Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Administrative division.

If I read the conventions right, the articles names of provinces should just be the name, example "Azuay" if you are talking about the "Province of Azuay" "Azuay Province". But if it is not a province in name, you add the subdivision type to the article name, example "Caldas Department" or "Department of Caldas"...? Digirami (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and I'm not sure the conventions say that, but intuitively it sounds sort of right. Can you be more specific?--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to work on the article names for the departments of Colombia and the provinces of Ecuador. Both are first level administrative subdivisions of their country, but are named differently, obviously. But the language seems a little unclear to me in the naming conventions under administrative subdivisions. Because the provinces of Ecuador are called provinces, should the name of the article be the "simple name" (for lack of a better term) of the province (example: should this just be named Azuay)? But, should the departments of Colombia include the word "department" in the article, as is currently done here because they are called departments? I hope I was clearer this time around. Digirami (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's clearer. But I don't think the conventions say what you suggest they might say. I don't see a reason to treat entities with the word "province" differently from those with the word "department". The conventions for each country might be different - if all the Ecuador province articles have the word "Province" in their title, then they should probably be left that way unless someone can provide a good reason (such as prevailing English-language usage) why that should be changed.--Kotniski (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Urgent request

<sigh>I would like to request the editor(s) who have changed so intensively the structure of the Naming conventions (geographic names) in the last two weeks to meticulously explain here from now on where they moved all the material and why they did so. You have to be aware that seemingly little changes you do here have potentially far-reaching effects in the article namespace, because people rely on what it said here and how it is phrased. The section on historical names, for example, has been so severely curtailed that has basically become worthless as a point of reference. I add the stuff again to give you the possibility to do verifiable and plausible changes or moves to another articles. You might even want to get acquainted with the principle of using the Edit summary. Regards </sigh> Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on, all the information is still there (or else on other more appropriate pages which are linked to from here), just much more compactly arranged, easier to find, without unnecessary duplication and overemphasis of long-forgotten pointless disputes. Please don't unilaterally undo other people's hard work like this - if you think there's anything specific (in terms of actual relevant information that people can use) missing from the new version, then put it back in.--Kotniski (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't. The passage Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. is missing; without it, the convention is open to misconstruction. (The actual example which inspired this was -er- not too far from Bratislava, IIRC.) If there is actual disagreement on this point, let's discuss it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski, please don't pretend consensus. The template specifically states "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus". This must be the paramount consideration for any edits on the page. I am going to restore the section on historical names one last time, and if your unilateral removes continue, I fear I have no choice but to fill an incidence report. You underestimate the way your edits have disrupted an extremely vital point of reference for many Wikipedians. So please be prudent and circumspect in your edits, and, above all, explain them, and everything is fine. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Please give evidence as to how anything has been "disrupted". Keep this junk in if you must, but remember that by including unnecessary, irrelevant, sometimes barely comprehensible wording in the guidelines, you damage Wikipedia by making it harder for people to find the real helpful information they are probably looking for. This project is already massively over-documented - not even experienced editors know where to look for or put information, and newbies must be totally overwhelmed. Read the sentence Sept quoted again, as a newbie. How are they supposed to understand what something like that is supposed to mean? There isn't any disagreement about any points of substance, as far as I know, just how to present this information so people can easily and quickly understand it.--Kotniski (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, yes, there is a disagreement on points of substance: that reflects several actual conversations on Slovak placenames, of the form: the city is now named Bratislava (or Brno, or whatever), so it must be referred to by that name for all previous dates; the majority view was that we should not: Bratislava was coined in the early nineteenth century, and the contemporary names are English usage for earlier periods, usually with (now Bratislava). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Take historical name disputes elsewhere?

What is basically the same issue (or significantly overlapping aspects of it) is dealt with (in possibly different ways) in several different guidelines - on this page, at the MoS (in two sections: WP:MOS#Geographical items and WP:MOS#Foreign terms), at WP:Proper names, partially at WP:Lead section, and probably elsewhere. I would suggest that we establish one place where the issue is dealt with comprehensively, and that the other pages just briefly summarize that guidance and link to it. I would also suggest that this one place should certainly not be this page. "Naming conventions" in WP parlance generally refers to the titles given to articles, not the names by which we refer to things within articles - and the issue in question, namely how we refer to places in historical contexts, although it does have an incidental bearing on some article names (Battle of Stalingrad and so on), is not principally about the naming of articles. It seems more logical, then, to deal with this issue in full detail at WP:Proper names, for example.--Kotniski (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A very good point about ensuring that various policies don't contradict each other; however the historical name often appear in the lead, which can often determine the context. I'd say that the names in the articles have generated much less problems that the names of the articles. Vide battle of Wilno (1655). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No; this page is intended chiefly to deal with the naming of articles (that's why it's a naming convention), and was principally compiled to settle the principles on which historical names are chosen - our nationalists disagree on how they apply, but that's another problem.
  • This is the fullest detail of any of these pages; because it was argued out by a large number of editors, who considered the potential problems.
  • MOS need not meddle with the matter save to summarize (as indeed it does: one of the sections linked to is a summary of this page, the other a summary of WP:UE).
  • WP:Proper names addresses this issue vaguely and only by examples, but what it suggests is consistent with this page; this is the only page, however, which suggests a way to decide between California and Alta California.
  • WP:Lead section again agrees with the principles of this page, but does not deal with several actually arising problems, like the city with half-a-dozen relevant names.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That may all be true, but it's surely confusing to anyone seeking information. And you've confused me as well, with your first paragraph - first you say this page's chief concern is the naming of articles, then you say it's the choosing of historical names (which by and large are not the ones used as article names). Can you clarify?--Kotniski (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This page deals chiefly with the naming of articles dealing with places. As in the Wilno matter above, this is mostly ccntroversial when the place (may have) changed name, as with Constantinople or Stalingrad; therefore most of that majority of the page deals with historical names.

