Talk:Lake Tuusula

Naming convention of Finnish lakes and rivers
As a native speaker of Finnish, I would like to point out that the correct way to spell the name of this lake is Lake Tuusulanjärvi. The latter part of it "Järvi", of course, is the equivalent of lake in English, but as such it is an inseparable part of the name. There's no lake under the name "Tuusula" in Finland (that would be the township). Unless you think using the Swedish name instead (Tusby träsk) would be more appropriate, the correct name of this article should be Lake Tuusulanjärvi. The same applies to rivers (joki) as well, eg. Lemmenjoki River (as opposed to Lemme River). Please take heed.--Khaosaming (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that the Finnish name is Tuusulanjärvi. Note this is en.wikipedia, so the English-language name is appropriate;  just as the Finnish-language name is appropriate on fi.wikipedia.org and the Swedish language name on sv.wikipedia.  —Sladen (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on one thing: this certainly is the English Wikipedia, but partially disagree on the rest. I really doubt that there has ever been any localized geographical name (exonym) in English for Lake Tuusulanjärvi. As a rule, when there's no widely available fixed domestic usage, one should choose the name closest to the original, if possible. The reference tag that you have added to prove your point of view is really nothing more than a common translator's gimmick to get rid of the umlauts (ä, ö) that must be confusing to most English readers. In our project, however, I think they represent no great obstacle in any chosen language. Unicode tables and character sets take care of that easily. The biggest problem with your way of thinking is cutting two basically inseparable parts of the name in half. Sometimes the resulting name is intelligible, sometimes not. Now, is any non-native user able to see the difference and judge accordingly when making such namings? Whenever there's a genitive 'n' embedded in the name, one should be cautious when accommodating the name to other languages. Sometimes the name proper (the first part) is still productive, often times not. Non-productive parts of a name should not be separated. The result could mean loss of etymological information invisible to the untrained eye. There's a document concerning Finnish place names made for use at the United Nations. It is obtainable here. Please take a look at it. After all, this is an encyclopedia that caters for knowledge.--Khaosaming (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On Swedish language and its usage in Finland's geographical names the following applies: (quote from the above mentioned UN document) In foreign languages, names of monolingual areas should appear in the form they have in the official language of those areas (for instance fi Iisalmi, sv Mariehamn), unless there are no other established names in the languages in question. In bilingual areas, the names in the majority language should be preferred (for instance fi Helsinki, Turku, Vaasa; sv Jakobstad, Nykarleby, Pargas, Ekenäs.) Meaning that in some areas of Finland a Swedish-language name could be used in place even in English (cases are based on the 'majority rule').--Khaosaming (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The naming convention should in any case be based on government sources or authoritative academic studies rather than speaking conventions of an expat community in any given country. Moreover, this is basically a question of linguistics and morphology. It should also be noted that the toponymic constructions discussed here fall into two different categories: genitive toponymic constructions and appositive toponymic constructions. In Finnish, the first one is very widely used, and makes the bulk of the cases under dispute. This type of construction can very effectively resist unpacking (resolving into components) because identifying the head of the phrase is not always obvious. --Khaosaming (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As a striking contrast to the applied Finnish toponymic conventions, most Russian and Karelian lakes seem to retain their endings (-ozero, -jarvi). Ozero is the equivalent of lake in Russian. Examples of this are Lake Seydozero, Lake Lovozero, Lake Vyalozero, Lake Yurhyamyajarvi and many others. One doesn't have to dig deep to find a certain kind of incoherency in this respect when one crosses language boundaries or physical borders. Is this intended (based on facts) or the result of individual minds not aware of each other's workings? My assumption is that reduplication (Lake Some_lake) is an issue only when the meaning of the ending is understood as such. For others, the double laking is not of any significant concern.--Khaosaming (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Article renamed
Since there apparently is no relevant feedback, I have chosen to rename the article as Lake Tuusulanjärvi. This naming convention more truly follows the guidelines provided in the official document endorsed by the authorities, a document that sticks more coherently to international standards. There's no supporting information to back up the view expressed by user Sladen. His view seems to rest on personal usage and opinions of an expat community rather than standardized recommendations.--Khaosaming (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Khaosaming: If an editor asks a question on a User's talk page, then that's where they generally get the responses. It was repeatedly  requested that you clarify the vague rambling above into finite questions, and/or elevate the issue to Wikiproject level if you feel that Wikipedia's long-standing policies on following citations and common names need reviewing to suit your own personal views.  —Sladen (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lake Tuusulanjärvi → Lake Tuusula — Restore common name based on available English-language citations per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Note that -järvi is the Finnish suffix for "lake" and that the lake's Swedish name is "Tusby träsk". —Sladen (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see this for English Wikipedia Convention of geographical names. The guidelines for Finland are the same that have already been cited on this talk page. Based on this convention it should be Lake Tuusulanjärvi as there is no commonly used English form. You have cited many sources from the local tourist information office but even they are not sure of the English form as can bee seen for example here.--Nedergard (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:GHITS is only a guide, but probably the easiest way to quickly demonstrate this:
 * {| class=wikitable

! Google search !!colspan=2| Results
 * "Lake Tuusulanjärvi" -wikipedia ||align=right| 2,260
 * "Lake Tuusula" -wikipedia ||align=right| 10,500
 * }
 * —Sladen (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * }
 * —Sladen (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * —Sladen (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There appear to be relevant arguments for both names. The arguments by Khaosaming and Urjanhai in support of Tuusulanjärvi, appear correct and entirely relevant. The opposing reference to the Swedish name of the lake, and to the fact that the suffix -järvi means lake, are off the point and would represent complete misunderstanding of the issue. Yet, the argument of documented modern use of the term Lake Tuusula is also inevitably true and relevant.
