Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:10, 14 February 2007

This page documents an English Wikipedia naming conventions.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcut

[[:|WP:NCGN]]

This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.

The following convention on geographic names represents what Wikipedia actually does, and reflects lengthy discussion on the talk page:

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or 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 neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.
The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}.
- Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1).
- Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.
- Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with: "(known also by several alternative names)". Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".
The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a historic name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely. If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".

Emphasis

It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to bold the article title name, and its frequently used English language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script. (It is technically possible to bold or italicize Greek or Cyrillic names; but there is consensus not to do so, because they are distinguishable from running text anyway.) If this produces a garish first paragraph, consider moving the discussion of names to a separate section, or deemphasizing some of them.

Names not in Roman script should be transliterated (in italics). If there are multiple frequently used transliterations (again, used by at least 10% of the English sources), include them.

Things to remember

Foreign names should be used only if there are no established English names; most places do have established English names. Rationale for historical usage should be explained on the article's talk page and in the name's section of the article about the geographical place in question.

If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Please remember that many local names, like Paris or Berlin, are widely accepted in English. Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon. On the other hand, there are cases in which English widely uses the local name without adopting some non-English spelling convention or diacritic. (When the diacritics are used in the article title, however, please create a redirect at the title without the diacritic, as not all Wikipedia users can readily type accented characters.)

Dispute resolution

Avoid revert wars: If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s). If the dispute is affecting more than one article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the main article about the place in question; if the dispute is affecting many pages, a template should be created to pull all the disputants into one discussion. See Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice for an example of such a notice.
Ask for help: If a consensus cannot be reached, it is recommended to ask for help at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography.

Examples

Gdańsk or Danzig? Discussion at Talk:Gdansk/Vote determined that Gdańsk is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Danzig is its widely accepted historical English name for certain historical contexts. There is no city of Danzig at present, but this term can be used in various historical contexts as described on the discussion page.
Volgograd or Stalingrad? Volgograd is the single widely accepted English name in modern context but Stalingrad is a widely accepted English name for certain historical contexts. Therefore during the Second World War there was a Battle of Stalingrad, not a Battle of Volgograd, and when referring to the city during the Stalinist era, the term Stalingrad is more correct than Volgograd; Battle of Stalingrad mentions Volgagrad once in the text; three times in describing external links.
Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.
Vilnius or Wilno? Vilnius is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Wilno is widely accepted in historical contexts where the Polish language was more popular than the Lithuanian language (during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
Meissen or Meißen? Meißen is the local (German) name; but Meissen is the single widely accepted English spelling. The argument that this is a "spelling mistake" has been proposed at the talk page; but has never been accepted.

Widely accepted name

The following methods may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):

Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
- One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world.
Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
- Google Scholar can pick up post office addresses for modern cities, especially those with universities. These should be discounted; they testify to local usage, even in English language sources.
Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted.
Enter the proposed move at WP:RM. If it is the consensus that a given name is the English name, then it is presumably widely accepted.
If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted.

Some names will be widely accepted, but not quite meet any of these tests; they are phrased to ensure that no name not widely accepted will pass. These should be decided case by case, on the evidence of the substantial body of data accumulated in the tests above. Names which fail each by a small margin or single exception are probably widely accepted.

When considering a source in determining English usage, remember the purpose of the source. When a guidebook or roadmap written in English shows an autobahn between München and Nürnberg, it is attesting to local usage, because that is what the signs on the autobahn will say; Munich and Nuremberg are still the English names. Similarly, a town's own website may well attest to an official name, even when this this differs from local usage and widespread English usage.

If a source is in English, but has been badly translated from the local language, it is not good evidence for native English usage; in an extreme case, texts produced by Babelfish will have the English name only if Babelfish has been programmed to include it.

Multiple local names

There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.

Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have.

We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems. In the case of the communes of the South Tyrol, there is a linguistic survey of the area, by commune, which has the following advantages:

It is available on-line, and officially published.
The proportions of the various language groups are fairly stable.
Most communes have a large majority, often a 90% majority, of one nationality.
In the few cases where there is a widely used English name, it is usually that of the majority nationality. (The population Merano is almost evenly divided, with a slight German majority; on the other hand, the name Meran is quite often used for it in English. There appears to be enough evidence to claim Merano is prevalent English usage, however.)

Where the above tests, therefore, give no indication of a widely used English name, therefore, those articles are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority. If these conditions apply elsewhere, this solution may be worth considering.

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 *The proportions of the various language groups are fairly stable.
 *Most communes have a large majority, often a 90% majority, of one nationality.
 *In the few cases where there is a widely used English name, it is usually that of the majority nationality. ([[Merano]] is almost evenly divided; on the other hand, [[Meran]] is quite often used for it.)
 Where the above tests, therefore, give no indication of a widely used English name, therefore, those articles are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority. If these conditions apply elsewhere, this solution may be worth considering.