Talk:Veľká Fatra

Greater, Great, Velka or Veľká Fatra

Note: This argument also applies to Malá Fatra/Lesser Fatra.

A move of this article to Veľká Fatra has been proposed by User:Svetovid, see Name below, providing some evidence to support that move, here's a bit larger analysis of the topic.

Widely accepted name

The Wikipedia guidline says: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.

There exist more versions of the English name: Greater Fatra, Great Fatra, Large Fatra, and Big Fatra. The last too are not very frequent and are rather just erroneous translations so they won't be included in this discussion. Veľká Fatra is undisputably the local name, which is also frequently used on pages written in English.

To determine whether a name is widely accepted, the guidelines suggest using various resources:

Encyclopaedias

• Britannica 2007 (DVD version) - doesn't have any references to the Fatras
• 1911 - mentions Great Fatra in the article on the Carpathians
• MS Encarta 2007 (DVD version) - uses Greater and Lesser Fatra in the article on Slovakia (the Tatras are referd to as the Tatry)
• The Columbia Lippincott Gazetteer of the World (ed. 1953) - uses Great Fatra
• Geology of the Carpathian Region by G. Z. Foldvary (ed. 1988) - uses Great annd Little Fatra as headwords, the local names in brackets, only the English names are used throughout otherwise

Discussion : While the latest verison of MS Encarta uses Greater Fatra, modern version of Britannica doesn't have any reference to the name (I do not have access to older versions). The free 1911 Britannica and The Columbia Gazetteer of the World of 1953 use Great Fatra. A major book on the geology of the Carpathians uses Great and Little Fatra consistently. These finds don't provide a clear resolution, nonetheless these results prove the English version have been in use for at least a 100 years (though the guidelines suggest using only post 1993 resources, the older finds prove the English version of the name is not a new invention).

Libraries and Books

As of any Google results, the guidelines suggest not just counting the hits, but reading them. And there's another issue, there exists a national park of the same name and many references lead to articles on the protected area. As it is the official name of an instituation, it isn't generally translated (the Wikipedia article on the national park uses the Slovak name too).

Google Scholar

• Veľká Fatra (accented) - 91 hits, Velka Fatra (unaccented) - 43 hits, some of these Slovak only, more then half of these are articles on plants or animals, the name sometimes refers to the protected area, some just English abstracts
• Great Fatra - 14 hits, Greater Fatra - 2 hits

Google Books

• Velka Fatra (unaccented) - 79 hits including artciles in Slovak, German and Latin
• Veľká Fatra (accented) - 39 hits, mostly in Slovak
• Greater Fatra - 6 hits, in one of these the name is used as the second version in brackets
• Great Fatra - 18 hits, one of these is a 1971 edition of the Fodor's guidebook

Amazon

• Velka Fatra - 15 hits, mostly guidebooks, an atlas, as a second name
• Veľká Fatra (accented) - no hits
• Greater Fatra - 3 hits, in guidebooks in brackets as the second version in brackets
• Great Fatra - 5 hits, 2 of them completely unrelated

Library of Congress

Only four hits for Velka Fatra (unaccented), all Slovak, only summary in English.

Discussion : Generally the topic is not very frequent in any resources, most common is the unaccented version of the local name, i.e. Velka Fatra. Many hits point to non-English resources.

Lonely Planet

Lonely Planet guidebooks use Velka Fatra. They are not consistent though, e.g. the Slovenský raj is under its Slovak name only, though a widely used translation the Slovak Paradise exists. The guidelines also suggest the local name "… is attesting to local usage, because that is what the signs on the autobahn will say …".

I haven't checked any other guidebooks (Rough Guides, Baedekers), however the main purpose of a guidebook is to help the travelers, so the use of local names is logical. The same apllies, in my view, for the maps.

