Talk:List of names of European cities in different languages

This page was subject to a deletion vote at Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages. It was subsequently deleted by User:Mackensen.

There had been no consensus for delete (majority keep), thus the deletion was highly inappropriate.

This page was thus undeleted by User:Zoney.

zoney &#09827; talk 10:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note This article is the subject (as of this writing) of a Deletion review. Undeleting it prior to the review concluding, especially based on an evaluation of another admin's closing, as above, may be considered a bit out of process as that is what Deletion Review is for. Note also that Articles for Deletion is a discussion, not a vote, and evaluation of consensus is not strictly numeric.  + +Lar: t/c 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Limburgian
Hello, I was looking at the list of places and their names in other languages. I'm from the Netherlands and I also speak the Limburgian dialect. First of all I think it's better to delete those names in the Limburgian dialect, because ever place in Limburg has it's own way of saying words, places and writing them. I only saw one I'm sure of which is written right. It's the name of Maastricht. Also places like Calais, aren't called Kales in dutch, I'm pretty sure of that. So maybe it's possible to look at the list again, because their are more places that have wrong dutch spelling. I don't know where you got this information. But it really needs to be checked again. Thanks. Martin

Early discussion
All attempts to insert nationalist, historical or linguistic POV into this article will be reverted. Adam 22:44, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please put names in alphabetical order by language


 * I think it makes more sense to sort them by spelling because that way one can see easily how many of the names morph from one language to another. --Shallot 09:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure Berlin, Riga and Stockholm have Polish names

Adam 12:29, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello, can you tell me the difference between this list and a possible List of European cities?, because every city has names in other languages. Can you tell one city that doesnt have an alternate name? Cheers, Muriel 15:37, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, now we will know all of them :). Actually I created this articles as a playground for pedants. It will keep them amused and away from other articles. Adam 22:33, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This listing would be easier to read if it were a table. -- Viajero 16:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * User:Jurriaan Schulman, nice work . Do you think it would be too wide if it also had columns for the languages? -- Viajero 19:02, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * i think it is less legible as a table. All these lines make it too cluttered. --FvdP 19:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Who has been listing cities like Arnhem and Utrecht which are the same in Dutch or other languages? And why a listing for Bielefeld? I removed them; what is the title of the article ;-) -- Viajero 21:16, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * 1.I added Arnhem, because of the German equivalent Arnheim.
 * 2 Muriel is right in sofar that almost all major cities have alternate names. But not all cities, and not al settlements. We should set a size limit, for instance 50,000 inhabitants (at present Teschen is probably the smallest entry, which has about this size), to avoid the addition of many names of small places in multilingual or border areas.
 * 3.I also think that we should only add unpredictable alternations, i.e. not mention different translitterations from non-latin alphabets (because otherwise we would have to add many Russian cities containing ch, u, sh, etc in English, because these render tsch, u, sch in German, tsch, ou, ch in French, cs, u, s in Hungarian, etc. These are predictable, and therefore useless to mention.
 * 4.Finally we also should omit all kinds of "former names", because these would make the list endless, and therefore useless. For Volgograd we now already have a historical Russian name and a historical Polish name, without any information about when these were used. More useful would be: just the names one could find in present day's newspapers and maps in the respective languages. Fransvannes 22:49, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, I think the former names are very interesting and useful, particularly the former German names of cities in east-central Europe. I also want to find someone who can add Yiddish names. Adam 23:26, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * A list_of_cities_whose_names_have_officially_changed might be interesting. Is there one?
 * Sdw25 09:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Such a page would be a major political can of worms. Adam
 * OK... but what if you just call it changed/disputed names? I still think that could be interesting.  and definitely different from a list of (sometimes predictable) linguistic variants. Sdw25 20:31, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Tiranë (indefinite) is not a different name from Tirana (definite), just a different form of the same name. Should it still be in this list? Dori 04:27, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * No, unless we add all Albanian city names. Fransvannes 10:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Samuelsen, why did you rename this page? -- Viajero 10:32, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd like know the difference between "alternate" and "alternative." (100 words or less please). Adam 10:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I would too. My dictionary (AHD 4th ed) won't enlighten me.


 * No, but Wikepdia will. See List of words having different meanings in British and American English Andy Mabbett 16:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Should we translate Cyrillic by Anglocentric (Rossiyskaya Federatsiya) or pan-Slavic (Rossijskaja Federacija) rules? The page seems to be inconsistent. -- GCarty 10:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There are several ways of transliterating Cyrillic, I don't see why one of them should be characterised as "Anglocentric." I am copying names as I find them, and so are others I presume. Adam 10:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A

inclusion criteria
Hi Adam, someone has been adding entries for languages in which the name is the same in English, like this entry under Sarajevo: "Sarajevo (Bosnian, Croatian, Dutch, English, French, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian)". This seems completely superfluous to me. It seems to me that the list should reflect its title and remain an ordering English names of cities with alternates in other languages only where the exist. In many cases, it is the same. No need to list! Or am I missing something? -- Viajero 11:02, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes the someone is me. I am just adding it because I am a perfectionist and I like to list everything. I'll find the Zulu name for Reykjavik eventually. Take it out again if you want. Adam 11:18, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Besides, I think the articles in wikipedia should also be somehow useful. Say, I want to know the Hungarian name for city x. When city x is called the same in Hungarian and English and is therefor not listed, how should I know if the city name is either not listed yet in Hungarian or that it is the same as in English???


 * Well, if there are other Hungarian entries, I think you can safely assume that all Hungarian entries are listed where applicable. Same with French, Spanish, etc.


 * I would never assume that! If some Lithuanian speaking person sees this article and decides to add only one or two city names in Lithuanian because she doesn't know the other names in Lithuanian or because she doesn't have time to add more city names. Jurriaan 16:23, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * So I would say, the article would be more useful if for every (European) language the name for city x is listed. To make the table more readable, one could use the international abbreviation (D for German; NL for Dutch, GB for English etc.) for that country, rather than to write out the language.


