Misplaced Pages

Talk:Plzeň

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.198.59.81 (talk) at 10:05, 26 August 2006 (→Move to Plzeň: vote by a permabanned user). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:05, 26 August 2006 by 71.198.59.81 (talk) (→Move to Plzeň: vote by a permabanned user)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
The journalistic convention (see examples below) is to use Plzeň in English. English-speakers used to use the German name; now we use the Czech name. valeriet 10:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved. Jonathunder 23:59, 6 July 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.)

Survey

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

*Oppose. Oruj 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: But the English version of the city's website is clearly translated by a Czech, not by a native English speaker. valeriet
  • 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)

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)
  • As mentioned above, the English version of the city website was clearly translated by a Czech speaker rather than a native English speaker. Less easy to tell with the university website, but in both cases, 'Pilsen' is likely to have been suggested by Czechs who are unfamiliar with English journalistic and other convention.valeriet 09:45, 25 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)
    • Many Czech place names aren't kind to the English-speaking tongue (Brno for one) but we manage fine with the Czech rather than the German version. valeriet 09:32, 25 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)

Examples of journalistic usage of Plzen:

2nd BBC story is actually a quiz not an news article, prevous BBC usage has included Pilsen but current usage is Plzen ie all Latin characters no diacritics in sight.

It is indeed a quiz - that's why I added it. All the more indication that Plzen is also used in more cultural contexts as well as news stories. You do find some usage of Pilsen on the BBC site - mostly in historical reminiscences about World War II, and in references to the Pilsen Radio Orchestra. valeriet 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Plzeň

I contend that some voters above were misled by the false premise that "Plzeň is the Czech name for the city and Pilsen is the English name". In fact Pilsen is the former German name, used locally and internationally when it was part of Austria, but now obsolete. It's true that it sometimes occurs in English, but if that makes it an English name, then Plzeň is also an English name (that's what all English-language encyclopedias use) and then the question is which is more common, and Google shows Plzeň is more common (compare "Pilsen Czech Republic" and "Plzen Czech Republic"). Physicus 00:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion above - I don't think anyone was misled. "Plzeň" could not be an "English name" because English orthography does not use any Diacritic marks on its letters - it would have to be rendered as "Plzen". GraemeLeggett 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
English may use diacritics, as you find out, if you look at the List of English words with diacritics. Jan.Kamenicek 21:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is that even those loan words are not spelt with diacritics and that with the domination of the keyboard over pen and ink noone even knows how to type a diacritic (they might know where insert symbol is in MS Word) so diacritics are almost completey absent from written English - I've never seen anime written with an accent in the last 18 years. GraemeLeggett 09:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing of this is relevant to proper names. If you don't know how to type Plzeň, you'll just type Plzen. It's still the same name. Physicus 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There are two ways of defining "English name". At bottom, "Plzeň" is of course a Czech name - just as "Pilsen" is a German name. There's no third, separate English name. But if any name that is used in English becomes an "English name" then both are English names. And "Plzeň" is the more common one. The presence of diacritics that are not otherwise used in English doesn't disqualify it either in that sense. After all, you could find plenty of small Czech towns which have no other name whatsoever except the Czech name, so you have to use the Czech name in English and that would make it the "English name" in that sense. Physicus 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose as premature. Abide by consensus decision; please note that this is change from the vote above. There is no question (see the 1911 Britannica for an example) that Pilsen was once the name used in English; the question is whether English usage has changed. We have decided this; as a member of the minority, I join the majority opinion. Septentrionalis 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

*Support, earlier vote was ill-informed. Oruj 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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)
Names on a map is often more than an emotional dispute; it is a very political dispute. On the European mainland, the use of German language forms for East European locations outside of Germany's post-1945 borders is very often - rightly or wrongly - interpreted as support for German expansionism. This issue is - thank God - not at the agenda of the German government, but fear of it rests very deep in the minds of many of Germany's neighbours. I'm well aware that this was not the motivation behind the votes for "Pilsen" cast here, but using German forms for non-German areas is a controversial path to take. Valentinian 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an argument for a change of policy. This is not the place for that; try Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (places) or the Village pump. Septentrionalis 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Most common name used in English

User:Yup! said in an edit summary, "No one has proved Pilsen is less common than Plzeň in English. The city is used to using the name "Plzeň" on its intl website, and I, as a resident, can tell it's far more known abroad than "Plzeň". (I think he meant "using the name 'Pilsen' on its intl website".)