Native Slovak's usage

• The Slovak tourist board uses sometimes Great Fatra, sometimes Veľká Fatra so it hardly shows preference for either of the names.
• Discover Slovakia Tours (Great Fatra)

There are many published papers by the scientific community in perfect English which use the English names primarily:

• [1] - by scientists of the University of Žilina (Great Fatra)
• [2] - by scientists of the Department of Clinical Microbiology in Central Military Hospital in Ružomberok (Great Fatra)
• [3] University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava bulletin (Greater Fatra)
• [4] Slovenské múzeum ochrany prírody a jaskyniarstv Slovak nature preservation and caving museum presentation (Greater Fatra)

Organizations

These comments deal mainly with the links suggested in Name

• The suggested UN resource The UN deals with the protected area only, as it it's official, registred name, it's logically used primarily in English. Another UN organization, the FAO uses both names, the Slovak one for the national park only, it's country report and short geography overview use Great Fatra (the letter talks about the Tatry).

• The EECONET 2005 report doesn't translate any names probably as it deals with protected areas.

• The Slovak Spectator page consistently puts the Slovak in the first place for all ranges.

• The WWF country profile uses English names in the first place and avoids English translation for the Fatras (i.e. English plural) by describing them in plural.

Google News and Google Hits

Both Google Search and Google News show large prevalence of the Velka Fatra (unaccented) name. As for the news that's a general trend in the media to use the local names, but there's no quideline saying Wikipedia should follow that trend. There's been a discussion on this topic at Pilsen and the Wikipedia community decided for keeping at Pilsen even though major encyclopaedias have it under Plzeň, the media prefer Plzen (unaccented). General search inludes so many factors to consider that they aren't used as evidence in disputes.

Conclusion

Wikipedia guidelines say "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it", not that the most common name in English texts is to be used. English names are Great/Greater Fatra while Veľká Fatra is the local name which is widely used in English texts as well. If English resources use the local name, it's more common in its unaccented form, i.e. Velka Fatra, which might be rather confusing.

There are enough resources showing the English names are used in encyclopaedias, official documents, materials of international institutions. And they've been in use for over a hundred years.

Many resources are inconsistent in the use of the names and while using the English names for some places, they use the Slovak names for other ones though common English versions exist. Wikipedia's usage (which seems to be a consensus of the community) seems to be consistent as it uses the English names when they exist (High/Low Tatra(s), Little Carpathians, White Carpathians, Slovak Paradise, Slovak Karst, and even Slovak Ore Mountains, also names such as Štiavnica Mountains). Furthermoere, if the frequency of use is to be considered the main evidence for a move the same should be probably applied to all other Slovak loclities.

If there's a consensus local names should be prefered over their English versions than all names should be named, not just names of two Ranges whose English versions closely resemble the local names and are easily identifiable evan for a non-English speaker, just with the generic part translated (contrary to Slovak Ore Mountains which is a bit free translation). Divisions of the Carpathians prefer English names as well, not only for Slovak Ranges.

If any move is proposed it should be first posted at WP:RM. From the presented data it seems the name Great Fatra is prefered over Greater Fatra so perhaps that name should be used preferably. Even though the name Greater Fatra seems to be linguisticly better, but that's only a matter of personal preference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caroig (talk • contribs) 16:04, 16 June 2007.

Of course, native names are usually written without accent marks in English, but Wikipedia uses accent marks, so that's not a point here at all.
Also, I don't know why you think that the use of the native name here would influence Wikipedia's policies. Again, Warszawa is called Warsaw because that is the "widely accepted English name", but Morskie Oko is called Morskie Oko because that is the "widely accepted English name" in that case.
Considering the presented evidence, Encarta is the only source that can be considered influential, although their translations and names ("High Tatry") are strange.
As for other native Slovak names of places being in English, as I previously explained, these articles were often created by Juro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who just translated everything into English. Many of those "English" names were pure original research.--Svetovid 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the last comment offers new views on the topic, thus I didn't feel it necessary to write anything more. I'm only reacting because of a following text on my user's talk page: "You are still the only one stubbornly blocking the name change."