 * Jurriaan 12:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, why don't you start a second page called List of European cities in all European languages or simply List of European city names. That would be the appropriate place. And turn it into a table with columns. It will be a huge and may not fit horizontally onscreen, but it would at least be logically named and easy to look up entries by language. -- Viajero 12:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I woule be happy to rename the article List of names of European cities in all European languages, since that is what I am now turning it into. (I have found Chinese, Indian and Japanese names for them too but I am resisting the temptatio to add them.) Adam 13:38, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Which is what I would suggest. Or at least the article should mention that the city name in a certain language is the same as the English name if there is no other name listed for that language. Jurriaan


 * To Viajero: to me it was unclear that this would be a list of cities which have a name different from the one in English. I thought that English was in the first column just for practical purposes, and because this Wikipedia is in English. Why would it be interesting to add all possible languages when a city has a local name different from the English name (e.g. Vienna) and not to add variants of Paris and Berlin, where there is no difference? If the list is about English, we could just make a list of Englisg versus local.
 * To Jurriaan: if we abbreviate, we should abbreviate languages, not countries.
 * To all: I still think that the addition of entirely predictable translitteration variants from cyrillic to latin is superfluous. (and there exists an "Anglocentric" variant as well as a German, a Dutch (even more than one), a French, a Hungarian, and so on) Fransvannes 10:02, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note that alternative literally means "one of two", so this strictly doesn't include palces with 3 or more names. We could (a) not be paedantic and ignore this (b) move to "list... with multiple names" -- SGBailey 2003-11-27

Was the german transcryption of cyrillic names used on purpose?Halibutt 07:34, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why is Corfu listed? It's an island, not a city. Perhaps the list should be moved to "list of places in Europe blah blah"? Kosebamse 19:39, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to ask some stuff and give my opinion.

1) For some cities, there are variants between European and Brazilian portuguese (Amsterdam=Amsterdão/Amsterdã, Moscow=Moscovo/Moscou). Should they be listed? If the list purpose is "how do people all around the world call this city?" then these differences should certainly matter.

2) Why not to:
 * a) use the wikipedia (and ISO) language codes?
 * b) break the page into two (or more) arranged by foreign languages (e.g. one from Abkhazian to Japanese and other from Korean to Zulu) when needed? These pages would require careful attention, since the first column in their tables (the one which contains the English name) would better be the same in all of them.
 * c) create columns for each foreign language?
 * d) To make "c" possible, create a code to simplify things, like: "-" means no version for that name available in that language and "*" means the name is the same as in English?

3) I think that names originally in Cyrillic shouldn't be here. There should be a page which explained the difference between transliterating ("Moskva") and translating ("Moscow" in English, "Moscou" in French and Brazilian Portuguese, "Moscovo" in European Portuguese and so on). In that page city names should perhaps be listed by transliterated names, with the same table scheme used in the Latin-alphabet city names page, but including a column for English itself. Of course, the differences between the various transliteration methods should be explained, since maybe the best people to decide about the NPOV regarding questions like "St. Petersburg vs. St. PetersbOurg" would be a Latin-alphabet Slavic-language-speaking person.

Amorim Parga 04:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am such a person, and my opinion (for what it is worth) is that place names in languages that use non-Latin orthography (eg. Russian, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese etc) should definitely be in the list. It's just that it would be useful to use a really practical and meaningful transliteration that does not depend on knowledge of Anglocentric, pan-Slavic or any particular internationally recognised system of transliteration. A lay person know nothing of any such systems, he/she knows only how words look to their untrained eye and how they sound to their untrained ear. It is therefore important to use spellings that as closely as possible approximate to the sound of the word in the source language. Let me refer to the surname usually spelled as "Gorbachev". The last syllable is pronounced "chov" not "chev" (same for Khrushchev, Brezhnev et al), and in my opinion should be transliterated in English as "chov" not "chev". There are two ways of pronouncing the Russian letter "ye" - sometimes it's "ye", sometimes it's "yo", and you just have to know when to use which one. So, when people untrained in Russian come to transliterating Russian words, they usually refer to some standard list of Russian letters and convert them into the relevant English letters - this works more or less OK, most of the time, except for problems like "Gorbachev" etc - and lots of people always pronounce his name the way it is spelled, ie. incorrectly.

But at least it is spelled using accepted English orthography. However, when we come to words in the List we're discussing that use non-standard symbols (like the Z with the Czech-looking hacek in the supposed transliteration of the Russian word for Geneva into English) - that is going too far. This symbol is not recognised in English, it has no meaning in English, and an English speaker with no knowledge of foreign languages would not have the faintest idea how to pronounce it.

The point of transliterating words from one language's orthography into another language's orthography is entirely lost when the result is something that is foreign to the latter language's orthography. I'm working on a reference work on this very subject because there are just so many idiotic results that come from even simple processes, such as transliterating "Chaykovsky" into Latin script. We have ended up with various variants, the most stupendously idiotic of which are names like "Tchaikowsky", "Tcherepnin", "Tchekhov" - the "tch" as a commencing consonant is not recognised in any language at all !!!!!!

Anyway, enough from the pulpit from today. But I will be revisiting this issue very very soon. I'll be back. Cheers to all Hibernians for St Patricks Day !! JackofOz 05:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For a list of the language abbreviations used see language code.

But where does this article use language abbreviations? Marnanel 19:55, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Most of the so called Arabic, Russian and Greek "names" of cities that are no more than letter-by-letter retransliterations of what is usually the best way describe the original sound structure in Arabic, Russian Cyrillic or Greek script, kind of broken phone game with transliteration, but in no way names of there own. I would even exclude Serbian names where they are just an orthographical adaption in order to maintain the original sounding. Serbian (as do some other languages) adapts spelling of all proper names, leaving us with constructions like Džordž Buš (George Bush), Asošiejtid pres (Associated Press) et. al.Jakob Stevo 11:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Derry
I've added Derry to the list as a main list item. It's the official title in the Republic of Ireland (e.g. road signs) and with the city authorities (Derry City Council, City of Derry Airport). I've pointed out that Londonderry is the official British government title.

I've pointed out the status of Derry where listed after Londonderry.

Unfortunately, trying to list the city just once is not going to work - as both names are in some way official, and both in some way give offence to one of the parties involved.

Zoney 14:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Extension to Include Countries in the List??
I suggest this list should be extended to include names of countries (or a separate list Names of countries in different languages created. That is, if we think this list makes any sense anyway. I actually have some doubts there, except where the names significantly differ: Everyone will realize that the Serbian Minhen and the Polish Bratis&#322;awa stand for "München" and Bratislava resp.