Battle of Eylau

  • Is it agreed that we should use this, as the standard English name of the battle? and not substitute Bagrationovsk, as the modern name of Preussisch Eylau ? (It lies in the Kaliningrad enclave of Russia.)
  • Should we extend this to say that Names derived from a geographic place sometimes use the modern name of that place, and sometimes a past name; follow the usage of a plurality of reliable modern sources. (Amendments?)
  • Are Treaty of Nanking, a spelling difference, and Battle of Eylau enough examples? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Eylau, sure, I don't think you'll find "Battle of Bagrationovsk" anywhere. Another good example would be "Council of Nicaea" IMO, I've only seen "Council of İznik" on Turkish websites. Markussep Talk 12:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
So how is this different from battle of Vilnius (1655) (RM ongoing) discussed above? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an RM regarding the Kraków Uprising should ensue, with the Free City of Kraków afterwards. How are they different from the Battle of Eylau? Dr. Dan (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Would it be possible to explain the old Talk:Gdansk/Vote with the current policy? At least, it should be linked from our current policy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely; the dependence on the nationality of biographical subjects is not here - and a good thing too; there is too much nonsense about the nationality of Ptolemy and Copernicus as it is without having Alexandria and Torun change names around them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
So should we retire this policy? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This page, or Talk:Gdansk/Vote? This WP:NCGN was written by several editors, including both of us, in peace and quiet after the Gdanzig lameness had calmed down again; it's probably our better judgment, but we may want to let sleeping Rauschnings lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The Gdanzig page. I think that it is for the most part compliant with NCGN anyway; the best way to do it would be to adopt it as part of the "clarifications on the name of specific cities or geographical entities in specific geographical regions" subpage. We need to clarify the following part of the policy: "If the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If there is no such name in English, use the historical name that is now used locally." The first part is fine. But in the second part, Gdanzig contradicts it, as - since there is no well estabilished name in English for history (both Danzig and Gdansk are used), according to our policy, we should default to the modern name, but in fact, we default to the vote. I do think that the vote was and is useful, and hence I'd suggest amending the second sentence to read "If there is no such name in English or if there are several plausible alternatives, use the historical name that was used locally for a given time period the article (or relevant part of it) covers". Then we can archive the Gdansk vote, and summarize it on a new page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Cases, under a Danzig/Gdansk section. We could use the Danzig/Gdansk vote as a precedent to use such votes (project-wide discussion) to establish precise dating/naming brackets for other cities, such as the Wilno/Vilnius issue discussed below. As the Gdanzig model has proven to work - it stabilized edit wars in that area - we should use it as a model to solve other, similar problems. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the Gdanzig vote really incompatible - in general - with this guideline? The chief reason to use Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945 is that English-speakers do; our basis for this is our sample of editors, but it may well be right, per test 5 in this guideline. That would make it (like Danzig for the intervening period) the "widely accepted historical English name". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have pointed above how the guideline is self-contradictory. Please note I support keeping Gdanzig vote, I just want to make it a rule, not an exception to the current ones.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Is "Gdanzig" (sic), a new proposition? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I sure have seen it often enough quoted in Wikipedia naming discussion contexts in this way, it no longer strikes me as in the least bit odd. I think I'll seriously start using it out there in real life some time soon ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I found Gdanzig on WP:LAME, and use it partly for neutrality, partly to remind all of us that this dispute is less than earthshaking. Wikipedia's usage in obscure articles on Old Prussia is not going to revise the 1945 settlement, nor even change Copernicus' nationality - whatever it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a Wiki inspired neologism which is used (and is useful) in some settings and I think it's perfectly fine to use it on talk pages or on discussion pages such as this one. But just like we don't use neologisms or slang terms as titles of main articles on other subjects (last I checked dough is still about the bready stuff, not about money, and Bristols is still an article about cities in England) or even as a frequent term inside the main articles themselves, its existence has no bearing on what the proper article titles should be and almost next to none on what should be included in article text. BTW, things like the Danzig/Gdansk vote/controversy are noted by outside media (implicitly or explicitly) either as a way to poke fun at Wiki or as an input into their own naming policies (seriously). So while it may not be earth shattering it definitely spreads some ripples in some ponds. And this is actually why these things are so contentious - Gdansk vs. Danzir or Vilnius vs. Wilno sounds lame, but at the same time it captures quite a range of very important issues and controversies and at the end of the day it affects how modern history is written. Which is why folks fight about seemingly "lame" stuff so much.radek (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting on comments whether we should change the text of the policy as I suggested above, or what else can be done to fix the inconsistencies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made the edit ([1]); feel free to disagree, revert and propose a better solution, but do note that the old version contradicted the Gdanzig vote and likely some other estabilished naming precedents and one way or another needs to be changed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Library of Congress subject headings

Monkey wrench. Use Library of Congress subject headings - these are also used by the British Library: "The authority file of Library of Congress Subject Headings is maintained and edited by the Library of Congress. However, the file has become an increasingly international standard in recent years due to the contribution of new subject headings proposals from libraries across the world through the Subject Authorities Cooperative Program (SACO) component of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging. The British Library is a major contributor to this Program." [2] Novickas (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On the beautiful blue Danube

On a more rational note, my talk page contains a reference to this naming convention, which is to settle Hungarian-Slovak disputes. It should certainly be mentioned here; it does include exactly the sort of guidance to which Kotniski objects, and is still called a naming convention.

It also contains the same sort of "ethnic preference" as the Gdansk settlement; articles on Magyars use Hungarian placenames (with the Slovak in parens at first mention), and conversely for articles on Slovaks. Should we endorse this provision? Should we generalize it (to extend to Ptolemy, for example)? I should think not; but clearly it does have a measure of support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We have to mention that Slovakia basically exists since 1993 (unless you count the Nazi puppet state). English sources do frequently use the Hungarian names in a historical context (sometimes exclusively). Using modern names exclusively in a historical context is awkward and anachronistic.
Even more strange if we use old Hungarian names for counties, but use modern Slovak names (exclusively) for a city/village sometimes in the very same sentence. Squash Racket (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Not that it should be decisive, but Slovakia has existed as an administrative region at least since the Constitution of the First Czechoslovak Republic in 1920 (with a brief and disreputable break), and is likely to have been as cavalier in using Slovak names as other resurgent nationalities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well during that time the Germans were the second largest nationality in that state by a rather large margin behind the Czech. Slovaks had about 14 percent if I recall. Hobartimus (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

Editors here may be interested in the proposal to move Portland, Oregon to Portland, which would, if passed, affect our convention on the United States. See Talk:Portland#Requested move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Briefly: I always thought this made sense. There is one primary Portland, Pittsburgh, New York, Los Angeles, and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation for English city suburbs

I know this has been discussed to death before, but it's looming it's ugly head again at Talk:Shirley,_Hampshire#Move_districts_of_Southampton - additional input there would be most welcome. waggers (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The requested move resulted in approval (which I think is the correct decision in Southampton's case) - but this means that very few city suburbs follow the naming convention as it stands. Daemonic Kangaroo kindly provided an analysis of the articles under Category:Districts in England, which I've updated below to show the Southampton change:
Disambiguated by:		    Town/City	County
Districts of Bath 	 		  5	  0
Areas of Bedford 	  		  4	  0
Geography of Blackpool   		  7	  1
Districts of Bristol 	  		 46	  2
Districts of Cheltenham 		  3	  3
Suburbs of Coventry 			 11	  0
Districts of Derby 			  3	  6
Districts of Gloucester 		  2	  2
Districts of Leeds 			 25	  8
Areas of Leicester 			  3	  9
Districts of Liverpool 		  9	  7
Districts of Northampton 		  0	  6
Districts of Norwich 			  2	  0
Districts of Nottingham 		 12	  3
Districts of Oxford 			  6	  7
Suburbs of Plymouth 			 11	  2
Suburbs of Reading 			  1	  8
Districts of Sheffield			  2	 10
Suburbs of Shrewsbury 			  4	  4
Suburbs of Slough 			  3	  2
Districts of Southampton 		 16	  0
Towns in Southend-on-Sea 		  0	  1
Metropolitan Borough of Walsall 	  3	  7
TOTAL					178	 88
Clearly we need to change the naming convention (specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England to match what happens in practice. The question is, what does happen in practice? Not all of the settlements listed are unitary authorities, and not all of them have city status. They are by and large local government districts, but does that mean we should always disambiguate by district and never by county? Perhaps there shouldn't be a national convention at all and each case should be decided on its own merit? waggers (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, there definately needs to be a change, not least because not only is the current guidline being ignored, but there are many situations where it dosn't make sence as the recent RM mentioned by waggers shows. A problem arises, however in that places are ambiguous. For instance Chilworth is a village just outside Southampton, but it's so close that many consider it to be a suburb of Southampton. I belive it was to protect places like Chilworth from urban sprawl that the current guidline is worded the way it is, and I agree with that intention. So I propose that the wording is kept as close to current as possible, but provide an explicit exception for cities and large urban centres with each district decided on a case by case basis if disagreement arises. Where possible we should keep "settlement", "county" above "district", "city". VJ (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
As no one seems to think this a particularly controversial subject, I've got some proposed wording: I suggest we replace the first two sentences with the following: "In England, disambiguated place names should go under placename, ceremonial county where this is inappropriate placename, town/city should be used." VJ (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with that principle, but I think we need to make sure the definition of a suburb is clear so that there's no ambiguity as to which of the two formats to use when. (PS a district is a sub-county division - those around Southampton include the New Forest, Test Valley and Eastleigh - we shouldn't use that term when talking about city suburbs in case confusion arises with its official meaning). waggers (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As there have been no further objections I'm changing the text.VJ (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposing additional criterion

I'm proposing an additional criterion: the Library of Congress Authority control, which is used by the British Library [3] and the National Library of Canada [4]. It has the additional major advantage of being online and searchable. Plus you can pester them. The minor disadvantage is that it times out, so permalinks don't work.