Re: --Yup! 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, thanks. I wrote it in hurry and mixed it up completely. This above is the way it should be. On the other hand I'd rather point out in the article, that Pilsen is a German equivalent, that is as common as Plzeň in English. However, Pilsen might be used more broadly in the world referring to the original beer production, that the city is famous for. That's the reason for being in the head of the document, and also why the city is officially using this name. But Pilsen is still only an equivalent, which is a fact to be stressed. There are still many people, that don't like Germans since WW2, when all the cities used to be called in German. That's why I wouldn't like to see German name there.

Well, it is very easy to prove. First, by way of authority: All real English-language encyclopedias not only have their articles at Plzeň, they also do not even mention Pilsen as an alternative English name, only as a German name. To wit:

  • Britannica: "Plzeň, German Pilsen, city, capital of..."
  • Americana: "Plzeň, a city in the Czech Republic, 55 miles (88 km) west-southwest of Prague. Plzeň (German, Pilsen) is the..."
  • Encarta: "Plzen (German Pilsen), city in western Czech Republic, ..."
  • Columbia: "Plzeň, Ger. Pilsen, city..."

Second, by checking actual use through Google. "Plzen Czech Republic" shows 138,000 hits, "Pilsen Czech Republic" only 55,100, a ratio of 5 to 2. (The addition of "Czech Republic" serves two necessary purposes - ensuring the reference is a modern one, not one referring to or dating from Austrian times, and ensuring the reference is in English.)

I don't think your anecdotal knowledge trumps those verifiable facts. Nor does the city's own website; cities are not authorities on what they should be called in foreign languages, and the local people who write those English texts may not be aware of what the most commonly used name is in English. Oruj 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but the above discussion about the "English" name is simply moronic. Citations to ENGLISH encyclopedias, dictionaries, newspapers, and magazines are completely ignored. Google results, Google scholar results, and appeals to logic and consistency are buried alive, kicking and screaming. To counter the mountain of actual evidence, editors simply opine, nay, DECLARE!, that the most common English term used by the most authoritative English publications is not English, because ... they SAY so. Astounding. Pilsener 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Google results are not authoritative. You may not sound rude but you do sound a touch hysterical. GraemeLeggett 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, your majesty conquers mere citations to English encyclopedias, dictionaries, newspapers, and magazines, with nothing but devastating wit and wisdom. I bow before the supreme authority of your voice. Misplaced Pages bows, nay, the world bows. Pilsener 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Serpent or whatever

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

Why did you remove the whole sentence? Just change the beginning and it will be ok.

After WW2, Czechoslovakia was placed in Soviet sphere of influence and Patton had to withdraw shortly after the armistice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmoc (talk • contribs)

The present phrasing is:

On May 6, 1945, at the very end of World War II, Pilsen and Western Bohemia were liberated from Nazi Germany by General Patton's 3rd Army; the rest of Czechoslovakia was liberated from German control by the Soviet Red Army. Patton withdrew a few days thereafter, in accordance with the agreements of the Allies.

What false claim or misleading inference do you see here?

On the other hand, the text Azmoc proposes implies that the Anglo-Americans had actively placed Czechoslovakia in the Soviet sphere of influence before the end of the war. This is unsourced; and Western diplomatic histories tend to claim that, until 1947 or 1948, they expected Czechoslovakia to be a true neutral until 1947 or 1948. Septentrionalis 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, expecting something is one thing. How do you explain that the "soviet part" of germany became communist, actually everything that was "liberated" by the red army became communist? Are you trying to suggest, that all the countries and territories that came under soviet control after ww2 became communist incidentally, and that the soviet communist rule was not imposed on them? Azmoc 07:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is widespread sentiment that the policy of attempting to administer Germany by consensus (and by extension, manage the rest of the Continent so) was a failure - the creation of East Germany was part of that failure; there is disagreement as to how much the Western Allies attempted the policy of consensus, and as to how foreseeable the failure was. George Kennan claims to have foreseen it and protested from within.
  • No, I am not " trying to suggest, that all the countries and territories that came under soviet control after ww2 became communist incidentally, and that the soviet communist rule was not imposed on them". I do not think that; what have I said that could be so interpreted?

I didn't say that "Churchil and Truman placed Czechoslovakia somewhere", I said that "Czechoslovakia was placed". I didn't suggest that Anglo-Americans actively placed Czechoslovakia somewhere. It might be true, that they just passively allowed it to be placed into the Soviet sphere of influence. Doesn't matter - my sentence says "was placed", doesn't say by whom. Would you please suggest any other wording that would express that the change from democracy to communism was imposed on Czechoslovakia from outside? Azmoc 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you are making the (unsourced) claim that it was entirely imposed in May 1945, that would be off topic and extremely misleading, especially before Patton's withdrawal. If you have some sources on the Communist takeover of Pilsen, do by all means put them in. Septentrionalis 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)