An example of how country names can differ:

Germany:
 * German: Deutschland; related: NL Duitsland, SWE Tyskland, etc.
 * French: Allemange; ES Alemaña, AR Almâniya, etc.
 * Polisch: Niemcy; CZ N&#283;ma&#269;ko, CRO Njema&#269;ka, etc.
 * (Colloquial Serbian/Croatian: Švapska)
 * Finnish: Saksaamaa
 * Lithuanian: Vakucija

(That makes 7 forms with each a seperate etymology)

Austria:
 * German: Österreich; SWE Österikke, NL Oostenrijk, etc.
 * Czech: Rakousko; SK Rakusko
 * Arabic: Nimsâ (3 - 4 different)

Similarily, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Albania, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Wales, etc. all have at least two profoundly different names being used in different languages, which are non-cognates.

As I said, I find it more important to show up the different roots than to list all derived cognates (as are England, Angleterre, Engleska, Ingiltira, Englandia, etc.; or France, Francia, Faransiya, Frankreich, Francuska) Jakob Stevo 20:46, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but as this article is long despite being confined to European cities (and that region alone even!) - it goes without saying that what you suggest above is a new article! I suggest List of alternative country names. Like this page, it's probably a handy diversion for pedants and disagreements over naming of countries, as well as being an interesting and valuable project in its own right. My own country, according to its 1937 constitution is officially Éire or Ireland in the English language. Since the Republic of Ireland Act in 1949 it has an official description as the Republic of Ireland. Just an example of how a country's name can be expanded - there's many others with various or controversial names or descriptions.
 * Zoney 23:02, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Basically yes to everything, but Éire or Ireland (or Irska as it would be in Croatian) are basically derrivations from the same term, which you can kind of point out if you are average smart and have any intention to do so. Thats a totally different case than Nimsa, Austria, Rakousko in the case of my country, which you really have to know in order to make any sense out of it. Jakob Stevo 20:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

List of alternative country names
I created the proposed List of alternative country names for all the wikipedians to enjoy. Halibutt 21:41, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Pasquale and Auschwitz
Although I agree that the very name Auschwitz should be linked, I see no point in mentioning it twice. I doubt anyone knows the town under the German name, usually the term Auschwitz is connected to the concentration camp, not the town itself. Also, the German name is alternative to the original and official name, so placing it as such is misleading. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:24, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Very true. No need to mention same info twice. As the article says, it lists first current best-known name in English and then alternatives in other languages. So far what I know, both terms Auschwitz and Oswiecim are used in English, but as it is not my native language i do not know which one is more "official". Someone, who knows better should remove redundant info.--Kulkuri 21:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * AFAIK there is no naming authority in the UK or US so the only official names are the names used locally - in this context it's O&#347;wi&#281;cim or Oswiecim (without Polish diacrytes). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:01, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I certainly did not think I would cause such a stir. My point was simply that, in certain special cases, the current best-known name in English may well be two names, rather than one. There are a couple of other such cases in this article (care to spot them?) and they don't seem to have bothered anybody. I don't believe this amounts to "redundant info", on the contrary, it may well be very germane. A good rule of thumb may be this: if there are two Wikipedia articles (rather than just a redirect), then it is justified to double-list the name.

Personally, I have no axe to grind and I don't believe an encyclopedia is the proper place to score political points or enforce political correctness. I believe the purpose of an encyclopedia is the facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. In the case of Auschwitz, it is an indisputable fact that many more English-speaking people are familiar with the name Auschwitz than are with O&#347;wi&#281;cim. (Alas, the sad historical fact that this placename is associated with the memory of the Nazi concentration camp cannot be undone.) Since this is the English Wikipedia, listing Auschwitz may offer the vast majority (I would guess 99.9%) of those English-speaking people who are familiar with the name Auschwitz but not with O&#347;wi&#281;cim to actually learn that the Polish (hence official) name for Auschwitz is O&#347;wi&#281;cim. Now isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what you want?

The same may not be possible if you remove Auschwitz, simply because all those English-speaking people are not as likely to look up O&#347;wi&#281;cim as they are Auschwitz. This seems so obvious to me that I am frankly amazed that it isn't to you. On the other hand, if it so important to you to remove Auschwitz, then go ahead. You might also want to remove the Wikipedia article on Auschwitz and replace it with a redirect. Perhaps you might like people to start referring to the concentration camp as the "O&#347;wi&#281;cim concentration camp" as well. Furthermore, in the effort to remove all "redundant info" from the Wikipedia, you might want to hunt down the couple of cases of double-listing in this article and merge them, and also do the same with the corresponding Wikipedia articles. And all in the name of what? Certainly not in order to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. If anything, the contrary. Pasquale 11:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, you didn't get my point. What I was trying to say is that for most of the English speakers Auschwitz = Auschwitz concentration camp. No need to delete the Auschwitz article since it says exactly that.