I strongly object to this way of communication. It all started with with User:Svetovid's renaming of all occurencies of Greater Fatra into Veľká Fatra. There was no discussion, it wasn't first suggested at WP:RM. Only the edit summary said the name Veľká Fatra was more frequent on the Internet. Later, after my revert a statistics and a list of web pages using Veľká Fatra was given, stating it was unquestionable evidence justifying the rename and deadlines for replies were repeatedly set, these requested what sort of evidence must be given to stop the rename. That's the reason for my objection, one single user can't decide what's evidence and what's not, what and by then other user's must do. It's simply good practice to suggest any requested move at WP:RM. It hasn't happened so far.

As for the evidence. I provided all sort of evidence I was told to (though I didn't think I had to). Large encyclopaedias either don't mention the Slovak ranges or are inconsistent. Interestingly both Britannica and Encarta consistently use Slovak Ore Mountains, which would seem the most questionable for me as it doesn't translate just a generic word (high, great etc.) but the name as a whole. There are also other large compendia on mountains or the Carpathians, which use English names for all ranges. No such large resources supporting Veľká Fatra exist. Good, academic articles written by Slovak authors use Great(er) Fatra as well. FAO reports use the name too. Most of the links used as "evidence" for Veľká Fatra point to sites, which use only Slovak names for all locations in Slovakia.

Statisticaly, the Slovak name is more frequent on the Internet than the English names, but so are many other places as there's a trend in the media to prefer the local place names. Nonetheless, this an encyclopaedia which has bit different guidelines. These state if a widely accepted English name exist, it should be used preferably. Great(er) Fatra is such a name so there's no reason to move, neither is there a reason to move Lesser Fatra or Slovak Ore Mountains. I haven't reverted those as I haven't contributed to those articles in any way.

I was asked what I suggest. The same thing I suggested at the beginning. Place the move request at WP:RM, get a large audience expressing their views. Precedence in other cases (e.g. Pilsen) shows there is no reason for a move if there exist good reasons for both names and unless there's an overwhelming consensus the move is justified, the article should remain where it is. – Caroig (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

Note: This argument also applies to Malá Fatra/Lesser Fatra.

The name of the article and the range in any other article referring to it should be "a widely accepted English name," as required by logic, guidelines and policies. Which is it then? The original Veľká Fatra or one of the direct English translations? After looking into various sources substantially, Veľká Fatra comes as the only "widely accepted English name."
List of sources (examples):
Environmental agencies: The UN, eeconet.org and WWF all use the Slovak name only.
Native speakers: worldinfozone.com, naturetrek.co.uk, photographersdirect.com, and mtsobek.com. The examples are significant, because they come from pages for hikers, people who are usually more knowledgeable about mountains and such.
SummitPost.org uses Malá Fatra.
Travel guides: Lonely Planet uses Velka Fatra and Mala Fatra (p. 372) in their Blue Guide and Malá Fatra again in Central Europe (p 464), Eastern Europe (p 798) and europe on a shoestring (p 994). The Rough Guide to Czech & Slovak Republics uses Malá Fatra.
Google News search (English sources only) gives 0 results for Greater Fatra and only 1 result for Lesser Fatra but 13 results for Velka Fatra and 78 results for Mala Fatra. This clearly shows that whenever the mountains are mentioned, English journalists use the native names only.
Google Scholar: 43 results for Velka Fatra and only 2 results for Greater Fatra. 221 results for Mala Fatra and only 1 result for Lesser Fatra, which is a translation in a book in Slovak.
Library of Congress Online Catalog: see translations [5], [6], [7].
The Slovak Tourist Board uses the native names in English: [8], [9], [10], [11].
The Slovak Spectator (written by native speakers) and its travel guide to Slovakia use Malá Fatra and Veľká Fatra (Great is used only as a translation just like it is supposed to in this article): [12], [13] and news.
Also see an opinion from a native speaker currently living in Slovakia.

