Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:14, 7 October 2011 editSTSC (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users8,731 edits →Liancourt Rocks: re← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:22, 7 October 2011 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits →Liancourt Rocks: commentNext edit →
Line 41:		Line 41:

	: I fully endorse Lvhis's edit which is very clear and reasonable. ] (]) 11:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)		: I fully endorse Lvhis's edit which is very clear and reasonable. ] (]) 11:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

			:: Just as an admin note, I would very strongly recommend that ''all'' editors who have a known involvement in the recent naming dispute over ], which I understand has now been placed under a discretionary sanctions rule, should very much avoid doing anything on this page that might cause the impression as if they were fighting over the example in the policy page in order to strengthen their position in that other case. The wisest thing for such editors would be to simply leave this issue alone and leave it to uninvolved outsiders to work out the best wording here. ] ] 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

	== Falkland Islands ==		== Falkland Islands ==

Revision as of 16:22, 7 October 2011

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Liancourt Rocks

The description of LR at WP:NCGN#Multiple local names is totally wrong. Liancour Rocks is not a compromised name. But the common name. The neutrality of the name is accidental. Move proposals were Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks → Takeshima → Dokdo → Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks. See Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars#Liancourt Rocks.t was almost always Dokdo vs Liancourt Rocks. LR has never been a household name. But it has been always used on the government level. See Rusk documents, s:Draft Treaty of Peace With Japan, and s:Memorandum in regard to the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima Island) controversy. Even in Japan, the islets were called "リャンコ島/Ryanko-to" in Meiji period. The name originated from LR. (Because of the romanization system, R is used for L and K for C.) See this. And see the US Department of State's Daily Press Briefing on Aug. 2, 2011.
I'd like to remove the description from the section. Any objection? Oda Mari (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please look up the English meanings of compromise and compromised first.

What you are saying does not contradict the (admittedly summary) description in the text; if it would be useful to say that there was and is a case for Liancourt Rocks in its own right, I have no objection; but I have always assumed there was such a case - we merely say that it prevailed in part because it is neither national POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Amended to say that, in the hope it will be satisfactory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I see this now says that LR is used as a title in part "because it has been often used by the US government." Letting the State Department (as opposed to scholarly secondary sources) determine our usage is somewhat unusual, and we may need to reconsider more of this page if it prevails; may we have a link to that discussion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to the edit on LR by Oda Mari. STSC (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

@Pmanderson. As for the word "compromise", I think I understand it. I used the "compromised name" as the fourth example on this page. The previous version could be read as "There were title move wars between Dokdo and Takeshima. So the community choose LR". Here is the precise move history. As for the name LR, as I pointed above, it has never been a household name and I think what the US gov. calls the islands it important. See these. and . What scholarly secondary sources say? I'd like to know. Oda Mari (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a past tense; the past participle compromised implies the meaning "Exposed to risk, danger, or discredit; damaged in reputation." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You said LR is a "common name", and it's not a "household name"... Very strange indeed! If it's not a household name then it's hardly a common name, is it? STSC (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Which of his edits do you dispute, and on what grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari is one of the involved parties in the arbitration and the LR case is part of the evidence. She is now seen as interfering the evidence. STSC (talk)

