Putting names currently in use in the intro serves the reader better. You will probably don't object if I use your suggestion that way. I added the version prior to discussion noted above, including the Turkish name.Sevt V (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The policy is not clear and can go either way. Its one thing that needs to be elaborated on in Wikipedia polices. What the recent discussion about this matter revealed is that there is contradictions. For now the name probably can stay as long at it is not in bold and that as the sentence now states was the name in which this city was known in Western sources. It does say that if there is no consensus that some from of the older version of the article gets restored. However my preference is for it to be in a name section as i have repeatedly outlined many times due to neutrality purposes. I understand your concerns and other editors in the discussion had and about POV issues. This matter though needs to be tackled at a policy level before it can be properly addressed here and in other places, otherwise it is going to be a long winded discussion edit wars etc etc. Bring this matter (but not Plovdiv per se) up at those policy noticeboards for discussion about other language toponyms (and whereabouts its suitable for it to be within a article) and the formula for their use within articles. Ping me if you do go down this road as i want to participate. There needs to be some consistency and harmonization of policy, not contradictions and loop holes. Otherwise, it creates a unpleasant editing process over all. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari, after an unsuccessful RfC, the following requests seem to be the next steps, this is called mediation or noticeboards, which concern the policies. If not everybody here has good faith or willing to compromise, asking for WP:Mediation would not be possible. Sevt V (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sevt V: Not how it works. Filibe is neither "ancient", nor widely used in English. "Us too!" is not an argument. Athenean (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither is Philippopolis more widely used in English. For the historical period, yes. Could you provide a single 21st century English source, where Philippopolis is used in addition to Plovdiv in non-historical context? I strongly suppose the answer would be no. If so, the reason, for which it is kept here is not that it is widely used in English. If you can cite such a source, I completely agree to exclude Filibe from the sentence. If not, it is best to maintain neutrality by listing all versions of the name. Sevt V (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes the RfC was 'complex' to say the least. Sevt V, if having third party mediation/evaluation would go some way to resolving the matter then the final decision about doing so is up to you. Will keep an eye on what happens. Best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Resnjari (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 June 2016

Edit war about History

Given the recent edit war with User:Murku about the history of the city I am posting a link to a page from the official source I have used stating that the earliest signs of life in Plovdiv are recorded from 8000 BC and the first settlements are founded in 6th century BC: Philippopolis Album, Kesyakova Elena, Raytchev Dimitar, Hermes, Sofia, 2012, p.5, ISBN 978-954-26-1117-2 / web link--Realsteel007 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Neolithic period and all Stone Ages ended in 2000 BC, you got it? I am tired to repeat the same multiple times. The link you provided does not even state the dates you are writing about. Murku (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No one is talking about 2000 BC. I am talking about 6000 BC and 8000 BC. The link provides info about the 6th millenium BC and the 8th millenium BC--Realsteel007 (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Murku are we on the same page now: Plovdiv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realsteel007 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Realsteel, please try to replace several pictures without showing the same dubious view several times. And the strange dates you continue replacing are not claimed by the trivia. I hope this is a sufficient compromise to solve the dispute. Thanks. Murku (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Specify the view you have problem with? Specify the exact dates as well.--Realsteel007 (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

1) Please, stop reverting that nonsense and stop acting as illiterate: "Plovdiv is continuously inhabited since the 6th century BC when the first Neolithic settlements were established.[3][37] Plovdiv has settlement traces including necropolises dating from the Neolithic, roughly 6000 BC" . The statement contradicts itself and is impossible. 2) Showing the same mosque two times on the collage is superfluous. Can you explain this time how this illiterate statement and images are justified in the text?Murku (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Point 1: Fixed. Point 2: If you find a better picture of the roman stadium that fits the frame I will change it. Nevertheless, I don't think that showing a mosque is an issue.--Realsteel007 (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Murku I made changes to the photoframe as well. I think we have reached a consensus.--Realsteel007 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!Murku (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding the Turkish name

I was in Plovdiv few months back. It has a significant Turkish population and demographical data prove that although not fully accurate. I think the Turkish name of the city, which is Filibe, should be added into the first part of the introduction. Berkaysnklf (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's already in the name section, and your subjective experience means nothing as far as wikipedia is concerned. Athenean (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)