Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/May

Biography

In an individual's biography, should the present or the former name be used. For instance, if a person were born in Bombay prior to the name change which took place in 1995, should the previous name be used, or the present one, Mumbai? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think standard practise in English is to use the former contemporary name. You wouldn't say Akbar was born in India, or that Muhammad was born in Saudi Arabia. Night w2 (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That is true. That is because those entities didn't exist back then. This question, however, pertains to a city which currently exists and has existed for some time. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The city which is now called Istanbul has existed for 2500 years; nevertheless we do not say that Justinian reigned at Istanbul or that Philip of Macedon besieged it. So here; if clarity is needed, "was born in Bombay (now Mumbai)"; just as the country of birth for those now elderly would be (if needed) British India, or the Dominion of India, not the Republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, bad analogy, sorry. But agreed with Pma that using the former name would be appropriate, as long as clarification is given when required. Night w2 (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my doubt, guys! :-) Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Italy naming conventions (geographic names)

We (a number of editors involved with the articles South Tyrol and Trentino) would like to change the format for municipalities in those two de facto autonomous regions into "xxx, South Tyrol" and "xxx, Trentino". At the moment it's basically a wild jumble of multiple formats, which can be unstable. If there are any objections (or support) to our proposal, please raise your voice here Talk:South_Tyrol#Naming_conventions_.28geographic_names.29. If not, then we will change the guideline accordingly soon. Gryffindor (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The section on Italy has been softened; Placename, Italy should be a possible choice for places not ambiguous within Italy (Syracuse, for example). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change, as against previous consensus. Anyone interested in building consensus for Placename, Italy is free to try again. Dohn joe (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please demonstrate the existence of a previous consensus (which is in any case an invalid reason to revert. As far as I can tell, one editor wrote it that way, on the assumption that places in Italy were either unique or conflicted with other places in Italy.

On the other hand, if you yourself disagree, please state your reasons; you may convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a back and forth from August '09 on the topic:

previous dab discussion

I very much don't like Name, Italy. How many Italian cities have like named cities in other countries? Syracuse is the only one I can think of where it's not obvious that the Italian city is the primary topic (Rome, Naples, Venice, etc., are clearly primary topics). Given that, I think the first level of disambiguation should probably be in the form Name, Region. Region is also useful because the regions of Italy are at least somewhat familiar to educated people who are not from Italy, which is not particularly the case with provinces. If there are multiple cities of the same name in a single region, then you can go to provinces. I'd suggest Name (Province of X). I'm not sure what to do for frazione. john k (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Name, Region is fine by me. Don't like Province of as a disambiguator as it's totally unnecessary. The purpose of a dismbiguator is to tell two places with the same name apart; not to give detailed information on the administrative structure; that's what the article is there for. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to any particular form. I am pretty strongly against anything involving ", Italy". Perhaps we should figure out what the possible options are, and do a straw poll to gauge support? john k (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just doing a very quick look at the list of comuni in one province I came across Ausonia, Italy, which should really be the primary use; Pico, Italy, disambiguated from Pico, Vila Verde in Portugal; and Sora (FR), which is the only Sora in Italy, and is disambiguated from Sora, Barcelona in Spain, and Sora, Boyacá in Colombia. This isn't an argument for or against country or region being used, just for information. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The US articles tend to tag by state, which would be equivalent to tagging by region. UK articles tend to tag by county, which would be equivalent to tagging by province. I think that a common sense choice between the two is the right way to go. For instance, places on Sardinia and Sicily should probably be tagged as such, unless there are two places of the same name on the same island, in which case we could then use provinces, and if this is still ambiguous then falling to comuni. Whether we want to start at regions or provinces for other locations is not necessarily a decision we need to make. I'm not convinced that the risk of confusion when provinces have the same name as towns within them is real, or that a title must resolve all issues of identity (hence our article doesn't have the main title of President Barack Hussein Obama of the United States of America, formerly United States Senator for the State of Illinois). That said, I am persuaded that the order of precedence should be no tag -> region -> province -> comune (note: no "Italy"), where we take the first of those options that doesn't cause a conflict. For instance, if we have places in three provinces, two of which are in the same region, we might have a structure along the lines of "Dovunque, Como" and "Dovunque, Bergamo" in Lombardy, but "Dovunque, Sardinia" (as opposed to "Donvunque, Cagliari". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems very reasonable to me. john k (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree this is the sensible approach. Disambiguate primarily by Region; if further dismabiguation needed then by Province; if disambiguation still required by Comune. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Since it seems the community agreed for a common approach to use as a replacement, I would suggest to make it official. --Angelo (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is there also agreement to avoid using abbreviations for regions/provinces as the disambiguating term? older ≠ wiser 12:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