The authority is hierarchical: subject headings, name headings, keyword headings. Consider I/C. Constantinople alone as a subject redirects to Istanbul: "This heading is not valid for use as a subject. Works about this place are entered under Istanbul (Turkey)." But they call Con. a valid name heading for the period 330-1453. As a keyword Con. is valid for various events, institutions, and so forth, e.g. Constantinople (Ecumenical patriarchate), or Constantinople, Council of, 2d, 553. Novickas (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an example, with links (if not to the results, then to search pages) how we could use it? I've heard that LoC is often obsolete, as a lot of their content is categorized when they receive it and not revised later (hence, WWI, WWII, Korean or Vietnam wars are not distinguished since they when they were labeled everyone knew what war were they talking about...). PS. Disclaimer: the above example is for LoC picture captions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) An example of usage. You go to [5] and click on Search Authorities. Then you have a choice of Subject Authority Headings, Name Authority Headings, Title Authority Headings, Name/Title Authority Headings, and Keyword Authorities (All). If you select Subject and enter Constantinople, the resulting page has as its first entry Con. - leftmost icon called References. Click on the Ref icon you see Authority Record - Istanbul (Turkey). Click on that, you see Select a Record to View the Authority Record. Click on that, you see a list of fields, one of them is Istanbul (conventional); variant: Constantinople [earlier name]; Byzantium [earlier name]; Stamboul, Stambul; Istambul). And that Istanbul is Valid as a name heading after 1453.

If you pursue C. thru Name Authority Headings, you end up with an entry for Constaninople stating "Valid as a name heading for the period 330-1453".

No, nothing this huge is going to satisfy everyone. At its own website, the LOC has a criticism section. Of the six, let's look at two. 1. "LCSH [i.e. Library of Congress Subject Headings] has too many outdated terms, not keeping up with current terminology, and has too many terms that reflect prejudice – the response has been for LC to get assistance from many partners in cooperative programs and to respond to recommendations from individuals and groups" and 2. "difficulty of use (LCSH requires an apprentice period to properly learn the principles, patterns, and rules)." [6]

Re 1 - It won't be a problem for historic geographical names too often. Re 2 - I think most Wikipedians can handle it. And if not we can ask the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Librarians to help. In my experience librarians are among the friendliest and most helpful people on the planet.

Re your example for captions: I haven't looked into it, but I imagine they date the picture.They have a subject heading for Indochinese War, 1945-1954. I see that WP calls it the First Indochinese War, which is rather US-centric and not reflected in Gbooks or Gscholar - compare "IndoChinese War" -first -second to IndoChinese War [7] v. "First IndoChinese War" [8], [9] v. [10] If you find an mis-filed image, you can write to them. PS. I browsed their Prints & Photos Catalog a little, searching for Vietnam War 1950, and found their subjects were classified as IndoChinese War (1945-1954). Novickas (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW: At LCCN Permalinks FAQ: [11] Are LCCN Permalinks available for Library of Congress authority records? Not at this time, but the Library is exploring options for adding this functionality. Novickas (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to follow your steps but I couldn't find the "Valid as a name heading after 1453" for Constantinopole. The interface is not very helpful. If there are no stable links, I am afraid it would be easy for people to claim that they found somewhere a guideline "XXX is the correct name for period YYY". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It takes a little getting used to, yes. As far as competing claims, third parties could be consulted, and there is an "email to (enter email address)" option on every page to facilitate that if need be. Novickas (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid I find the LoC system too cumbersome to be useful, but it certainly can be seen as a form of a "see also". Perhaps you could try to write a guide on how to use the LoC system, so that others could do so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As it turns out, they do have permalinks for individual entries, and the subject headings are present there. But you have to drill down to a single entry, which is not hard to do thru the LOC catalog search. [12]. If you pursue the subject Macedonia Republic there, for instance, the book at [13] - lists its subject as "Macedonia (Republic)--Politics and government--1992-", whereas if you pursue the subject Macedonia only, you would find an entry at [14] that lists the subject as "Macedonia--History--19th century--Sources".
Looking at the authority file, no permalink, it states "The provisional heading "Macedonia (Republic)" remains valid pending BGN approval of a form that is not provisional."
Pending the authority file's permalinking, I honestly don't think it's too cumbersome to search the catalog. Novickas (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Vilnius, Wilno and use modern names

I've tried to remove the Vilnius example from the talk page, but was reverted by Piotrus, the user responsible for maintaining its inclusion. [15] [16]. This example is clearly controversial. Guideline pages are supposed to represent uncontroversial practices only, not to be used otherwise. (see above #Wilno.2FVilnius and Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion on this particular example, but I think the guideline text itself should be clarified: "use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names can be used in appropriate historical contexts, including in the names of articles relating to particular historical periods" is basically self-contradictory. It should be clarified to: "can be used in appropriate historical contexts where a majority of reliable modern sources does the same." It should be made clear that we don't automatically switch to an older name just because we are dealing with older periods, but only if in doing so we are applying WP:USEENGLISH. For instance, with Constantinople/Istanbul, the question of which to apply in an Ottoman Turkish context hinges not on which of the two was locally official at the time, but exclusively on what modern English-speaking literature does when talking about that period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Please see my proposal to amend this wording above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Related topic follows.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very controversy means you don't put it in the article. Very simple point I think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig is controversial as well, yet it is an undisputed example. All examples here are controversial, this is why we need a policy to address them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Deacon, do you dispute the principle here: Older names should be used in appropriate historical context when a majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods? If so, please say why; you may convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I dispute that Wilno is a clear example of this (this can be proven beyond doubt in the latest poll) and assert that it is only in the guideline to add weight to the arguments in favour of it (evidenced by the fact that the defender of its inclusion is the main proponent of the current RM discussion). This is a clear abuse of the spirit and purpose of guideline pages. This page is here not to favour one nationalist argument over another, but to reflect uncontroversial practice on wikipedia. There are plenty of less controversial examples to choose from than this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I was part of the consensus that wrote that sentence; as far as I'm concerned, it's about Stalingrad and Poseidonia/Paestum/Paesto/Pesto. The use of Wilno as an example only applies when the standard modern English usage is Wilno. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you remove it then. This discussion is only about the inclusion of Wilno. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point of the sentence (can you suggest how to recast it?). This does not endorse the use of Wilno, except for those periods - if any - for which English uses that name for the city. That's a question of fact, on which this page does not rule. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
PMA, I get the point of the sentence from the text. The texts suggests that in historical contexts it is near universal and uncontroversial practice to call Vilnius Wilno, just like using Stalingrad and Danzig (or Constantinople), when it is a much much weaker example. No need to rewire the text to accommodate it, just use a stronger example like Constantinople or Stettin or Leningrad. Really, why is this complicated? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the text suggests that in some contexts, it is indeed correct to use the name Wilno. The only reason to remove Wilno from this example would be if we reached an agreement that under no circumstances, Wilno should be used on Wikipedia. That said, I do think that examples should have their own section, and there should be many more then 4 or 5. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, I can read the English language. That's what the text suggests, and indeed how you've been citing it elsewhere. If our only interest is sketching broad rules of thumb (as opposed to using this to advance arguments elsewhere), then I can't understand why it is so important to maintain this example. Just replace it with Constantinople (Istanbul)! Really! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Recast to make clear this is a hypothetical. If there is a period which is discussed in English by calling the city Wilno, we should follow suit; if there is none, we should not. Which is true is a question of fact, not of guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that some editors will treat the existence or lack of it of the name in the example as an argument of itself. The solution is either to have no examples (bad solution...) or to try to build as comprehensive list of examples as possible (and to avoid one million of them, we can use the key cities in the region, and structure the examples by regions, just like the Gdanzig vote solves not only the naming of Gdansk, but of all Polish-German borderlands, which contain thousands of nameplaces). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking the argument elsewhere