 * In academic use, both primary (i.e. geography) and secondary (e.g. biology), compound Finnish lake names are used in English as such, if the parts of the compound name are not separable in the original language. This also seems to be the de facto usage in English WP concerning many languages, e.g. Swedish (-sjön), Norwegian (-sjøen, -vatnet etc.), Danish (-sø), German (-see),  Russian (-ozero) and fortunately so far  Finnish (-järvi, -vesi).
 * Yet, as documented, the term Lake Tuusula now seems to be used in tourism-related context. My interpretation is that the new name has been launched to promote the lake area (with some considerable cultural values, apart from the lake itself) with a term less awkward than Lake Tuusulanjärvi, which for a foreigner would be hard to pronounce, spell or memorize. Basically it is question of a marketing concept. Anyway, whether fortunately or unfortunately, the term inevitably exists.
 * The issue then seems to be about a conflict between the academically consistent and linguistically sound naming convention (for Tuusulanjärvi) versus a new marketing name launched by the tourist boards or tourist industry (Lake Tuusula). The Google hits reflect this.
 * I suggest the article be retained by the academically accepted geographical name Lake Tuusulanjärvi (or better even, Tuusulanjärvi), and the text would directly acknowlwdge the alternative usage of Lake Tuusula. --Martenz (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The "lake tuusula" +maxyear:1980 result from Google Books suggest that the use of "Lake Tuusula" in English is older and not a consequence of tourism... —Sladen (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From my point of view I would add that I have no opinion between the name forms "Lake Tuusulanjärvi" or "Tuusulanjärvi"; the choice between these two is, as far as I can see, wholly an internal question of the english language, in which I am no expert. Urjanhai (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW (for what it's worth), this discussion is about "Lake Tuusula" vs. "Lake Tuusulanjärvi", not Tuusulanjärvi (the undisputed Finnish-language name). —Sladen (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Third time: That was not what I was talking about. As can be seen from the comment by AjaxSmack below, the question I addressed was relevant and AjaxSmack gave a relevant answer to it, which clarified much.--Urjanhai (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * so what? I was not talking about the finnish form, but about two of the three alternative english naming alternatives that have been mentioned in this discussion and saying that from the point of view of finnish language choice between these two can be made freely if one of them should be chosen. Is it somehow wrong to say this? (Or what ever that unlinked acronym happens to mean, I don't know.) --Urjanhai (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support a move to Lake Tuusula or Tuusulanjärvi. This should probably be dealt with more systematically, though.  Quite a few of the Lakes of Finland titles are similarly redundant.  Ideally these should be moved to "XXXXjärvi" if the name is unambiguous, "XXXXjärvi (lake)" if the name is shared with another article, and "Lake XXXX" if there is significant such English usage.  —   AjaxSmack   15:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was what I was looking for above. This clarified much. From those two alternatives there has now be support for both, and both points of view have their sides, and thus the question is genuinely interesting. --Urjanhai (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lake Tuusula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102171923/http://www.tuusulanrantatie.info/etusivu_eng.asp to http://www.tuusulanrantatie.info/etusivu_eng.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720193027/http://www.portofhelsinki.fi/default.asp?docId=15242 to http://www.portofhelsinki.fi/default.asp?docId=15242
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725225600/http://www.visitfinland.com/sv_SE/web/guest/b2b/regionaltouristofficies?p_p_id=PublishingListView_WAR_PublishingPortlet_INSTANCE_ItKQ&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=tpl_3_inner_top&p_p_col_count=1&_PublishingListView_WAR_PublishingPortlet_INSTANCE_ItKQ_current=2 to http://www.visitfinland.com/sv_SE/web/guest/b2b/regionaltouristofficies?p_p_id=PublishingListView_WAR_PublishingPortlet_INSTANCE_ItKQ&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=tpl_3_inner_top&p_p_col_count=1&_PublishingListView_WAR_PublishingPortlet_INSTANCE_ItKQ_current=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)