Talk:Kydonia

Name change for this page
This page should be renamed Kydonia, which will avoid the parens and create a unique name. The present "Kydonia" page is a redierect to Chania, the modern city, which is an inappropriate redirect. The ancient city deserves its own page, and the modern city is never referred to by its ancient name. Any comments or objections? Cewvero (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no opposition to this logical move I shall request a name change to overwrite the redirect page. Cewvero (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Few decades late, but this is still the wrong name. The page should be located at Cydonia, which is the name of the place, even with Wikipedia having advertised the wrong spelling for a decade plus. Even if we keep this at Kydonia as a  the running text of the article should continue to use the common English name in place of the kludge we're using as a page placeholder instead of Cydonia, Crete, Cydonia (Crete), Cydonia (Cretan city), Cydonia (ancient city), etc. —  Llywelyn II   05:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This move should have been discussed at Requested moves, or at minimum should have been discussed here to seek consensus. "Kydonia" is the overwhelming standard in recent published sources. It is used exclusively in the Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, the Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Vance Watrous's textbook, James Whitley's new book on Knossos, among others. It is also used in popular books including Rodney Castleden's pop history books, Louise Schofield's book on the Mycenaeans, and Eric Cline's bestseller 1177 BC. Botterweg14  (talk)  13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense
The article previously included the unsourced nonsense
 * Another theory projects the toponym Lachanias as a derivative of the modern name.

There is no toponym "Lachanias" in the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. ("Lachania" is an entirely unrelated minor location in southern Rhodes. "Lakhania" is an entirely unrelated waterfall in India.) None of the grammar here works or clearly expresses who is making what connection between the two names. To the extent it can be understood, it would seem to be saying the other (nonexistant) name derives from Chania, which has no bearing at all on a section discussing the origin of the name Chania.

It's possible there is some meaningful information hidden in there. If so, kindly restore it to the article once it's been expressed in accurate English, linked to any relevant articles, and reliably sourced... unless it was just attempting to say that the French and Italian name La Canea derived from the Greek and Arab names... in which case it's so unimportant and obvious it probably goes without saying. — Llywelyn II   05:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)