(unindent) I must say I agree with the Deacon's argument; however, the whole question of use of historical names (with many more detailed examples) is one that could be addressed far more comprehensively than it is now. However, as I've pointed out below, this is logically not the page to do it, since it isn't principally about article naming (unless we want to rename the page so it's no longer called "Naming conventions (anything)", or else redefine what WP-space means by WP:Naming conventions).--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Nonsense. This page is about article naming and the adjustments needed when an article name is chosen: if a page is titled Vilna in the seventeenth century, it should still mention Vilnius and this page indicates how.
  • That's what a naming convention should do. There is no need for a renaming or a redefinition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • But the issues arise quite independently of article name choice. Any article mentioning Vilnx comes up against the problem of how to refer to that city, regardless of whether the name of that article refers to the city (someone was born there in 1920, for example - what was their place of birth?) It would be perfectly reasonable to define "naming conventions" to mean rules about the names we give to things when we refer to them; however in WP space (see the top of WP:NC, and of this page), the established meaning is rules about the names of articles. --Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Which is why this page, although chiefly about the naming of pages, discusses both issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
        • And it should; but I'm saying that if we're going to develop the other issue further, so that it becomes a significant part of this page, with lots of detail, then it would be more helpful to position it on another page, or rename this page. Or at the very least, amend the header of this page to make it clear that it's not just a naming convention in the sense that people are used to.--Kotniski (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus' amendment

Piotrus added;

If there is no such name in English, or if there are several plausible alternatives of roughly similar popularity for a given period, use dominant historical name that was used locally in that period.

I strongly dispute this: this change can only matter when there is a common English name (otherwise the no such name applies) and there are several plausible local names. But when there is a common English name, we should use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is based on my argument in the section above (please note you missed crucial changes to the second part of the sentence, I've amended it in this edit). I agree with you: "when there is a common English name, we should use it". If my amendment made it disputable, I agree it needs further tweaking. To recapitulate, the purpose of my amendment is a follows: to tell the editors what to do when there is more then one seemingly established English name, and there is no dominant one (vide current battle of Vilnius (1655) where about 60% of lit supports Wilno and 40%, Vilnius) and 2) to clarify that the name to be used in cases where there is no common English name we should use the name as was used in that period (so to use the previous example, for battle of Vilnius in 1655, which doesn't have a dominant English name, we should use the name as was used in and around Vilnius in 1655). The current policy suggest we should use the "historical name that is now used locally". This is confusing - for example, modern Vilnius is inhabited by Lithuanian speakers, and when talking about the city's history, they obviously use Vilnius. Same holds true for Gdańsk (few people in modern Gdańsk would use Danzig), or Kalingrad (how many Russian inhabitants of that city will talk about Konigsber?), or quite a few other places. It shouldn't matter what people who leave in place X call it now when talking about its history (as it almost always will be the modern name), it should matter what was it called in the past by people who lived there (unless, of course, there is an estabilished English name, which takes precedence, but if there isn't...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. If there is no customary English usage for Vilnius in the seventeenth century, we should use Vilnius, unless the Lithuanians use Wilno (as they may come to, in time); Vilnius is, after all, the present English name of the city. We should not attempt to synthesize our own system of nomenclature; we should follow our sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? Few living in the 17th century Vilnius region used the name; official document used Vilna or Wilno. Why should we apply modern name on historical eras, when different name was used? Further, if half of English sources do use the more correct Wilno (including scholars like Davies of Frost), why should we use the less correct for that period modern name? We have already synthesized our own system of nomenclature with the Gdanzig vote, and it works well; I however don't see why it should be an exception to the rule: the same rules should hold for Gdanzig as for Wilnius. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"more correct Wilno" Really? From subsequent page, which undergoing RM, is clearly evident, that researchers' preference is for Vilnius. And yes Vilnius is historical name as well. Such argumentation as above holds no water here on WP. M.K. (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Because we are not writing for the sixteenth century. We are writing for twenty-first century anglophones, who at least have heard of Vilnius. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Gdanzig works, because it is English usage (with perhaps some errors): English writes of Gunter Grass as living in Danzig, but Lech Walesa in Gdansk - give or take a few diacritical marks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Danzig and Vilnius cases are completely different from each other. So why to bring them up again and again? M.K. (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Because they are very smilar, and a ton of English works use Wilno. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"They are very smilar", is the most "convincing" argument so far.M.K. (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
For starters, researchers, who uses toponyms names by designated places in which they are currently located, tend to make exception for Danzig. By using exclusively Danzig, or with alternatives. Like Plokhy, O'Connor and so forth. M.K. (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
For starters, this is completely false and basically seems like something that M.K. just imagined. This was already discussed to death during the vote but here's some basic counterexamples (I've purposefully chosen some books by authors with non-Polish last names): [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and I could keep going... . Now, on the other hand, "Vilnius" is used in only a minority of sources on its historical past, and usually "Wilno" or "Vilna" is used instead. So if there's exceptions here, it's not Gdansk.radek (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Using your won sources [25][26][27][28], exactly the same that I suggested (sadly I can't access remaining sources). M.K. (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If we stand by the current policy, with the modern name being dominant, I am afraid we will have to retire the Gdanzig vote, and adopt the modern Polish names for all entities. Here's an argument Lokyz made recently for usage of Lithuanian modern names: [29]. I don't agree with it, but you cannot have the cake and eat it: either its Danzig/Wilno and Gdańsk/Vilnius, or only one of those. There is no reason why either Polish-German or Polish-Lithuanian area should be the exception. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Does this seal of 1228 belong to Zwantepolc de Danceke or to Świętopełk Gdański ?
We already have Polish editors using the Danzig vote as pretext for e.g. adding Krolewiec to articles regarding Königsberg resp. Kaliningrad (BTW, many Russian inhabitants of that city do talk about Кёнигсберг/Kenigsberg). The solution to have 2 different articles covering the history of this city is established on English, Russian and German Wikipedia, it should serve as an example for others. Indeed, previous attempts have been made to retire the Gdanzig vote, by (successfully) diminishing the visibility of the notice [30] to rounding up the usual suspects [31] for a protest, and by violating both its wording and meaning by move and edit warring over an 1308/1309 event covered now under Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk). Poles have expressed appetite for cakes located West of the Oder before 1939 and Stalin has served them the cakes East of the Oder in 1945, but these cakes had been baked by Germans according to historic recipes written in German. The Polish claim on historical Wilno can not be compared with the German one on Danzig (or Stettin, Breslau, Thorn), but rather with the one on Krakau (German recipe) and Warschau (German recipe), as there have been Germans in these cities well before 1939, and several times in their history they were ruled by Prussia/Austria/Germany. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to understand what exactly Matthead is saying here, and honestly, I don't want to think about it too much because if I do understand it it may not be pretty. "German claims on Warschau"? Anyway. Matthead's first link shows that the article on Konigsberg/Kaliningrad has in it a listing of old/historical names, including Krolewiec. And? It's not the article's title. No one is proposing it should be. This seems to be another case of "Polish words must not pollute articles on German (or Lithuanian) topics, even if historically relevant!". And even if Polish editors are just fine with "Breslau" in the Wroclaw article (in fact I'd revert it if someone tried to remove it as I think it's an important part of the city's history). The "two page solution" is non workable. All it will do is spawn POV forks. I'm a bit sketched out by the Konigsber/Kaliningrad one already but whatever - not an expert on this city. And then we get a bunch of stuff that I really don't understand. What "cakes" are you talking about? What appetite? Are you saying that the current Polish government is laying claim to Dresden or something? Or are you saying that there were some pastries or something cooked up East of the Oder, which the Home Army intelligence stole from the Germans and passed on the secret to the Allies along with the codes for the Enigma machine? I really don't understand this. Finally, Magdeburg rights were just a set of laws based on original German ones. Lots of countries have what's sometimes called "English law" but that doesn't give the English any claims on those countries. And of course there were plenty of Poles in Wilno pre 1939 (in fact for good chunks of its history, if not the majority of it they were the majority). The situation with Krakow too is different. The best analogy here is with colonialism and imperialism. But - except maybe, maybe, MAYYYYYBBEEE for the interway period - Lithuania was never a colony of Poland nor Poland of Lithuania - the two were in a personal union. Completely different.radek (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Horses for courses Piotrus. Though you do have to recognise that universalizing the Gdansk/Danzig rules would indeed, as Matthead pointed out, lead to Krakaus and Warschaus. Besides the periods of German rule, cities like Krakow were often "German islands in Slav lakes". E.g. according to the Vita et more Gregori Sanocei, when Gregory of Sanok came to Krakow from the Polish countryside, he couldn't communicate with the inhabitants and had to go to Germany to learn the language. Back in 1257 when it was incorporated into Magdeburg law Polish Slavs were exluded from becoming burgessses, who "were German in name, language, culture, and descent". (Bartlett, Making of Europe, p. 180) Aye, Krakow looks at lot like your Wilno is many respects. @ Rad, Matthead is making a play on the English idiom "have your cake and eat it". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, care to explain the part about "appetite for cakes West of the Oder"? Is some Polish editor trying to change the title of Dresden article to Dresno or of Leipzig to Lipsk? I think a very important thing to emphasize here is that in fact there is TWO issues: 1) What to call cities in their article titles and 2) what other names can be included in the article's lead after the main name. These two issues are being (perhaps deliberately) conflated by editors who seem to be saying "If you put (Polish: yyyyy) in the article lead of my city then I'm going to propose that the entire article of your city be renamed". As a consequence you've got MK, Lokyz and Dr.Dan removing any Polish sounding names from Lithuanian articles' text (in cases where nobody wants to rename the article itself) and Matthead objecting to "Krolewiec" appearing in article lead (again, not its title) of Koningsberg. Whatever is decided on proper naming of articles, I think issue #2 is also very important.radek (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to see a Polish editor removing Lithuanian name from Suwałki or Augustów. For some reasons, Polish editors accept the multicultural history of those (and other) cities. Btw, can somebody explain this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we avoid radicalizing this "discussion", Rad? Marking one's historical territory is a vice common to many eastern European editors. If we could just abandon it, as us western Europeans generally do, we'd all be much better. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deacon, how can you ask not to "radicalize" the discussion then follow that up right away with a comment about marking a territory with urine? My intent is in no way intended to radicalize anything - just point out that there seems to be two disagreements here and that certain editors try to "up the ante" if someone includes a particular name in the lead of "their" article. Including historical and other language names reflects the multi cultural history of these cities. As I said before, I think "Breslau" in "Wroclaw" is not only fine, but also a positive addition to that article as it emphasizes the fact that the city's history is complex. But somehow "Vilnius" is supposed to be different. I'm even fine with "Lvovas" in Lviv though others may be of different opinion. Adding historical names to articles reflects multiculturalism and NPOV rather than "marking one's territory" or a "Illyria for Illyrians!" type of mentality. As for Western European editors and their morally superior ways - well, first, most places in Western Europe just don't have the complex history that places in Eastern Europe do. London was more or less always English and Paris was French (a couple occupations notwithstanding). But in cases where there is a back-n-forth similar to the kind that often happened in EE, usually other names are also included in articles' leads. Or are German editors "marking their territory" in the article on Alsace or on Lorraine? Or the Danes on Holstein? Or Italians on Nice? Double standards?radek (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No consensus to remove the example