• This is inaccurate; Mike Gogulski belongs to the minority who would prefer to use local official names, no matter how incomprehensible; but his opinion on the question at issue is Among the English versions I've seen, "Greater Fatra" appears far better than "Great Fatra", but there is also an argument that it should be "Greater Fatras" to keep a parallel with "High Tatras", "Low Tatras", etc., which seem to be in more common use in the plural rather than the singular. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of Google hits is inaccurate but the number of results (in English pages only) for Velka Fatra (20,300) versus Greater Fatra (66) is so overwhelming it needs to be used. By the way, even Great Fatra gets 4 times the number of hits.
The fact that a translated name exists is not an evidence that it's also widely used. Native names are used commonly in English. We still have Morskie Oko, Picos de Europa or Colle di Cadibona instead of Sea Eye, Peaks of Europe and Cadibona Hill.--Svetovid 10:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite. From larger part I must agree with Svetovid, as he presented his evidence - Caroig hasn't done so yet. While I think English should be used as much as possible here, this doesn't seem to be case and only translations at the beginning should be presented and the rest using Slovak name. Caroig, while I appreciate your contributions, your behaviour when it's related to these articles sounds like claiming an ownership of article(s), repulsing everyone else's efforts, what is contrary to the policies of the Wiki. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 10:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I claim the ownership as I'm not the author of the article. I just contributed to it and keep an eye on it. User:Svetovid uses just one justification for the change of the name and this is the frequency of the names. There are many cases of articles on Wikipedia which keep the English name as headword even when it's not the most frequent. I provided some links at [Fatra]. Everyone can make a Google query and check whether the name Greater/Great Fatra is used in decent sources. Besides, I don't see any reason in renaming one or two ranges when most other Slovak ranges, even those less important, keep Slovak names (Slovak Paradise, Slovak Karst, Lesser Carpathians, Low Tatra, High Tatra, White Carpathians), will those be eliminated too just because their names are less frequent on the Internet than their Slovak versions? I used "Great Fatra" in all articles I started as it had been used on Wikipedia for some time, the article itself had been under that name (I didn't create it) and it was coherent with all other mountain ranges in Slovakia.

Although I don't want to be very involved in this skirmish between you and Svetovid, I must say that the warning heading on Svetovid's talk page and strong language plus threats with arbitration were completely unnecessary. Why don't you present some evidence for the name usage instead of arguing with Svetovid when you know he isn't serious offender when it's related to his behaviour? There isn't any consensus on any of these names and he didn't edit warred so he had right to move article with good reason. He only used "be bold" principle and that's all. Period. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel very ashamed I got into this dicussion. I consider all name disputes ridiculous and unecessary for Wikipedia and I've never taken part in any until this one. Arbitration is a normal way of solving disputes on Wikipedia if a normal discussion fails. I asked for a discussion several times, and by discussion I understand when more editors put in their two cents. Many editors also have to work sometimes so they they can't answer immediately, which is not reason to say they have failed to do anything.

I would have perhaps left the name change untouched if it were not for the completely unreasonable edits to the Borišov and article other changes in the artcile itself which in my view documented User:Svetovid approach to editing. I never questioned the frequency of the names on the Interent (but even the links provided hereabove prove the names Great/Greater Fatra are used as well), but I also tried to point out there are other aspects to be taken into account, those calles were never answered. Only a list of sites which use "Velka Fatra" (unaccented), those which use Great/Greater Fatra unlisted. And many of those listed use only Slovak names for all mountains (http://www.eeconet.org/eaf/what/Annual_Report2005.pdf, http://slovakspectator.sk/clanok.asp?cl=24593).