 * On the contrary, this is a list of cities with alternative names. I doubt you'd call the Auschwitz concentration camp a city. I simply decided to delete the separate entry while at the same time leaving the link to Auschwitz in order to explain that at times (very rare cases, AFAIK) the name is also applied to the city. However, listing it under two separate entries would be misleading since that would suggest that the name Auschwitz is something more than just a German alternative name for O&#347;wi&#281;cim - which is not true, at least as far as the town is concerned. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. But, still, I disagree. Whether you are talking about the concentration camp or the town, the place name is one and the same, i.e. O&#347;wi&#281;cim in Polish, Auschwitz in German, etc. My point is that, given the great currency of Auschwitz in the English language and internationally (again, I believe it is immaterial whether the reference is to the concentration camp or the town), a double listing is justified (precisely as it in the couple of other cases of double listing), i.e. with two main entries. In both cases, under each entry, the other entry is linked, precisely because there exists a Wikipedia article (not a redirect) for each of the names (Auschwitz and O&#347;wi&#281;cim). This serves as a clarification that this is indeed one and the same place name, even though, admittedly, in current usage, Auschwitz is primarily used for the concentration camp and O&#347;wi&#281;cim for the town. In any case, I will not press this point further, if there is a consensus that double listings must be avoided at all costs. Maybe we can wait a few more days to see if any additional opinions are expressed and then determine what the consensus is. Pasquale 16:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to fight over it either, it's not a big problem. However, please note that Auschwitz is not an article, it's a mere disambig that might've been simply redirected to Auschwitz concentration camp while the name Auschwitz could be added in the O&#347;wi&#281;cim article header. It's not a case of New York and Nieuv Amsterdam.Also, apparently the O&#347;wi&#281;cim/Auschwitz is the only town listed twice (correct me if I'm wrong, but I could not find any more cities listed twice). The links to alternative names are very scarce on the list and Auschwitz is visible enough when listed as the alternative German name under O&#347;wi&#281;cim, no need to list it twice. Also, the other line suggests that O&#347;wi&#281;cim is one of the alternative names of Auschwitz, which is a false statement. I'm erasing it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:57, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Nice going, Halibutt, you say one thing and do another. You state "I'm not going to fight over it either, it's not a big problem" but then you erase it (obviously, it was a big problem). You write an edit summary that reads Auschwitz moved to Oswiecim when in fact you simply removed it, because O&#347;wi&#281;cim was already there. And you keep saying it's a false statement that O&#347;wi&#281;cim is one of the alternative names of Auschwitz, when in fact that statement is absolutely correct. As I have tried very hard to explain, one name translates the other, but for some reason you seem to think the name Auschwitz was somehow invented just for the concentration camp. (That would be like saying that the Councils of Nicaea did not take place in Iznik, because Iznik is the name of the town, while the name Nicaea was invented just for the Ecumenical Council hall, or something.) Anyway, have it your way. I guess the most important thing is not to include erroneous information. Whether Auschwitz=O&#347;wi&#281;cim is listed once or twice is not that important.

BTW, I am surprised you didn't spot the double listing of Cieszyn and T&#283;&scaron;ín. I hope you will put your political correctness aside and leave it the way it is.

Pasquale 17:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If you really think that is important - feel free to add the line back, as I said, I won't fight for it. And there's no hidden agenda behind my edit. It all depends on how do we understand the title of this article: alternative names to what. For me this is a list of English/official names and all of their alternatives. To make long thing short: for me Auschwitz (German name) is an alternative name for O&#347;wi&#281;cim (official/English name), but O&#347;wi&#281;cim is not an alternative name for Auschwitz. Osiwecim is the official name and all the other are alternatives. In this context Oswiecim is both an English name of the town and the local, official name. Auschwitz is the (disambiguous) alternative, nothing more.


 * And I did notice Cieszyn and Cesky Tesin as listed twice, but they are two different towns nowadays (both administratively, politically and economically), so they should stay as separate entries. It's not that Cesky Tesin is an alternative name for Cieszyn or the other way around. Also, please take note that it was me who created both articles :)


 * Take care, [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 17:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * All right, Halibutt, I accept your point of view. I had overlooked that you had created Cieszyn and T&#283;&scaron;ín. Good job!
 * Pasquale 12:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arabic, Cyrillic, Greek scripts
Why is e.g. Moscow given as "... Moskva (... Russian ...)", etc? Since it can be done on Wikipedia, shouldn't it be in the script of the language concerned, with a transliteration in brackets or italics after? &mdash; i.e. "... &#1052;&#1086;&#1089;&#1082;&#1074;&#1072;&#769; Moskva (Russian, ...)" - MPF 14:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * One and a half years later and it's still the same. I was wondering about that one too, since other Names are written in their script, f.e. Chinese names. Anyway, I haven't changed it but I left a note there, since the English transcription differs from others, f.e. the German one (Moskva vs. Moskwa, a better example is en:Boris Yeltsin vs. de:Boris Jelzin). Before I go on with other changes, what's the opinion of the main authors of this list? I generally agree to MPF and would like too see at least one of the above mentioned solutions there.


 * ... and while is was editing this text, the change was made. Wow. --32X 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"For the purposes of this article, Europe includes . . ."
"A number of important Mediterranean Basin cities are also included" &mdash; I can't see any non-European Mediterranean cities?? Anyone want to add Aleppo, Algiers, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Tripoli, etc? I think these are worthier of inclusion than some of the central Asian (former Soviet) cities that are in (I'd add them myself, but don't know the answers). - MPF 14:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are no Australian cities given? Australia is more European than Turkey. Avalon 05:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do any Australian cities have names in other languages that are more than just transliterations of the English? I suppose some cities may have names in Aboriginal languages, which would be very interesting, but probably deserves to be on a separate page. We already have a separate page for List of cities in the Americas with alternative names, so why not List of cities in Australia and Oceania with alternative names? --Angr/undefined 07:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Should some West African names be included in such an Australia & Oceania list? Avalon 11:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, there can be a separate list for Africa, and one for Asia too. --Angr/undefined 12:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good, then perhaps Turkey should be in the Asian list, not the European one. Avalon 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese
Notice there are several cities that are named differently in Portugal and in Brazil. Moscow for instance is known as Moscovo in Portugal and as Moscou in Brazil. - PMLF 20 Nov 2004

Right, PMLF, and in fact both names were already there all along. I guess you didn't notice that the Brazilian Portuguese name was already listed as "Moscou (French, Brazilian Portuguese)" when you added it again at the end. I then removed the duplication. The names should be listed alphabetically. If the same name is used in more than one language, it is listed once and followed by the language names alphabetized according to the English alphabetical order. Pasquale 21:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ashgabat???
Why though? Even if Soviet Asia were not quite distinct from Soviet Europe, what conceivable rationale would there be for including central Asian cities?