There is no consensus to remove this example. There was obviously consensus to have in the article, where it remained as stable for years. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The issues aren't coming through clearly here as I see it. It seems to me that our aim is to do what a top-level English/American newspaper would do. Clearly a newspaper would refer to the "Battle of Stalingrad" or the "Danzig Corridor" as opposed to the alternatives. What I haven't seen is any concrete example of a situation where a modern newspaper would use "Wilno". Can you provide such an example? Is there a historical "Wilno Ultimatum" or "Treaty of Wilno" or "Wilno Debacle" or something? Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that where Stalingrad is close to a household name, Vilnius/Wilno is much less so. Newspapers would correctly write about a modern Vilnius using its Lithuanian name, but they rarely write about its history. Here's an example from high end newspaper, The Economist: "the YIVO institute in Wilno (now Vilnius), which was founded in 1925". As you can see, the newspaper reasonably uses the Polish name Wilno for a time when Wilno was both in the Second Polish Republic and was inhabited mostly by Poles and Jews (at that time, Lithuanians constitued 2% of city's inhabitants). I hope this helps, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is the Financial Times using "Vilna" for pre-WWII name of the city: [32] (book review by a noted historian), [33]. Here is The Times using "Wilno": [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] and I'll stop there though there is more. In fact, The Times appears to have a very consistent policy of using "Wilno" when talking about the place before WWII.radek (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the sort of thing I was hoping to see. Looie496 (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well those sources hardly proves anything, as Vilnius is used in various historical context as well [40][41][42] etc etc. Even Britannica exclusively uses Vilnius [43][44] etc. Naming policy by itself should represent uncontroversial examples, seeing how this issue was used by one side to get upper hand in dispute is hardly an proper way to represent naming issues. Plus as I showed Vilnius name is used in historical contextM.K. (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I was just answering Looie496's question. But as I said on talk page for Battle of Vilnius (1655), Britannica is schizophrenic on this matter - they use Vilnius for article titles but use Wilno in the articles themselves. The Guardian also seems to lack a clear policy as they also use Wilno: [45] and more frequently Vilna: [46], [47], [48] (there's more).radek (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Surreality you going to win content dispute by such "arguments" as "Britannica is schizophrenic". Congratulations. M.K. (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it is correctly used. There is a ton of sources for "Battle of Volgograd", too. So? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I pretty sure that guys from Cambridge Medieval History knows that they write [49]M.K. (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
With "tons of sources for "Battle of Volgograd"", you really caught my attention. And it showed that though google book searches are generally useful, this one turned out "tons of results" not because of actual written content of the returned sources, but because of their page indices for search engines. Nearly every single page of every single book turned out as result in the above search is indexed as follows: "Stalingrad, Battle of, Volgograd, Russia, 1942-1943". No source actually uses "Battle of Volgograd". I just post this sidenote because I was really curious what "tons of sources" would use the absurd denotation "Battle of Volgograd" for the "Battle of Stalingrad", and think this case should (again) warn everyone to take automized book searches for granted without checking actual sources.
Regarding Wilna, both parties have valid rationales. Much of the dispute has similarities with the Gdanzig situation. Yet, the Wilna issue is further complicated by the hopefully undisputed fact that Wilna always was in Lithuania, regardless of what language its inhabitants spoke or whose king/tsar was hailed. The sources I glanced at (not in depth) seem to either stick with the name the author is most familiar with (for reasons most certainly unrelated to the content of their work) or adapt the name to the context. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
"No source actually uses "Battle of Volgograd"." Wrong: [50]. I am sure there are some other misguiged examples as well. The point is, incorrect and chaotic usage is common outside Wikipedia, and we need policies to standardize such use. And no, Wilno wasn't always in Lithuania: for example, it was part of Poland from 1918/1923 to 1939 (see Wilno voivodeship). PS. I do think that considering the pararells with Gdanzig vote (which I still consider useful), perhaps we should have a similar vote on the Wilna issue. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I can live with one author writing about Holocaust perception in Bulgaria using "Battle of Volgograd [Stalingrad]". What made me curious were the "tons".
Back to Wilna: You missed my point. Even when it was part of Poland, it was in Lithuania. Actually "Wilno voivodeship" is a good example for where I would use Wilno. Generally I would use Wilno in clearly Polish contexts such as biographies of people of Polish descent and articles concerned with Polish administration. Same for Vilna (subst Russian). One would need to keep in mind that the Commonwealth was not "Poland" and the Soviet Union was not "Russia". That would leave a lot of cases undecided, such as an article where Polish forces during the Vilna offensive defeated the Soviets in Vilnius and made Wilno a part of their state. This is not MOSsy, but maybe this might not even have to be solved - after all, Wilna was a Babylon. Btw, the perfect merger of all the town's names versions is Yiddish ווילנע (Vilne), but unfortunately that is not an option. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL, Skäpperöd, your research of those "sources" resembled my instance of another "ton" of encyclopedias [51]. M.K. (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually Wyman, the author on the Holocaust, doesn't use "Battle of Volgograd" himself; he is translating a Bulgarian document literally. (That speaks to Bulgarian usage, and not strongly; it is an officially published History of Bulgaria, vintage 1964, which is full of Stalinist jargon and which downplays the Holocaust; that's why Wyman bothers to quote it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Speaking for myself here, I saw that example earlier, shrugged and thought, well, there is probably an unofficial consensus to use Wilno for the interwar period. Did not think it would be expanded to include other eras. Novickas (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Example section