I feel even more stupid as I actually don't care very much how the article is named, what I care about is that it contains relevant and consistent information which is what I try to do when I found time for Wikipedia editing. I started using Greater Fatra as it had been used so before on Wikipedia, consistently with other ranges. I wish more people would put effort into improving the articles on these beautiful mountains instead of looking for the most common name on the Internet. – Caroig (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed User:Svetovid edit when he erased some substantial infromation from the Borišov artyicle without any reason and when asked why e.g. the expression "deforested summit" was removed, the reply was "trees just don't grow there". While there are two sources provided which confirm all information and if you look at the official pages of the national park, they say so as well. – Caroig (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Carpathians, Tatras, Slovak Paradise and Slovak Karst are widely accepted English names, Greater and Lesser Fatra are not.
"...will those be eliminated too just because their names are less frequent on the Internet than their Slovak versions?" Please read Slippery slope (logical fallacy).
Borišov has been settled on its talk page the day I edited it almost 2 weeks ago. Why do you keep bringing it up when it's totally unrelated?--Svetovid 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How about starting a poll about the name preference? - Darwinek 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We could vote if there was any evidence for the other names (Greater Fatra and Lesser Fatra), which would be at least somewhat equal to the evidence for the native names. Is there any?--Svetovid 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any. - Darwinek 12:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greater Fatra → Veľká Fatra — All the evidence for using the native name as the widely accepted English name has been shown in the above discussion. The fact that various English translations exist is another reason to use the native name to stop confusion. If you have any doubts or questions, please discuss them before voting.—Svetovid 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nominator.--Svetovid 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support per the evidence presented above, provided that the English translation is prominently mentioned in the lead. KissL (via WP:RM) 15:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to Weak Oppose per Caroig's reasoning above. KissL 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Veľká is an adjective, isn't it? It appears to mean "big", like its cognates in other Slavic languages. The idiomatic way to represent that in English in this context is Greater; we are here to communicate with English speakers, not subserve anyone's national pride. The consensus of encyclopedias is sufficient to establish English usage here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your pointless personal attack, I'll just cite myself again: "Also remember that the fact that an English name exists and is used is not enough to consider it a widely accepted name in English (there are too many examples to count; e.g. Côte d'Ivoire)." and "Native names are used commonly in English. We still have Morskie Oko, Picos de Europa or Colle di Cadibona instead of Sea Eye, Peaks of Europe and Cadibona Hill." Also, what consensus of encyclopaedias? Encarta is the only current encyclopaedia using this name. And Encarta also uses "High Tatry" and "Low Tatry".--Svetovid 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is sufficient to establish the intention of using English adjectives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are advocating just translating all the native names? That could be classified as original research and against WP:NCGN too.--Svetovid 10:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am advocating following the (much more widely discussed) High Tatras, which is clearly English usage. This includes intentionally using the English (rather than Polish, Slovak, or Czech) form of the plural, for neutrality and comprehensibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality from what? Again, we have purely English names for many Spanish locations, but Picos de Europa are still called by their native name.