About Italian regions, they have no sort of official abbreviations. About two-letter province abbreviations, well, that's the main issue we've been discussing right here, and I'd say there is definitely an agreement on that. --Angelo (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Draft: "If necessary, places in Italy are disambiguated by the highest of region, province or comune needed to identify it uniquely. Thus: Manciano, Arezzo, Manciano, Grosseto (both in Tuscany)." Needs two further examples, though - that of two places of the same name in different regions, and something along the lines of the fictional example of Dovunque above. As for implementing it, I suggest that (once agreed) a mass move is proposed for articles containing the abbreviations, and any other cases strictly being discussed individually. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the "Placename, Region" crowd - reasons to follow. For now, I largely adopt what was said before me. Dohn joe (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but is there any reason to forbid "X, Italy"? It seems the most helpful solution (and in line with what we do for most countries, particularly the English-speaking ones) in a situation where a place isn't the global primary topic for its name, but is unique within Italy. --Kotniski (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure that's true. Of the English-speaking countries with specific guidance, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland (both Northern and Republic of), the U.S., South Africa, Canada, and Australia all default to the county, state, or province for disambiguation. England allows for "X, England", but only when the placename and the county name are similar. Bermuda and New Zealand were the only two I found that preferred "X, Country". As for the rest of the world (again, these are just the ones with specific guidance), the results are similar. Argentina, Brazil, China (I think), France, Italy, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines all default to the region-level division. Germany and Korea have other ways to disambiguate. Only Malaysia, Russia, and Switzerland seemed to prefer "X, Country". (This was not an exhaustive search, so I welcome further evidence, in any direction.)

The pattern I detect is that, generally speaking, the larger countries with large and/or fairly well-known subdivisions tend to use the "X, Region" format. Why? Well, larger countries will tend to have more ambiguity in placenames, both within and without their borders. To me, using the same method of disambiguation for both makes sense, from a consistency and user-friendliness point of view. Titling two next-door towns as "X, Region" and "X, Country" - while absolutely defensible from a logical standpoint - seems potentially confusing to me. I'd rather stick with one main method of disambiguation (although I understand England and Argentina's exceptions for city names that resemble their county/province). So there's my rationale for excluding "X, Italy". Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In most cases, what you are seeing is obedience to idiom; Birmingham, UK and Birmingham, US are not idiomatic; Birmingham, England, and Birmingham, Alabama are (Birmingham, Warwickshire is now obsolete). But that is not true of Italy: Syracuse, Italy" is perfectly idiomatic. So the argument is the boxed discussion should really be extended; when a name is ambiguous, and Italy is the largest domain in which it is unambiguous, Italy should be the disambiguator.

Now I think that Syracuse is primary usage; it should not defer to upstate New York any more than Rome or Troy do; so this will be rare. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, at least in the specific case of Syracuse, as "Syracuse, Sicily" actually seems to be commoner than "Syracuse, Italy". And that would be some evidence that "X, Region" is actually more idiomatic than "X, Italy", wouldn't it? Dohn joe (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What does "more idiomatic" mean? Either something is within the allowable structures of English, or it isn't. I intentionally did not say "most common"; this guideline notoriously is not a popularity poll; we choose among the forms common enough to be recognizable those forms which make a consistent pattern. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But surely, "Birmingham, UK" is within the allowable structures of English? Shouldn't that make it idiomatic under your formulation?

As to the main point, I've already argued that using "X, Region" in Italy fits the consistency bill. If "Syracuse, Italy" and "Syracuse, Sicily" are both acceptable, shouldn't we advise editors to choose the title that is more consistent with a) other country-specific guidance and b) most other disambiguated Italian places? Dohn joe (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And that would be Syracuse, Italy. That's why it takes a special sentence to forbid it; it's not in accord with other disambiguated Italian places. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. If most other country-specific guidelines call for "X, Region", and most disambiguated Italian places are titled "X, Region", how is "X, Italy" consistent with either? I understand the logical consistency of "Use the highest possible administrative unit to disambiguate", but what about the practical inconsistency of having a handful of "X, Italy"s when they could all be "X, Region"s? Dohn joe (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

De Jure vs. De Facto Names

I would like to rise the issue of naming the settlements within de-facto independent countries again.