I think we used to have it, now its gone. I think we need a long section (or even guideline subpage) listing all examples, divided by region, if possible. Such as section would, for example, summarize naming convention for Poland-German borderlands (Gdansk vote), and the ongoing discussion on the Polish-Lithuanian borderlands. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the examples are still here, under the points they address (search for Nanking, Meissen, Stalingrad...). Adding sections on Poland, Germany, and Lithuania, like the one on Italy, would be helpful; but we should be careful, again, not to assert consensus where it does not exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, P.P. aka P.K., but Biržai is not on the Polish-Lithuanian borderlands, neither is Šiauliai . Dr. Dan (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
DD, "borderlands" can mean more than physical, geographic connections. Neither Gdańsk nor Toruń are on the (geographic) borderlands of Poland and Germany, in fact, they're both right smack in the middle of Poland. However, is anyone actually proposing changing the name of the Biržai article to Birze or Šiauliai to Szawle? This discussion is about historical names and which names should go in the lead. So how exactly is your example of Biržai and Šiauliai relevant here?radek (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wilno/Vilnius

For years, the naming of Wilno/Vilnius in articles had resulted in many reverts. Nobody is disputing the modern name of Vilnius, but there are many questions about how it should be called in historical context (see also history of Vilnius). I'd like to suggest, based on the Gdansk/Vote precendent, that we clearly define what name should be used in what period (and extend it to Polish-Lithuanian border territories, just as Gdansk vote is applied to Polish-German borderlands). The key dates and names would be:

Should we have a straw poll vote on that, like in case of Gdansk? A clear guideline is needed, since nothing else will stop the ongoing slow revert wars among thousands of articles on Polish-Lithuanian history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be a decent solution. Or perhaps let's make it even simpler: use the English name of Vilna in all cases, modern included. It's neither Polish nor Lithuanian, so no side is favoured here. 85.222.93.56 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall ever hearing it called Vilna in English, especially in the modern context. I would say use the well-known name Vilnius for simplicity, except in those contexts where (English-speaking) historians would clearly tend to use a different name. In many cases we're going to need an alternative name in brackets anyway. I don't think we should switch names depending on which army happened to be occupying it at the time - that would just confuse everyone.--Kotniski (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I support the call for a straw poll, with the aim of establishing a clear guideline similar to Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. It's long overdue and I'd like Piotrus to please initiate the process. As it stands now, not just the Polish names, but also Polish historic presence is often omitted from articles about Lithuanian towns and villages to the point verging on bad will. I researched that thoroughly when I worked on the Rescue article and was stunned how impossible it was for me to make any form of connection between World War II literature (listing Polish names mostly) and the selectively Lithuanian names promoted in Wikipedia. I think it's time we faced that challenge. --Poeticbent talk 03:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Was the name Vilnius commonly used during WW2? I remember that Allied newsreels used Vilna (but I might be wrong, I saw these newsreels many years ago). Tymek (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think we'd better sort out the facts (chiefly about English usage past and present) before we start any kind of poll.--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've searched the NYT archive briefly: 1879 Wilna, 1908 Vilno, 1915 Vilna, 1920 Vilna, 2007, referring to 1940 Wilno,1991 Vilnius. That's historic English usage, present usage in historic context is more relevant: for instance the 2006 Cambridge History of Russia uses Vilnius in 17th century context. Markussep Talk 09:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. (a) Wilno was not used in English even between WWI and WWII. It had variations of Russian/Ruthenian/Yiddish Vilna. (b) Those names were used centuries ago. Modern books use Vilnius unless they want to make a specific point on nationalities in different historical context (see Snyder's book for an example). Wikipedia does not pretend to be an 18th century encyclopedia. I am opposed in principle to introducing a multitude of almost identical spellings on any city (historical records don't have them straight anyway -- as shown but multiple variations in NYT). A better case can be made for cities where names changed upside down. Renata (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should Wilno/Vilnius be different from Danzig/Gdańsk? The latter proved to be a reasonable and stable solution. We need such a solution to stop the simmering edit wars over Wilno or Vilnius. Further, we should have a procedural "how to", explained in this policy, on how to apply this to other, similar areas (I am sure there are some). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should be Breslaw Wroclaw? Why should be Thorn - Torun? Not to mention the Cracow. The answer is rather easy - Vilnius has much more English language tradition, than Kraków, the Czech language name of the city, I suppose.--Lokyz (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Cracow represents Latin Cracovia; it was standard English usage for the city at least until very recently, and probably still is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • John Gunther, the American political reporter, uses Vilna consistently. The edition I have to hand is from 1940, but he is discussing Pilsudski's taking of the city in 1920. Attempting to impose a single name between the October Revolution and the settlement of 1921-2 will be extremely controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • One thing that should not be extremely controversial is establishing that the name for the Polish city of Kraków in English is Cracow, as it has been for centuries. Just as it is Cracovie in French, and Krakau in German. This new question posed by P.P., concerning Vilnius needs to be addressed within the question as to why English, in an Encyclopedia for English speakers, needs a double standard implemented. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Except it's completely NOT. For example, take Lonely Planet, which in its English version is clearly directed at English speakers (sometimes the obvious does need to be stated) and "one of the largest guidebook publishers in the world". Any English speaker from US, UK or Australia when considering taking their first trip into Eastern Europe most likely reaches for their guidebooks. And, probably learns the names of the local places from their guidebooks. And what name do they use for the city on Wawel Hill? Well, at least the copy of the guidebook I have, and the one available on line [52] uses Kraków, diacritics and all, with the "not extremely controversial" Cracow nowhere in the pages of this book. Now, let's not change the topic again.radek (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic. According to NCGN, when - if at any point - should the names Wilno/Vilna be used? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's start at the top. Ruthenian was the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania?!? I should like to see a citation for that please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Languages_of_the_Commonwealth and Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages. Ref: [53]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This entire question of P.K. aka P.P. concerning Wilno/Vilnius would have to be asked of hundreds of cities and towns annexed by Communist Poland, under the auspices of Stalin, since 1945. Using the six historical dates given by P.P. above, when would Chełmno and Malbork be used in any English scholarly references prior to 1945? What would their names be concerning any reference to them since the 13th century in English language sources? Should their Polish names follow the English equivalent to the indisputable German name held by these areas since the 13th century? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This off-topic dead horse is fully covered here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
First, neither Malbork nor Chełmno are covered there, fully or otherwise. Second, as relevant examples of what becomes a dilemma for the WP project if your proposals are seriously considered, makes them not off-topic here. Third, P.P., obviously "dead horse topics" are far too often resurrected by you on a regular basis. But not in a spirit of historical objectivity or fairness, but one of crypto-nationalistic bias. Dr. Dan (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Vilnius was originally a Lithuanian royal centre. Its first non-Lithuanian inhabitants were Germans, not Slavs. It's misleading to assert that the Lithuanian GD's "official language" was "Ruthenian". Most of the rulers on the independent state bore Lithuanian names, and kept households of ethnic-Lithuanian "knights". And indeed it was the military culture of the ethnic Lithuanian territories that formed the base of grand ducal power, until the 1400s at least. I don't see it cutting clearly after that. The city became Polonised, it is true, but I'm not sure what this is supposed to say.It was a multi-ethnic city, and always with a Lithuanian hinterland; in this way it is comparable to most of the cities of Poland and Bohemia in an earlier period, which had German speaking cores with Slavic hinterlands. These don't lead to renames of such cities on wikipedia. Moreover, Vilnius was part of the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not Poland. After that the city is controlled by Russia. Moreover, the practice of naming cities in English from the modern version of the language spoken by its overlords or inhabitants (depending on which one gives you the name you want), while seemingly being expected in German-Slav contexts, is not particularly common in English more generally. We don't spell London Londres because it was ruled by French-speakers for centuries, nor Rome Rom when Germans controlled it in the Middle Ages, nor Edinburgh Dùn Èideann, nor Alexandria al-Iskandariyya, nor Athens Athenae, etc, etc. Prolly when in doubt just use the current English name, which in this case is Vilnius. If you wanna stress that Vilnius was once Polish-speaking, say that in the article; we don't need to use page titles to do it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The question is: are there any circumstances under which we can use the string "Wilno" or "Vilna" in the name of the article, and in the body of the article. Based on the consensus answer, there are various articles that may need renaming or copyedit (for example, Vilna offensive). My answer to this question is that we should have a vote for different periods, just like we did with Gdanzig issue. What is your answer to this simple question? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Who the predominant inhabitants were or what the predominant language was of a city are immaterial. Take, for example, the Imperial Russian Navy. Everything about it talks about its home port of Libau, never Liepāja. That the name of a Latvian city in discussing it with respect to the historical timeframe, e.g., an article on the Imperial Navy at Libau, doesn't agree with my personal nationalist fervor, is my bad luck.
  When discussing the entire history of a city, it should always be titled (article) with the current name under current sovereign (de jure) entity (note I did not say controlling/de facto). In discussing in a historical context, then if an English usage is not available for city Y in year X, then the name of city Y in year X should be the name of the city as indicated in the official (central, written) records of the governing entity over city Y in year X.
   Lastly, as war was a legal means--ending in de jure whether the loser liked it or not--of settling international disputes before the 20th century, up to 1900 the governing entity's usage always wins.
   In short, when it comes to naming convention, might makes right (ex facto jus oritur) before the 20th century. As that is sure to please no one, it must therefore be the most neutral and verifiable solution. PetersV       TALK 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. So, 20th century, most common English language usage, if none available, then the name under the sovereign entity over city Y in year X. Note, this IS the English WP, so common English usage if available should hold leeway regardless of era. PetersV       TALK 02:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Other cities