I suppose it is just too obvious to point out that nearly none of these are "alternative" names. They are the names for cities in other languages. Here's the difference: Brussels has official alternative names, but London's name is London. The Latin names are rather sweet though. I'm almost tempted to add Colchester and St Albans. Only the desire not to encourage this nonsense prevents me.Dr Zen 12:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey Dr Zen, I think too much zen may have gone to your head. What is the big difference, prithee, between "alternative" names and "names for cities in other languages"? Personally, I find this list extremely useful. When I capercenn't remember exactly how to spell the Slovene names for Venice and Vienna (respectively, "Benetke" and "Dunaj") or the Hungarian names for the same two cities (respectively, "Velence" and "Bécs"), I can look them up here. On the other hand, if you think this is all nonsense, you can just stay away from this page. No harm done! Pasquale 18:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What's the big difference? *sigh* Well, it's like this: Brussels has a mixed population of Francophones and Flemish-speakers, so it has two *official* names, which are Bruxelles and Brussel; London has one official name, which is London. There is no "alternative" to describing it as London in English. In other words, there is nothing that parallels Bruxelles/Brussel. Now, I think you can see that "Brussels" is what the city is called in English. It's not an alternative name for Bruxelles/Brussel. There is, once more, no alternative to "Brussels" in English as a name for that city. While a list that gave alternative *official* names might be interesting, one that gives a very incomplete list of what cities are called in other languages is not. If you want to know what to call Venice in Slovene, get a Slovene dictionary. And Ashgabat will still not be in Europe, no matter what you call it.Dr Zen 00:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey Dr Zen, you're just a boring quibbler. Your point is so obvious to everyone (*sigh*), that it's not even worth mentioning. The article title specifically does not say *official*, nor does it say "alternative in its own native language". If you want to find out what the three *official* names for Brussels are (yes, you forgot about German), all you have to do is go to the "Brussels" article in the Wikipedia, and it will tell you. Your comment about looking up a Slovene dictionary is downright silly. Maybe you keep a Slovene dictionary by your bedside, but most people don't. (Besides, dictionaries often don't include geographical names, you would need a monolingual encyclopedia for that.) That is why this article is so useful, not to mention of great historical, linguistic, and cultural interest. If you don't agree, just leave it to the rest of us. If you strongly believe the article title is incorrect and would like to change it to something like "List of European cities with names in various languages", go ahead. It would be a longer and more cumbersome title, and a totally unnecessary change, but it's been done before. Earlier this year, a quibbler such as you hijacked what used to be called "List of alternative country names", because he felt such a title should include only *official* names, and renamed the previously existing list (with names for countries in assorted other languages) as "List of country names in various languages". What was the result? His new (*official* names only) List of alternative country names has languished and is a fairly useless article, while the older and renamed List of country names in various languages has continued to flourish, because people continue adding to it. Ditto for this List of European cities with alternative names. It has been grown by leaps and bounds, even if you believe it is "very incomplete". Obviously you don't understand how the Wikipedia works. I challenge you to tell me how many articles are not "very incomplete". Instead of whining about it being "very incomplete", you could add to it, if you really cared. But you say you don't care for it, so what's your problem? (And, finally, as far as the Central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union are concerned, they are part of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, aren't they?) Pasquale 21:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dude, you simply don't understand what "alternative" means. Is English your second or third language? I've tried politely to explain where you've gone wrong and you've been savagely rude. The "quibbler" you had problems with before probably spoke English as their mother tongue. Perhaps you didn't understand that Wikipedia is about "quibbling" over what is or is not the case. It is not about authors guarding their pages and fighting off other editors who want to make changes. Since when was the German name for Brussels "official"? You are simply making that up. My comment on a Slovene dictionary was apt because you'd have to be a complete idiot to come to Wikipedia and look up a list of "alternative" names to find out the Slovene name for Venice. BTW, dude, the United States participates in the OSCE. Does that make it in Europe? Where are the names for New York in different languages? I'm going to be adding them shortly along with others that occur to me and I think I will be making the editing changes I feel are appropriate. That's the wiki way, not to turn your back on bad work just because other editors are obstructive.Dr Zen 23:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My friend, you don't know what you're talking about, and I feel sorry for you. (1) Don't worry about my English, I'm a linguist and a professional writer, so it's definitely up to snuff. (2) The "quibbler" I had problems with before was Chinese, and you can tell that by looking at what he did with the List of alternative country names. (3) German is one of the official languages in Belgium; just look up Belgium in the Wikipedia (and while you're at it, Check your facts before you make a claim). (4) An encyclopedia is useful to different people in different ways; as a linguist, I find this article extremely useful, and I don't see why that should bother you in the first place. (5) OSCE or not, you have to stick by what the article introduction says: "For the purposes of this article, Europe includes Turkey, Cyprus and all the republics of the former Soviet Union. A number of important Mediterranean Basin cities are also included." Or did you not see that? Frankly, I don't know who wrote that and I don't care, it's just a guideline. (6) This article has been around for quite a long time (more than a year, that's an eternity in Wikipedia time) and it's had thousands upon thousands of contributions; you have never contributed to it and find it useless, so what are you griping about? Pasquale 19:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, Brussels does have an alternative German name. No need to be rude about it. I'm afraid that if you don't understand the distinction I am drawing between towns having alternative names (Brussel, Bruessel, Bruxelles) and having different names in different languages (Brussels), then your English is not as good as you think it is. I don't have to stick with what the article says. If I disagree, I can edit it. I am doing you the courtesy of talking to you first. I don't know or care who wrote it, but the whole point of Wikipedia is that we are not stuck with it. I am griping because the article has faults. Its main fault at the moment seems to be that it is zealously guarded by a person who will not discuss its flaws fairly and objectively. Now, there is absolutely no sense in which Ashgabat is in Europe. None whatsoever. Your argument for it was spurious and I showed it to be. And these are not "alternative" names. People in Venice, unless they are Slovenes, do not think their city is called by the Slovene name. Do you not see the outright lunacy of what you're saying? This list ought by your reasoning to include the name of every major city in Europe in every one of its thousands of languages! Is that your aim?Dr Zen 05:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dr. Zen, this whole conversation saddens me, because you keep misunderstanding what I say. Of course, I TOTALLY understand the distinction you are drawing between towns having alternative names and having different names in different languages. Didn't I say it was "so obvious to everyone (*sigh*), that it's not even worth mentioning"? The purpose of this article is the latter, not the former, and that is made clear in the introduction and throughout the article. I even said if you would like to change its title to something like "List of European cities with names in various languages", go ahead. Maybe I'll do it myself, now that it has become an issue. On the other hand, if you would like to have an article with just the *official* alternate names, you are welcome to start it. But why should you wish to remove an article that others find useful simply because you don't?

''Have I said I want it removed? My view is that the name should be changed but not without discussion. I have edited the introduction in line with our discussion.''


 * I don't believe that's the Wikipedia spirit at all. You say: "I don't know or care who wrote it". Then, leave it alone. You don't change something you don't care about, do you?

''Absolutely I do! I rarely work on things I care about! I avoid those things I have a strong opinion about because that way I avoid the temptation to impose my POV.''