I have done that earlier, but there was no consensus in the discussion then (see here).

The mentioned settlements have both de-jure names and de-facto local names. Currently the de-jure names are listed in Wikipedia as default ones, however I think this is a wrong attitude to the issue since it misleads Wikipedia readers. My arguments are as follows:

• People who live there, call the villages with de-facto names.
• If one decides to contact someone in the village, he/she should mail to de-facto address.
• If a tourist visits the village, he/she will need the de-facto name.
• Businesses that would decide to operate in the village or cooperate with companies operating there will need the de-facto name.
• Statements about internationally not recognized status of the name have no practical value as long as the negotiations on conflict resolution are in progress or on hold.

Based on the arguments above I propose that de-facto names become default ones as long as de-jure alternatives are not wide-spread enough in English media.

During previous discussion there was a proposal from Dohn joe to add the following to the Multiple local names section of the guideline (possibly as a subsection 5.1 Disputed territories):

Places in states with limited recognition often have different names given to them by de facto and de jure authorities. It is not the role of Wikipedia to rule on the legality or illegality of these authorities, but rather to reflect reality, to the extent it is verifiable. With that in mind, in choosing titles for articles related to disputed territories, always look first to see if there is an accepted English name to describe the subject of the article. If the subject does not appear often enough in English-language sources to establish an accepted English name, choose the name used by a clear majority of current residents of the subject of the article. If no majority exists, or it cannot be proven, use a neutral source, such as the GEOnet Names Server. In every case, both de facto and de jure names should appear in the lead of the article, with an explanation of their status.