--Svetovid 11:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support because although this is English Wikipedia, sufficient number of sites using one of English translations (Great, Greater, Big etc. Fatra) hasn't been presented, so I weakly support move to its native name, provided that English translations are mentioned in the lead. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't been presented? If you read the Greater, Great, Velka or Veľká Fatra section of this article you will find reliable, academic and official resources using the English names only. I don't think there's a single highly respected English resource which would consistently use the Slovak names for the range. All the resources at the top of the Name section use the Slovak names only (or at the first place) for all Slovak ranges or deal with the protected areas where, logically, the official name is used. And these are the most relibale sites used in that section. – Caroig (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Use English. – Axman (☏) 08:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason being? This should be a discussion in the first place.--Svetovid 10:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Use English" did Svetovid fail to understand? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for using English is to use English? Have you ever heard of circular reasoning?--Svetovid 11:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes; it is one of the forms of bad reasoning used by Single Purpose Accounts to pursue nationalist agendas. The reason to use English is to communicate with our (English-speaking) readership. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Circular reasoning covered, time to check ad hominem out.--Svetovid 21:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support per evidence presented. "Greater" is an artificial Anglicization of correct Slovak name. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles with original names, so why artificially translate this one. - Darwinek 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Slovak name should properly be used at the article on the Slovak wikipedia; and I see it is sk:Veľká Fatra. It should also be mentioned; and it is. This does not abrogate our chief duty: to communicate with our readership. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "Artificial' would suggest it has only recently been invented which is not the case here as the name Great Fatra was used in the 1911 Britannica. No-one disputes the correct Slovak name but this is English Wikipedia so if an English name exists it should be used preferably (see WP:NCGN). By the way, I apologize for beeing a bit personal, but I gather it was User:Darwinek who changed some of the names I used in the articles on the Moravian-Silesian Beskids into a more anglicized version, which I accepted as it was more consistent than my usage, so it's a bit surprising he disagrees here where the English name has definitely a longer tradition. – Caroig (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • "if an English name exists it should be used preferably" is a guideline/policy made up by yourself. Wikipedia's policies state that it should be the name widely used in English (see Côte d'Ivoire, for example). Also, that Britannica's article refers to a single mountain, not the range, and the usage of "Great" clearly illustrates another problem with the English name ... or names.--Svetovid 21:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • There is more on naming conventions, my sentence is just a summary of more guidelines, e.g. WP:NAME#Use_English_words doesn't use "widely used" … Yeah, there are many place names which are traditionally never translated, place names which are always used in English and place names which are sometimes translated, sometimes not. One can't draw any conclussion out of that. We can discuss every site or resource and its correct or faulty usage of the name but I don't think this would lead anywhere. There exist similar inconsistence in use of High Tatras or High Tatry (the latter is pretty frequent to my surprise). I still fail to see why some English names for Slovak ranges are acceptable (even such hybrids as Belianske Tatras) but not the Fatras or Slovak Ore Mountains. – Caroig (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've summarized my reasons at Conclusion, a bit higher on this page.