 * I assume you know how to surf through the history of a Wikipedia article. Well, if you do, you will see this article was started more than a year ago, it has had several thousand contributions but several hundred contributors, but it has always had precisely the function it has now (which you find useless).

''Slavery was an institution for centuries before its abolition, old bean. Having been wrong for a long time is not a recommendation in itself!''


 * (If you would like to see the article's very first version, by a certain Adam Carr &mdash; yup, he's the one to blame! &mdash;, click here: .) You say: "Its main fault at the moment seems to be that it is zealously guarded by a person who will not discuss its flaws fairly and objectively." Are you referring to me?

''I am not having any problem with any of the other contributors. Only you.''


 * If so, you are wrong, witness the hundreds of people who have happily contributed to this article. I did not put "Ashgabat" in there, the city that so annoys you, but I don't see why it should be taken out, when the introduction clearly allows for it.

I have explained why I feel the introduction is flawed.


 * You see, Dr. Zen, I suspect you are neither a linguist, nor a historian, nor a social scientist

''I do not care for your suspicions. As it happens, I majored in linguistics and I work as an editor in English. So I tend to be very careful with words and very interested in matters linguistic.''


 * otherwise you would probably find this list much more interesting and valuable than you seem to.

''Would I? I am a little piece of all those things and I find it almost entirely useless. It is not comprehensive by any means, and it is unwieldy.''


 * If you knew a little more than you do, Dr. Zen, you would perhaps know that it is very unusual for any city to have different names in foreign languages, and the extent to which it does is a measure of that city's international importance through history.

''Yes, because of course Stockholm's impact on world history has been enormous. If you knew anything about linguistics, my friend, you would know that it has several names because its initial consonant cluster is hard for Iberians to pronounce! The number of names for places in your list does not in fact correspond with their importance, nor with anything else in a systematic way (I'd be interested to know why Arras is of such overwhelming importance to Japanese).''


 * It is because "Rome" was known about and referred to frequently through the centuries and millennia, that it has so many names in foreign languages.

''Ah, I see. So by your understanding, Skopje's importance is greater than that of Madrid's, on account of having more names? Tell that to the preColumbian population of the Americas!''


 * But you don't seem to grasp how unusual that is. "Chicago" may be a very important city now, but its history spans less than two centuries, not enough for any foreign variants of its name to arise. You say: "This list ought by your reasoning to include the name of every major city in Europe in every one of its thousands of languages! Is that your aim?", and (stunningly) you have no inkling of how foolish and ignorant that statement is.

''Indeed? Many of the places in your list have "alternative" names because they are in regions where more than one language is spoken. Some have different names because their original names are difficult to pronounce, or simply because, yes, they have been known to speakers of the language in question for long enough that they have come to be pronounced in the local way. By the way, here you are accusing me of being foolish and ignorant and yet you do not seem to be aware that Chicago is not in Europe.''


 * On the contrary, I suspect it is by now pretty hard to come up with any more foreign-language versions of the names of most of these cities.

''Well, it is an absolute certainty that there will be many languages that simply lack the sounds required for some of them! Take "Paris". That is impossible in Japanese, for instance. "London", ditto. I believe that is rendered "Rondon" in Japanese.''


 * Or do you think people just make them up?

I think that most often they simply cannot pronounce the local name in their own language.


 * As I said, this is an article of great significance and usefulness for anyone interested in linguistic variation, cultural history, and related areas. It is obvious that you are not. So, I conclude it is your argument that is spurious and flawed. Pasquale 21:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, so I am trying to fix it as far as possible.

in italics Dr Zen 07:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Zen, if you're a linguist, then linguistics must be in a very sorry state indeed. Once again, most of the points you raise in your rebuttal are either irrelevant or incorrect or fallacious. Let me give you just a few examples:

(1) So what if Chicago is not in Europe? I specifically used an American city as an example of a locality that has risen to relative international prominence only in recent centuries, because there aren't many such examples in Europe (I suppose I could have mentioned Glasgow or Reykjavík). This article is limited to Europe and adjoining areas merely for convenience, but this historical and linguistic phenomenon is obviously not restricted to European cities. Or are you suggesting otherwise?

(2) Your attempt to belittle Stockholm's "impact on world history" is truly pathetic. In centuries past, particularly in the 17th century, Sweden was a major player in European history and its armies marched deep into the European continent (see Rise of Sweden as a Great Power and Thirty Years' War).

(3) Your notion that phonetic adaptation is the reason why Stockholm has several names is ludicrous and should have been enough to flunk you in a linguistics class. You are confusing the how with the why, my friend. Of course, phonetic adaptation explains how Stockholm's name (like Strasbourg's or Stuttgart's) was adapted to the Iberian languages, but that does not make it the historical reason why it was, otherwise the same would have happened for every Stockbridge, Stockton, or Sturbridge in the world, which of course it didn't. While a Spanish-speaking person will have the same difficulty pronouncing any and all such placenames, there are no Spanish forms of such names. On the other hand, Estocolmo is the *official* (you seem to like that word) name of Stockholm in Spanish and Portuguese, in the sense that if the Swedish government publishes official materials about Stockholm in those languages (as it surely must), it will use that form of the name.

(4) Skopje may well have names in more languages than Madrid, but so what? The Balkans, and Macedonia in particular, have always been a cauldron of many ethnic and linguistic groups, which is, of course, another reason why even a relatively small town may have names in numerous languages, especially in certain parts of Europe. But that gets us into the politics of this whole thing, which this article tries carefully to avoid. A name in a language that may have been *official* sixty or a hundred years ago may still be resented by the speakers of the current *official* language of the place.

And on and on it goes. To be sure, your point about Japanese is well-taken, but that is only because the Japanese language has to adapt every foreign name and every foreign word to its katakana syllabary, and to its graphemics, which of course reflects Japanese phonemics. Since there is no l/r contrast in Japanese, both /l/ and /r/ are adapted to the one Japanese liquid phoneme, which is actually neither, although it is conventionally rendered as  in r&#333;maji and other romanization styles.