@STSC.Almost all island names in East Asia are not household names, especially small ones and islets. Hainan Island is not a small island, but I don't think it's a household name in en speaking countries like LR. "Common name" means most commonly used name in en speaking countries. Please stop quibbling. Oda Mari (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You're just contradicting yourself. LR cannot be a common name since you said it's not even a household name. STSC (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have flouted Politics and the English language to put "not uncommon in the diplomatic and secondary sources," which I hope is accurate in fact and acceptable as guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I simply thought "compromised" was an adjective derived from a verb. Sorry that my understanding of en is not good enough. I think simpler description is appropriate for the guidance as it's more understandable. Because there are lots of non-en native speaking editors like me at en WP. How about "common in the diplomatic and secondary sources"? Oda Mari (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of "common name" for the most common name is largely a piece of Misplaced Pages jargon; nevertheless, this page is stuck with it until WP:AT is edited to expunge it - which I do not expect before WP:DEADLINE. Until that is done, claiming LR is a common name will be misleading; if it were clearly the most common name, the dispute would be much simpler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the last move proposal thoroughly. I hope you'd understand why the dispute was not simple. Oda Mari (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely; I observe the vast quarrel about the statistics, as well as the other flaws; I'm disappointed, but not surprised. But this page should not attempt to settle that quarrel; we offer guidelines for how to determine the facts, and what to do when they are determined; what they are in any given case belongs on the talk page. Nor should we attempt to address meatpuppetry or chauvinism, on which there are other pages; if we can offer editors a better way, some of them, and almost all the neutrals, will take it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This part after changed during the Arbitration, at least has a semantic logic problem: "..., a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted, in part because it is not uncommon in the diplomatic and secondary sources, in part because it is neither Korean nor Japanese." If the reason "not uncommon ..." is put first as this version, this geographic entity should have used "Dakdo" which is most likely "not uncommon ...". The purposive clause has stated very clearly: "to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national POV". Therefore, I think it should be like this: "..., a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted, mainly because it is neither Korean nor Japanese." Here "mainly" is added. "Mainly" ≠ "only", so it is different from the original one "the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted rather than select either the Korean or Japanese name for the feature." (emphasis added). "Mainly" does not exclude other sub-reasons including "not very uncommon", etc. I will make a change but we can improve it with discussion.--Lvhis (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I just pointed out it was also a common en name and historical documents prove it. Please do not deny the historical facts and read the last move proposal thoroughly. Some editors said it was a common name in en speaking countries. If you think the name is not a common name, ask consensus first before editing. Oda Mari (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully endorse Lvhis's edit which is very clear and reasonable. STSC (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as an admin note, I would very strongly recommend that all editors who have a known involvement in the recent naming dispute over Senkaku Islands, which I understand has now been placed under a discretionary sanctions rule, should very much avoid doing anything on this page that might cause the impression as if they were fighting over the example in the policy page in order to strengthen their position in that other case. The wisest thing for such editors would be to simply leave this issue alone and leave it to uninvolved outsiders to work out the best wording here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

In order to maintain a neutral position in respect of the on-going sovereignty dispute of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina, the English language version of Misplaced Pages has adopted the following conventions:

Geographical articles include both the English and Spanish names of the locality in the lede and in the Infobox, otherwise the English name only is used
Articles that directly relate to the dispute put a translation involving "Malvinas" directly after the first instance of "Falklands", but use "Falklands" alone thereafter - for example "Falkland Islands (Spanish:Islas Malvinas)" or "Falklands War (Spanish:Guerra de las Malvinas".

The Falkland Islands articles are frequently subsject to vandalism with phrases such as "Islas Malvinas sont Argentina" (I am not sure about the Spanish). The Falkland Islands group has attempted to maintian a neutral policy regarding the islands. This morning a Falkland Islander took umbridge at the name "Malvinas" appearing in the artciel, did some clumsy modifications and turned a few good links into a red link.

In view of this, the group had a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group#MOS:Geographical names where the princpals were agreed by the group memebers. Is the community at large happy with the addition that I have made? Martinvl (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text is now at the top of the section.

I agree with both bullet points; they seem eminently reasonable, and helpful to the confused. I would strike the first clause; I doubt that professional Argentines will agree that the proposed guidance is neutral; if they cannot get the True Name of the islands alone, they will insist on equal time throughout articles.

As far as i am concerned, the real justification is the same we use elsewhere, as with Gdanzig: English-speakers overwhelmingly call the islands the Falklands, except when discussing the dispute. So should we, in writing English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We need some sort of introductory sentence to explain why and when Spanish names are given in a large selection of articles, but not Germans, French or Italian. We can't just have two bullet points with no intro. Martinvl (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually we could; most of our sections are rules without justification. But I agree that one is useful; and have added the assertion that Malivinas is encyclopedic information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added the word "disputed" with a link to the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute so as to ensure a WP:NPOV. Martinvl (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This differs slightly from the actual practice on Falklands articles (as discussed at WT:FALKLAND) in that we don't put the Spanish name of localities or geographical features other than islands in infoboxes. Many of us would object to a Spanish name being included in the same way as Warszawa is used in Warsaw because in this case we should avoid the implication that the Spanish names are used locally. But there doesn't appear to be another way of doing it on {{Infobox settlement}}. This would also follow on from the Gdansk/Danzig precedent: that article also does not put "Danzig" in its infobox.

On islands we use {{Infobox Falkland island}}, which has an explicit "Spanish name" field, so this is not an issue. Pfainuk talk 08:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I would expect Martin's change to be uncontroversial; anybody interested enough to read the section will already know that the British Government disputes the territorial claim, but I see no harm in it.

This page is intended to document what editors do actually do, after discussion, so please do tweak until it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)