“ When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. ”

So says WP:NCGN. Great or Greater Fatra as a name for the range (not the national park) is consistently used on a variety of highly reliable resources (listed at Encyclopaedias, academic papers, FAO country report, the official site of the Slovak tourist board (Slovak tourist board) is inconsistent, someplace using the English name, someplace the Slovak one. All this proves the English names have been in wide use, and for a long time, the 1911 Britannica uses Great Fatra.

Most other Slovak mountain ranges are listed under their English names at Wikipedia: High/Low Tatra(s), Little Carpathians, White Carpathians, Slovak Paradise, Slovak Karst; Lesser Fatra and Slovak Ore Mountains have only recently been moved by User:Svetovid based on the same reasoning as is applied here. As of the Slovak Ore Mountains, both Britannica and Encarta use only this English name. – Caroig (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose this and other similar moves made without any discussion here and here by this nominator per WP:UE and arguments presented above. Please also link to Talk:Slovak Ore Mountains and Talk:Lesser Fatra to discuss. —  AjaxSmack  05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The evidence presented above leads me to believe that there is wide acceptance in English-language sources for translation of the name to "Great(er) Fatra(s)", though a clear "winner" for the "correct" variant of the English name does not emerge. WP:NCGN asks for "a widely accepted English name" (emphasis mine), which suggests there should be a sole English name at hand to substitute for that in the local language. We don't have that in this case, but the designation "Greater Fatra" has documented history of use in prominent academic sources behind it, and resonates well. Given that there are several English names used, and that our preference should be to use one of them on the English wiki, I oppose the move and suggest rather that the discussion change to one of which English-language name is most appropriate. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 10:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Leaning on support. First, I would remind everyone who pulls WP:UE that it doesn't say "use anglicized name if it can be invented at all" but "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". That being said, there is a case for moving, as Google Scholar yields 38:14 for the Veľká Fatra, and Google gives 21900:1420. Admittedly, many of those were written by native Slovak speakers and/or refer to the Hotel or National park, but it's still 15:1 ratio. That being said, I'm not too keen to disregard Encarta either, and I can notice a similar phenomenon in e.g. Velika Morava vs. Great Morava Google comparison, but there is a strong case for the move. Duja► 12:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose By all the evidence presented above. Furthermore I fear that this request for move could be part of a disruptive campaign by the nominating user to get rid of names he dislikes 'en masse' and replace them with slovak or other names more preferred by him. Many of his recent contributions certainly point in the direction, but I hope I'm not right in this. Hobartimus 18:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You make me laugh sock puppet...but only a little.--Svetovid 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This aggressive and uncivil user who nominated this move was already called "Single Purpose Account to pursue nationalist agenda" above by User:Pmanderson, and he seems to try to force his way trough if the consensus won't go his way. In case his position won't get consensus here he will probably try to force his version through without discussion as he tried to do with Talk:Lesser Fatra and Talk:Slovak Ore Mountains where his actions already resulted in a discussion of several users. On another article [14] he didnt even bother requesting a move for the article title he just replaced every name in the article body to his version, so that it would no longer match the title of the article. Many of his other edits fit into an emerging pattern as well, but everyone can draw their own conclusions. My only point here is that all the articles in question will have to be closely monitored if this discussion is to have any effect whatsoever. Hobartimus 20:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you prophets never use your skills to win jackpot or something? Did you see who'd win the next Russian elections in that crystal ball too? Your opinion is beyond pathetic now.--Svetovid 22:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The English name is more familiar to English speakers. – Marco79 12:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Given the recent number of moves of this page, I am reluctant to fall back on the rather unsatisfactory "no consensus" outcome. Several other page moves are related to this one, and are likely to follow the outcome of this discussion. I emplore all those concerned to discuss the issues calmly and to try to come to an agreement. I have, accordingly, relisted this move at WP:RM to allow more time. --Stemonitis 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Slovak name should be in bold indeed

It's like the above discussion never happened and Caroig (talk · contribs) keeps ignoring that the Slovak name is also widely used by English speakers and thus should be in bold according to Wikipedia's guidelines.
For the last time: this is not just a native name (which are normally in italics); this is an alternate name used in English (thus bold).--Svetovid 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The native name is always put in italics, that's a Wikipedia standard. All other Slovak locations are formatted that way. All native names of places all around the world are sometimes (sometimes frequently) used in English texts. – Caroig (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion because you forgot what was written apparently.
"The native name is always put in italics, that's a Wikipedia standard."->wrong indeed, see all articles linked about; if native names are widely used they are, of course, in bold (1 example for all Côte d'Ivoire)
"All other Slovak locations are formatted that way."-> wrong, see e.g. Slovak Ore Mountains, Veľký Rozsutec, Záhorie, and to have a laugh, articles YOU started with native names in bold: Ploská, Ostrá, Borišov. Yes, I know there are no English alternatives for some of the names, but that is my very point. If a native name is used in English, it's in bold.
"All native names of places all around the world are sometimes (sometimes frequently) used in English texts." And if they are used frequently, they need to be in bold (and they may be articles' names too).--Svetovid 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion has nothing to do with that. If you look at all those links you provided (as well as any other), the local name is also the article name thus it's in bold. However, if the article is placed under the English name of the location, the native name is quoted after it in italics, that's the standard I was talking about. Examples? Venice, Moscow, Blue Nile, Alps, Lisbon, High Tatras. Is there any examples of the formatting proposed by yourself? – Caroig (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all according to Wikipedia's guidelines.--Svetovid 11:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Venice, Moscow, Blue Nile, Alps, Lisbon, High Tatras as well as all other non-English localities use the same formatting, thus it is obvisously in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, not the formatting suggested by yourself. So please respect the guidelines too. – Caroig (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Related move proposal

See Talk:Lesser Fatra#Move? If that page were to move, presumably this one would move too. Feel free to comment in that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Move made for both pages following Requested move discussion at Talk:Lesser Fatra#Move?. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)