I think this is a good point to restart the discussion. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 09:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposed addition looks pretty good to me. Can anyone say what objections they have to it?--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text looks good, except for the "an explanation of their status" part. I think all the lead needs are the different names (which usually will be different languages anyway), and any further explanation of each name needs to go into the article text, presumably under a Name or Etymology section. Obviously there will be a note in the lead of the different claimants, but an explanation of each name is not needed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's reasonable. The above proposal looks good - leave out with an explanation of their status.--Sajoch (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it does not. There are two sides to this. It could solve a number of naming problems and create new ones at the same time. And by reading the previous discussion [1] it is probably best to leave this topic unregulated. Gryffindor (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What kind of "new ones" do you have in mind?--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the phrase "to reflect reality" is appropriate. I think "to reflect usage" would be better. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I should prefer not to. Referring to the majority of current inhabitants is impractical: if there are too few sources to verify English usage, there is unlikely to be a census. South Tyrol does have a census; but it is part of the stable and de jure Republic of Italy; using this in a de facto state (i.e. a civil war, hot or cold) is to ratify ethnic cleansing. The Macedonian census of 1904 made this mistake in the real world; let's not do it here.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that rather to reflect reality, to the extent it is verifiable. would be better phrased as rather to reflect English usage, to the extent it is verifiable. While Septentrionalis's point is well taken, the limitation at the end of the sentence mitigates it for that sentence, but see next comment. --Bejnar (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• The cases where the area does not appear often enough in English-language sources and there is an identifiable "current majority" has more problems. Since we wish to avoid problematic titles, I would think that the pre-1950 (or for long-running disputes the pre-1900) usual name would be a better choice rather than that espoused by a temporary majority. At a minimum the guideline would be improved by removing choose the name used by a clear majority of current residents of the subject of the article. If no majority exists, or it cannot be proven,. Always strive for a neutral name. --Bejnar (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What if the dispute goes back 100 years, and party A controlled the region for 80 of those years, suppressing said dispute. Then, parties B and C fought over it, whereupon party C won control and has had full control of it for 20 years, but party B continues to dispute that? And everyone else agrees with Party B (though not about the name, since other countries don't care about that one bit) And party A has no opinion, because it no longer exists? Which party's name do we go with? :) Assume no prevailing English usage for this exercise. --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good question. Gryffindor (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would pick party C in this situation. I think you could cop out though and pick party A's name (when it existed) to not favour any of the existing parties. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To spoil the surprise: Party A is the Soviet Union, party B is Azerbaijan, and Party C is Nagorno-Karabakh, and the site in question is Stepanakert. Interestingly enough, I don't think anyone, even Armenians, disagrees with using the Soviet/Azeri name Khankendi for statements from the Soviet period, especially since it wasn't renamed Stepanakert (I believe) til around the time of the Soviet collapse. But my opinion that, in the case of a disputed area where one party has held de facto control for a generation, we should go with the local name rather than [stimulate] the other party who, because they have more international popularity due to having large amount of oil, manages to get other countries to agree that it somehow owns the city and its people, is no secret. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Our existing guidance is: See what current reliable sources call it (in English, not that language (except for those of the parties) is going to make much difference). Sources which are non-polemical tend to be more reliable; in this case, my impression is that they tend to use Stepanakert. But if I'm wrong, so be it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out if C was Nagorno-Karabakh or Armenia, haha. Anyway, I think the point here is to create a guideline for cases where WP:COMMONNAME is unclear. If there is an english preference for either local name or a Liancourt rocks style escape, it should supersede the guideline. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's awesome to have such an escape in most cases. However, I would say that - considering I'd never heard of the deal til coming to Wikipedia, and I consider myself not only quite educated, but a huge geography geek - there is no prevailing English usage for really anything going on in the southern Caucasus. And the problem is, we currently have no ironclad policy, that I can see, for what to do where there is no prevailing English usage. No matter which you pick, there's going to be a POV issue. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Golbez do you have any evidence to support your claims of Azeri oil? Or did you copy and psste it from an Armenian propaganda site? Beause you do not show an objective approach to this matter. What about the influential Armenian diaspora in the US, which ranks among the three most powerfullest lobbies, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski. Surely this plays a role. Either way it is your personal interpretation and is not based on legal ascepts. There is the rule of law and we should abide by international laws. Wikipedia should not be downgraded to personal interpretations. It will only damage the reliability. Neftchi (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's merely my own personal opinion. When I see nation-states bend over backwards to recognize one state, while in the same breath condemning the recognition of another? There usually is some greater motivator behind the issue. And I'm not sure what you're saying - the US hasn't recognized Nagorno-Karabakh because of the Armenian diaspora? :P I have a well-documented contempt for most facets of international diplomacy, which has nothing to do with a bias for the sackless Armenian government or against the delusional Azerbaijani goverment. And the funny thing about international law is, it doesn't care about city names. Even UN maps say, "the names on this map are not indicative of any endorsement." So we cannot rely upon "international law" or recognition alone to deal with municipal names. That's the entire point of this exercise. If it were that simple, the guideline would already state "We use whatever is on a UN map". We don't, so it doesn't. We need to find the middle ground, which is usually handled by 'common English usage', which doesn't really exist in this case. So, absent that middle ground, what should the policy say? Do we go with the name of the city given it by its inhabitants, the name of the city given it by the government overwhelmingly chosen to represent it, or some fourth method? --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oke now you're talking accurate, it is your "personal opinion", but you presented it as facts. Because you said that the Azerbaijani government convinces the international community due to its large amount of oil. If oil was so influential than the Arab world would be the strongest entity in this planet. And yet most Arabic countries have very bad diplomatic relations. So oil is overrated. And if it is "no secret" than there should be enough sources for you to provide to us. Anyway I do not dispute that there are double standards in the world. Still I firmly believe in international law, and you very well know this is not just about the "names". And I can understand that you find this all "pointless bickering" - as do I for the most part. But after reading your manifesto on Karabakh, I realized several things. You dont seem to understand the geopolitical web of this conflict. There is a reason why Armenia has not recognized NK and there is a reason why Azerbaijan signed the ceasefire agreement. Everything is logical and can be explained, just dont make emotional decisions. Rather be rational and realistic. For example, Karabakhis are not just ethnic Armenians, but also the Azerbaijani community of that area. But the latter was forced to flee the region. And without the return of Azerbaijanis to NK, the conflict will never be solved. All I want to say is, your perspective should be based on long term solution. I also believe that both groups can live together in Nagorno-Karabakh, as they do in Georgia, Iran, Russia, etc. But it requires the both Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of NK, not just Armenians. Neftchi (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented here so far leaving this space for uninvolved editors and am intended to follow that track. In order not to allow partisans to drive the discussion to nowhere, I suggest that only uninvolved comments be discussed. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 04:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ashot, I really dont mind letting other parties to discuss the issue at hand but its pretty convinient for you to sit idle and watch when you already know the stance and positions of some of the currently involved editors in this thread from past discussions. If more really non-involved editors came to this page to comment it would have been more interesting. Neftchi (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)