But, look, I am sick and tired of this debate. I want to make it perfectly clear that the reason why I responded to your intervention was that I perceived it as a broad attack on the very nature and existence of this article, furthermore coming from someone who had never contributed to it, and had presumably just stumbled into it. So, I felt obliged to defend the article, believing I was speaking on behalf of its many contributors. But if your beef is only with the article's name, as you have clarified, why are we discussing all these secondary points? Frankly, I couldn't care less what the exact name of the article is, so go ahead and change it, if it bothers you so much. Your hair-splitting insistence on an exact technical definition of "alternative" as "alternative in a currently *official* language of the place" may well be justified, even if a little specious. Let's see what others say. So far, you have only received support from one other person, who has also never contributed to this article. I would like to hear from the many people who have used and contributed to this article for the past year or so. Pasquale 19:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding earlier, I don't monitor this article too often, as contributions tend to be non-controversial here. I don't care too much how is it named, so if you can think of some better place, you are welcome to move it there. Regarding usefulness of this list, I personally find it very interesting, for the reasons Pasquale so nicely pointed out. -- Naive cynic 19:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What he said. I don't agree with all inclusions in the list as some of them are, presumably, merely expedients of lacking certain sounds or artefacts of different spelling conventions (especially transcriptions of names originally written in non-Latin alphabets where, for example, /u/ might become |oe|, |u|, |ou|, or something else depending on the language). But a large number of cities are "official" in the sense Pasquale mentioned.
 * Furthermore, I believe it is a distinction for a city to have a separate "official" name in a foreign language -- since it generally means that the place was historically important and/or well-known. I even seem to recall reading that it was considered a mark of erudition in former times in England to know the English names for many foreign cities and use those when referring to them, but that some of them have since been lost in common usage since those places were not referred to much. (I'm afraid I can't think of an example.)
 * So therefore, I find this article useful and interesting. -- pne 07:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Since it is definitely impossible - in many cases in many areas of Europe - to define "official", "current" etc., technically the current name (i.e. "alternative names") is the most correct one this very useful article can have, and Mr. Zen's "arguments" are ridiculous. On the other hand, an average fast reader could really think that the article only contains alternative names in one language (when he sees the article in a list or so). So for me the issue is to choose between correct and user-friendly. I could accept both solutions. Otherwise I see absolutely no need to change the content of the article. Juro 22:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternative Names?
To me this looks less like a "places with alternative names" list and more like a list of places with their names in different languages. Should the title be changed to infer this, as opposed to thinking places really have several different names in one language? (With the obvious exception of Derry) Selphie 13:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

That's exactly what I said and was roundly abused for it. Dr Zen 07:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

with the exception of your good self I'm being ignored for it! oh well........!

Selphie 09:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Dr. Zen makes a suggestion in jest:


 * "This list ought by your reasoning to include the name of every major city in Europe in every one of its thousands of languages!"

which I think would make a really cool article, actually, and is a good summary of what this page should look like. If another title would reflect this better, why not suggest one? That said, I can certainly see the argument for removing Ashgabat. Central Asia really is pretty far away from Europe, and it would be perfectly reasonable to have a distinct List of Central Asian cities with alternative names. - Mustafaa 23:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possibly something like "List of Names of European Cities in Different Languages"? Selphie 09:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Re Ashkabad, it is a common convention to include all the former republics of the USSR as part of "Europe" in a political sense. Turkmenistan is a member of the OSCE, for example. The same applies to Turkey. On the other hand Cairo and Beirut are definitely not European cities and should not be included. Adam 00:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, it isn't common convention to include all former republics of the USSR as part of Europe. East of the Ural Mountains is Asia.  By this definition, Irkutsk and Vladivostok belong in the list, even though it is obvious they aren't in Europe.Rt66lt 21:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish names in Hebrew alphabet
A month or so ago I added a bunch of Yiddish names both in Hebrew alphabet and in YIVO transliteration. Today I came back and found that someone had deleted the Hebrew alphabet forms from most (not all) entries. Why? Is there some policy against non-Roman alphabets here? Was someone offended by the presence of an alphabet they couldn't read? Was it wanton vandalism? Entering the codes for the Hebrew letters is a wearisome and time-consuming task, so I don't feel much like putting them all back. But please please PLEASE remember that Wikiquette says to avoid reverts and deletions wherever possible! --Angr 19:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Angr. I agree that there is a lot of vandalism. The appropriate style would be to enter the Roman transcription first (bolded) followed by a hyphen and then the non-Roman script (if possible, italicized). Pasquale 17:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
This is a great topic, but I see two big POV holes in it.

Firstly, there seems no easy way of consistently determining what is the current English name for a place. For example, someone who writes "Marseilles" is likely also to write "Lyons", whereas someone who omits the final "s" on one is likely to treat the other in the same way. The dominant spelling will also vary as to whom you survey: my musical background would make me automatically spell the place currently listed as "Mechelen" as "Mechlin". Is there any way of having a consistent policy on what appears in the left-hand column?

Secondly the use of the word "former" for certain names is horrendously politically loaded. The most obvious case of this is Constantinople/Istanbul. The use of "former" here to describe the Greek-derived names (apart from the one in Modern Greek itself, where there really isn't another common name) is a Turkish-sympathistic POV. Suffice it to say that any nationalistic POV inherent in an instance of the word "former" doesn't look like NPOV to me. It may therefore be a very good idea to avoid using "former" for names of cities which lie in a territory disputed in modern times. Phlogistomania 01:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * To the first point, I would say the simplest way of deciding what name should be used in the left-hand column is to use the name of the Wikipedia article on the city in question. If the main article is at Lyon and Lyons is a redirect, use Lyon. As for "former", I'd go by English usage. Today it's called Istanbul in English; formerly it was called Constantinople in English. That has nothing to do with pro-Turkish or pro-Greek sympathies, it's just a fact about English. It's no different from saying that Peking is the former name of Beijing, which has nothing to do with a change in hands from one ethnicity to another. --Angr/comhrá 05:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indonesian's London
I saw in the article that Londen is Indonesian's alternative name for London, but the real thing is that we Indonesian also use London as the right spelling; you can see from the id wikipedia. I don't know how to make the best sollution but my suggestion is to remove Indonesian from Londen.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Angr/undefined 3 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)

Reformat
The main feature of each should be the name of the city in its native languageSomething like:

English         | Native           | Other Florence (Italy) | Firenze (Italia) | Firenze (etc.) -St|eve 21:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Coverage
Why should cities in Asian Turkey and Russia, Cyprus, and the Transcaucasian and Central Asian former Soviet Republics be listed here? Listing Samarkand as a European city is absurd. john k 06:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