The topic is: Naming conventions (geographic names). The cities of Cracow, Danzig, Breslau, Vilnius, and I believe Thorn were mentioned in this discussion (not introduced by me, I believe one of them by you, P.P.) as theoretically a blueprint or basis of when Vilna/Wilno should take precedence over Vilnius. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While it may be disconcerting to hear of Constantine I having ruled the Roman Empire from Istanbul, I wonder whether we would not as a rule be better off calling a given city, over its entire history, by the name that is used by its present owners. If that means "Vilnius," "Lviv" and "Gdańsk," then so be it. Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. By "present owners," I mean: as of the current date, in the year 2009. Nihil novi (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Wrocław and Kraków, Nihil. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Nihil novi (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me as well. Nothing against Wrocław and Lviv for the articles, provided that the historical names are in the introduction of history those cities. For the rest use current Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, German and Polish names. If not use double naming in other articles as well-why should Poland be singled out ?--Molobo (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
That means deciding who its present owners are; while normally no problem, where it is a problem, it will be a disaster. To name the most obvious disaster, apply this proposal to Jerusalem (where English usage is clear). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There may indeed have to be occasional exceptions—that being one of them, if (perhaps) provisionally. Nihil novi (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Nihil Novi—the Gdańsk vote is a complete mess, it doesn't determine what is "shared history" or not (to start with) and serves as a constant magnet for anon edits borderline on trolling.
The historic names should be in the lead; for the rest of article, the name of the current owner. I have nothing against Vilnius, Lviv, provided Wrocław or Poznań are treated the same. Exceptions could exist (always do) but they seem to be isolated enough to be treated in a wise manner, case by case. --Molobo (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Molobo is totally right. I do not really understand why Polish cities (as for now), are always singled out, with all these Danzigs and Breslaus. If we use Lviv, even though this name came into common use after 1991, why is Gdansk being constantly changed into Danzig? BTW, I have a suggestion for Dr Dan and his comrades. Since you guys so badly want to keep Vilnius, I am expecting you to act in the same way with Wroclaw, Gdansk, Szczecin and other name places of this kind. Tymek (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not about "singling out Polish cities". Eg Szczecin had no connections whatsoever with Poland prior to 1945, except for a brief period of subjugation that lasted from 1122 to 1138. That was, before the modern city was even founded yet. Thus, all sources written prior to 1945 naturally use "Stettin", Polish sources used either Stettin, Sztetyn or Szczecin. When the town became Polish, the use of Stettin for modern and historical contexts continued in English usage. Maybe "Stettin" will at some time drop out of use for post-1945 contexts, maybe not. Where pre-1945 contexts are covered, these contexts naturally are German contexts, based on German sources/historical documents, thus it is unlikely that the primary use of "Stettin" for these contexts will change. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed about "singling out Polish cities". Polish-German border shift in 1945 was hardly unique, yet why do we have the Talk:Gdansk/Vote as an exception? Either it should be retired as an obsolete policy, contrary to NCGN, or it should be incorporated into it as a precedent that should be used to solve the cases like Vilnius/Vilna/Wilno below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In spirit, I very much agree with Nihi Novi and Molobo's suggestion that we should use present day names and "The historic names should be in the lead; for the rest of article, the name of the current owner." But here's some thoughts:

  • 1) Exceptions don't bother me. They'll always exists and there's no such thing as a perfect rule, but...
  • 2) I actually think, given the circumstances, the Gdansk/Danzig vote is not a complete mess, I think it works pretty well. Yes, there's a bunch of trolling and vandalism on the related articles but that trolling and vandalism is going to be there no matter what the guideline is. It's demand not supply driven - another words, the guideline did not create the trolling and vandalism it just defined certain types of behavior (and rightly so) as such. One thing that the Gdansk/Danzig vote DID achieve is stability for a lot of articles that before were constant battlegrounds. Yes, there is the annoying task of reverting the usual trolls and vandals but it's nothing compared to the back and forth that took place before. I'm not sure that we should throw out something that works reasonably well for something whose utility is unproven - we don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
  • 3) IF we do agree to use present names for article titles and to list historical names in the lead this needs to be standardized and will need additional guidelines. As in 'The city of Lilliput (in Laputa:X, in Brobdingnag:Y, etc.) with a standardized way to present it and some guidelines as to what other names to include, so as to avoid disputes. This is particularly relevant to the Vilnius/Wilno issue (and other Lithuanian cities) where Lithuanian editors (broadly defined) insist that Wilno, or Kiejdany, or Troki, or Birze is just "the Polish version of the same name" whereas the Polish editors (broadly defined) consider these as historical names of these cities. Without this kind of standardization and development of guidelines this idea's going to be a non-starter.
  • 4) Just to point out - keep in mind that if this proposal is made, there will be a vote - will there really be enough votes for 'Gdansk' always and everywhere? For 'Fall of Istanbul' just as the Ottomans are dragging their ships across the Golden Horn? (Hey, I can even see some Turkish editors objecting to that one. It sounds a lot better to have taken 'Constantinople' just like it sounds a lot better to have sacked 'Rome' then 'Rom')? I think this proposal is quite radical and while there may be one good reason to support it (it will make things much, much easier) there will be a thousands reasons - each related to some particular locale - to oppose it. And that means no chance of passing or having a reasonable mandate.
  • 5) Relatedly, it's important to realize that this would be quite a departure from how this is treated in history books and other encyclopedias. Again, I can't picture a history book entitled "Fall of Istanbul, 1453". We'd basically be throwing out our usual reliance and insistance on references and citations - effectively ignoring this aspect of the encyclopedic endeavor. This, I believe, is the point made by Septentrionalis above and I don't think it's weight is being appreciated.

So, while I think this idea sounds good in theory I don't see it passing and even if it were to pass I don't see it actually working in practice. The (second) best we should aim for here is to resolve this particular issue - Vilnius/Wilno, etc. That way we're not committing to anything too crazy here and commitments are always hard to reverse (even or especially, bad ones). I'm sure that in the future the Lilliput/Wawwaphuh issue will come up and we'll have to deal with it again. But that's part of Wikipedia - it evolves and adjusts. We should focus on solving this particular issue - go back to the original proposal for clear guidelines on Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna/Wilna and the straw poll.radek (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Do you mean we should have a "Wilna vote" similar to the "Gdanzig vote" (Talk:Gdansk/Vote)? I think that's a good idea (which I might have suggested above anyway... D). What should the dates be? Here's a draft idea: before 1569 (Union of Lublin), 1569-1697 (Ruthenian is officially replaced by Polish in the chancellery of GDL in 1697), 1795 (partitions of Poland), 1918-1939 (Second Polish Republic), 1939-1945 (Wilno is occupied but still has a Polish speaking majority), post-1945 (the undisputable time of Vilnius). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. We need a vote as with Gdanzig. The dates seem fine.radek (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would rather support scrapping of the Gdańsk vote and using historical name in the lead only-this would apply to Kijów, Wilno, Drezno as well. The Gdańsk vote is a terrible mess made in old-Wiki times under very uncertain conditions overseen by some admins that have had non-neutral comments. It doesn't define what shared history means, leds to constant edit wars and doesnt't improve wiki. Modern names should be use with historic in the lead. If however Gdańsk vote is determined by community to be used, the same rules should apply to other similiar situations. There is no reason for Polish cities to be the single exception on whole wiki.--Molobo (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Vilnius?

Another example of this is Vilnius. It is common to use Wilno (the Polish name) for Vilnius between 1922 and 1939, when the city was ruled by Poland, and Vilna (the former Russian name) between 1795 and 1915 when it was ruled by Russia. With examples like these practice in reliable sources can vary immensely. So while some writers refer to Scandinavian York as Jórvík, this is not universal practice; likewise Vilnius in the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is often written Vilnius, Wilno or Vilna depending on context.

Is this consensus? Should we say it here, thus removing the issue from discussion elsewhere? For my part, I can agree with this by distinguishing common (in the second sentence) from most common, which is more than I know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I think that's a decent step in the right direction, but we need for this to be more clear. Why 1922, and not 1918? Why 1939, and not 1945? Why not mention dates like 1697 and 1569? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In what sense was Vilnius "ruled by Poland" after the Soviet invasion of 1939? Surely you don't mean the General Government? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Until repatriation of Poles (1945) it was still a Polish majority territory - even more so with the Holocaust in Lithuania. The language of administration was often Lithuanian, however. So the question is: what is more important? The language of majority of speakers or the language of official administration? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Neither. Why should they matter?
  • But the claim here is that Poland "ruled" Vilnius before 1939, and consequently Wilno is in common use in English writing about the interbellum. This last is what's important. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So what should matter? English language use? Sure. But you miss the point: what if there is no estabilished English use, or if there are several different English variant, none of which can claim to be dominant? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This should be a "no brainer"..."if there is no estabilished (sic) English use, or if there are several different English variant (sic), none of which can claim to be dominant," then the obvious solution is to use Polish, just as Wikipedia perfers to use Kraków instead of Cracow. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but it seems to me that some editors' solution is to use Lithuanian instead... remind us, what's Lithuanian for Vilna? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No P.P., I think following your unbiased solution, which has recently been demonstrated by you at the Vilnius Castle Complex (talk page) under "Wilno", or the name that you originally chose at the Vilna offensive article, should either be scrutinized for its motives, or become policy. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We clearly haven't reached any consensus on Vilnius, so why have it in the policy page? Why do we need to remove it from discussion elsewhere? Novickas (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute seems about removal about the Wilno information not about its introduction, after all according to all current guidelines it should be double named--Molobo (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that multiple names in the lead have been a problem - that should probably be a separate section, tho. I think that since this section is entitled "Consensus on Vilnius", we should stick to the broader issue of whether it's appropriate to include the Wilno/Vilnius/Vilna question on the policy page at this time. Novickas (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Why should it be restricted to Polish usege. Why should Poles be singled out. Either double naming should be named universal rule or scrapped and modern names used with information in the lead about former historical names--Molobo (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There are no uncontroversial examples, this is why they are listed there. Do you think that Gdansk/Danzig or Constantinople/Istambul are uncontroversial? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no consensus that Wilno is the most common form, even between the wars. The Polish freebooters didn't stage their rebellion until 1920, and the disputed plebiscite wasn't until 1922. Even in 1939, Vilnius was being used in English, see for example, Lengyel, Emil (20 March 1939) "Poland and Lithuania in Long Feud; On the Polish Side" The New York Times Vilna/Wilno/Vilnius makes a poor example. --Bejnar (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The present text asserts that Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna is under discussion and is controversial. I agree with this; does anybody dispute it (and if so, I'd like to see the argument ;->)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
For clarity, the current version reads: "There are other cities for which policy is still debated, such as Vilnius, which in various contexts is referred to as Vilnius, Wilno or Vilna." – This mention of the current debate is all what this page can state, until a clear editorial choice for dealing with the city is agreed upon. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gdańsk vote

Can somebody explain what "shared history" means ? Would for example that justify changing the names to Nazi terminology of Polish cities because they were occupied during WW2 ? --Molobo (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is largely a non-problem; most of the Nazi terminology revived Austrian or Prussian usage. Where it is not, it may still be appropriate in discussing the Occupation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this didn't answer my question. What is shared history and how we do we define it ? Also is it appropriate to give German names for Polish cities during Nazi occupation. Seems kind of offensive. Also what about German Nazi-made names ?
What about territories of Prussian Partition like Warsaw. Should it be named Warschau ?
--Molobo (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No, because no significant proportion of anglophones call it Warschau. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Molobo, we simply aim at mirroring the usages commonly found in English-language publications. If English books dealing with the WWII period tend to use Polish names for the cities, so do we; if they tend to use German ones, so do we. – How offensive such usages could be for Germans and/or Poles is irrelevant. - Ev (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It is my understanding - but this is indeed not very clear - that shared history in geographical terms refers to the Prussian partition and Regained Territories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)/Archives/2009/April&oldid=1089920583"