Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:02, 24 June 2006

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. Stod is small city (3500 inhabitants in 2001) in southwest (), 20 km from .

Name Alternatives

Several sources (Britannice, Merriam-Webster) list "Pilsen" as an English and German name alternative. I believe they should remain in the article.

Not true. Britannica just says "German Pilsen". Merriam-Webster doesn't describe it, it just has a cross-reference, as it has for "Leningrad" and other former names which are still well known. NoPuzzleStranger 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

The city of Plzen lists "Pilsen" on the English version of its web page. Please stop changing the article simply because of a POV difference.

http://info.plzen-city.cz/article.asp?sec=5&lang=1033

Jbetak 30 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Well, if you consider that decisive, I'm pleased that you will at least give up your reverts on České Budějovice. The city of České Budějovice uses "České Budějovice" on the English version of its web page. http://www.c-budejovice.cz/EN/02/History/ NoPuzzleStranger 30 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)

I have just checked that page as well ;-) Still, you have to acknowledge that the changes to the České Budějovice article were initiated by you. The former status quo was obviously supported by a consensus and would be preferable to the current state. Until the question has been resolved. As I have explained before, I have qualms about not paying enough consideration for the rich past of these cities. We could be renaming Prague next - but hey it's just my POV ;-) Jbetak 30 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)

This article is written in English, not Czech. The title should be "Pilsen". --Peter Farago 15:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Masterhatch 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to Pilsen

Unless someone can come up with a good reason why i shouldn't, I will move this article to its English name (because this is the English section of wikipedia) of Pilsen. Masterhatch 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Having a look at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English), it is obvious this article should be moved to Pilsen. Masterhatch 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You should suggest a move at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Olessi 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with renaming. There are many more articles with English versions of names, like Prague (not Praha), Rome (not Roma), Venice (not Venezia). These English versions have long history and abandoning them would be like losing a part of English language heritage. Jan.Kamenicek 14:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Plzeň → Pilsen – Plzeň is the Czech name for the city and Pilsen is the English name. the MoS states that the most common English name be used. Plzeň is definately not the most common English name for that city. (rationale originally posted by User:Masterhatch at Misplaced Pages:Requested Moves.)

• Consider reading the relevant article Exonym and endonym as well before voting. BoojiBoy 15:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose. Pilsen is an English name of the beer; but I believe the Czech names of Czech cities have become usage since 1918 - except Prague, of course. Would this apply to Karlovy Vary or Bratislava? Septentrionalis
• Comment Well, i assume that if Carlsbad and Pressburg are the most common names in English for those cities, i would have to say "yes". Article titles should be in the most common English name (according to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)) Masterhatch 02:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've heard of Karlsbad but not Karlovy Vary GraemeLeggett 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  This survey concerns Plzeň/Pilsen not Karlovy Vary/Karlsbad/Carlsbad. Olessi 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Pilsen is a well-established English name that can be rendered in English orthography (i.e. does not require diacritics). Robert A.West (Talk) 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The only important thing is whether it is well-established, not whether it requires diacritics (there can always be a redirect omitting the diacrictics). Jan.Kamenicek 15:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oruj 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support The MoS is clear about using the most common English name for article titles, not local names (unless the local name is the most common English name, of course) Masterhatch 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. English usage should always prevail on the English-language Misplaced Pages. BoojiBoy 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support ackoz 10:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per MoS. Furthermore: the English version of the city's website spells it as "Pilsen" REF: http://info.plzen-city.cz/Default.asp?lang=1033 . ccwaters 11:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was going to support but then I noticed that neither Britannica nor Encarta use the proposed name. Haukur 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Encyclopedia Columbia also does not use the proposed name. Like Appleby, I have not seen any evidence indicating that "Pilsen" is currently used to refer to the city more often than "Plzeň". Olessi 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's not reopen the entire Danzig / Gdansk dispute. A pilsner is a beer. Plzeň is a modern town. Valentinian 20:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is the English Misplaced Pages, not the Czech Misplaced Pages. I am all for the Czechs spelling things in their own language however the heck they want. I am likewise all for us spelling things in our own language the way we commonly do. RGTraynor 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm merely saying that this issue looks pretty closely related to a precedent case (see: Talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues and Talk:Danzig). Valentinian 10:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Czech language also has its versions of city names, like Štýrský Hradec, Drážďany or Londýn, so why English should not. They have got long history and are a part of the language heritage. Jan.Kamenicek 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I am open to persuasion. Google tests, however, are unusually misleading here; actual citations of present English usage are wanted. Septentrionalis 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of Pilsen, which is obviously invariable in nineteenth-century sources, should of course be noted in the article. Septentrionalis 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pilsen" is used by on the English versions of the city page (which also uses "Plzen") and the University of West Bohemia. I am currently neutral on the matter. Olessi 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

britannica, encarta, & columbia use plzen, with pilsen as alternate name. ahd & mw dictionaries use plzen. reference works like encyclopedias and dictionaries are generally good indications of the most common english usage. plzen is actually slightly more common at google scholar. diacritics are not an issue because many of these references don't use the diacritic & i searched without it. many of the above comments seem to assume that pilsen is the most common, but did i miss the evidence? Appleby 04:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Most common" is, in this context, a red herring. A foreign name, unnatural in English orthography, should be preferred only if there is no reasonably-common English name. "Pilsen" is reasonably-common: that is all I contend is needed to prefer it. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I should add that part of my argument is that the pronunciation of "Plzen" is not transparent to those who do not already know the subject: one might readily assume that the implied vowel is after the digraph: "Plizenm" but it just looks strange. This is different from, say, "Beijing" vs "Peking". While the latter is more probable as an English place name, the former doesn't look unpronounceable. This sort of thing is not an exact science, but I think "Plzen" lies on the wrong side of the dividing line. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

all the encyclopedias & dictionaries i looked at are, of course, english reference works. they all use plzen. it seems plzen is the common english name, although i'm open to other evidence. Appleby 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• On the other hand, they do not need to follow Misplaced Pages policies. For example, Brittanica validly includes snippets of original research. I feel that the spirit of UE is violated when we use names that are impossible in English orthography, provided that some reasonably-natural alternative is available. Then again, I laugh at network anchors when they try to affect an accent when saying names like "Managua" and "Nicaragua." Robert A.West (Talk) 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yalta

I removed the following sentence, as a factual error.

The Yalta Conference placed Czechoslovakia in Soviet sphere of influence and Patton had to withdraw shortly after the armistice.

Reading the Yalta Accords will show that they do not mention Czechoslovakia or any part of it. I suppose there will be a revert war here; but I hope that the copyedit preceeding will be left alone. Septentrionalis 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Other notes

• The advertising for the development of the Škoda works is advertising and crystal-ballery; neither is appropriate here.
• Portland, Oregon is necessary for disambiguation; see Portland, Maine.
• If the book printed here deals with the Matter of Troy, the English adjective is Trojan. Septentrionalis 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar case with Poland

In the Polish material, the issue resulted in a pretty heated arguement. (see: Talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues and Talk:Danzig), and the result was that the German names is used in some historical contexts, and the native name in modern contexts. In the Polish material, the native name is used everywhere except Warsaw. Encarta sticks to the Czech name as well. . Valentinian 10:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• The compromise in Gdansk/Danzig was just that, a compromise to resolve a highly-emotional situation. As such, the decision does not need to be rational, and really doesn't pretend to be. It was just a decision, and we are not obliged to repeat it slavishly. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)