On the usefulness and purpose of this article
I have posted an extensive Explanation about the usefulness and purpose of this article on Mikkalai's talk page, should anyone be interested. Pasquale 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

London
I am deleting the Japanese for london. First it is unverified as implied by the entry having ??? and I also find it difficult to take the entry seriously as it is merely making fun of the fact Japanese have difficulty pronouncing 'L's and therefore a 'le' sound comes out as 'Ru' and as they have not used japanese characters. the entry comes accross as some character trying to make a joke. So I am deleting it Dondilly 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dondilly, you're quite wrong. There are, of course, Japanese names for all major European cities, and they are not necessarily predictable. The Japanese name for Rome, for example, is Rōma with a long o and an a at the end, but it could have been otherwise. I understand that, since you obviously don't know any Japanese, you might have thought this was a joke. The point is not that that the Japanese have difficulty pronouncing the /l/ phoneme. The point is rather that the Japanese language has a single phoneme where most European languages have two: /l/ and /r/. That single Japanese phoneme is transliterated r. Therefore, the Japanese name for London is indeed Rondon. (But, again, it might have been Rondan, or some such.) While your skepticism is understable and I do not, in any way, wish to criticise your action, I believe that the removal of a Japanese name of whatever city should be done by someone who knows Japanese. And there are plenty among the Wikipedia users. By the way, if you click on the link for London, then click on Japanese in the left border (it comes after Plattdüütsch), you will see the Japanese article for London. I happen to know some Japanese and I guarantee that, in fact, the page title says Rondon. Pasquale 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Pasquale: I acted with the best of motives. You're right I dont have any indepth knowledge of Japanese,  The fact the item had been entered with question marks in the first place and following the if it walks and talks like a duck maxim, I deleted it. However I made the point of placing detailed justification in here so that if anyone considered my action incorrect, it would at least spark debate on the entry.

By all means, if you consider my actions in error, reinstate the entry. However I do feel that someone with knowledge of japanese or access to a definitive source could verify the entry :-) Dondilly 08:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand, Dondilly, I don't doubt your good faith. Incidentally, as you surely know, the article's history records every change that was ever made. If you do a bit of research, you'll discover that, on 28 October 2005, an anonymous user with IP address 218.222.93.78 (obviously knowledgeable in Japanese), added the Japanese forms for 13 city names (Athens, Berlin, Cambridge, London, Madrid, Moscow, Oxford, Paris, Prague, Rome, Vienna, Warsaw, Zurich), using the same format for each: name added at the end of the series (unfortunately, many contributors don't bother to read those few lines at the top where it says to alphabetize), with transliteration first, followed by a dash and the katakana Japanese form. These are all still there, except for London which you deleted. By the way, I looked up the versions immediately prior to your removal and don't see the question marks (???) you refer to. What I see, right up to the version immediately prior to yours, is the Japanese form with the original format exactly as entered by 218.222.93.78. So, if you don't mind, I will restore it. Pasquale 18:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, guys, the "???" is what the Japanese characters show as on your screen if you don't have Japanese characters installed. john k 18:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ooops. Of course! Silly me, I hadn't thought of it. Thanks for clarifying that, John.  Pasquale 18:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is Japanese included in the first place? It isn't a European language.. or else we'd have to consider to include many more languages, let's say, Hindi, Malay, Persian, Urdu. &mdash; Instantnood 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

--- Intantnood, it isn't a list of city names in european languages, it's a list of european cities in any other languages. --Sionynaptew 14:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikligarður
I noticed that the page says Istanbul is called Mikligarður in Icelandic. In my opinion that's a bit misleading. Although we still often call Kiev Kænugarður (often just Kív), calling Istanbul Mikligarður is hardly ever done in day-to-day language, it's just called Istanbúl. Mikligarður is the old norse name for the city and was used by Icelanders in olden days, and is sometimes used in formal or elaborate language. What are other peoples opinions? Should the name be on the list? --Sterio 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added Mikligarður as a former name under "Modern" Icelandic since the spelling differs from Old Norse. However i left the current spelling but I do agree with you on the usage.

Portugal's Portuguese
Several city names, like Cantabrígia and Dusseldórfia (for Cambridge and Düsseldorf), are not ever used, usually, in current Portuguese (at least in Portugal). The original name or the English name are used instead. They were used, though. Maybe I'd classify them as "former" or "unusual" Portuguese.

Kamenskoe
I don't know if this is the right place but.... Anyone know the modern or usual name of "Kamenskoe" or "Kamenzkoe", probably in or near the Ukraine? Folks at 137 16:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa
While editing, enthusiasm overcame me and I added New York, Beijing, Kolkata & Mumbai. Not exactly in Europe! Before I delete is there any equivalent home for them. Mea culpa. Folks at 137 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Start with List of cities in the Americas with alternative names. If a list does not exist for Asia, be bold and create it. Balcer 18:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Whis is this page called "Names of European cities in different languages"?
When it isn't? I just removed Jerusalem (which is in Asia, not Europe) and then found where "other cities of the Mediterranean Basin are included". If that's the case, either non-Europe needs to go, or the page needs to be retitled.Rt66lt 21:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) I decided to go ahead and remove the part about the other cities and removed Ankara and Cairo (Asia and Africa, respectively).Rt66lt 21:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am confident that I am interpreting the wishes of the vast majority of users and contributors to this page by reversing your changes, Rt66lt. This page has been around for a long time and it has always used an extended interpretation of the term Europe to include the Mediterranean basin and the former Soviet republics. There are many reasons for this: historical, political, etc. Historically, the cities of the Mediterranean basin have been as familiar to Europeans as any European city, which explains the existence of many European language variants for their names. The same cannot be said, say, for cities in Japan or Indonesia. Politically, there are many ways in which the former Soviet republics and other countries such as Turkey participate in European political institutions (e.g., OSCE and others). But whatever the reason, this page has worked just fine this way, so there is no reason to mess with it. Besides, you had only removed a handful of cities that are technically not in Europe, leaving most of them in the list, which didn't seem right, because it was totally arbitrary. So I thought it best to reverse your changes for the time being.  Pasquale 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but convention against common usage is not an argument. There will be people who will wonder the same thing and remove Jerusalem and you're going to feel more and more awkward about having to explain this again and again. This "for the time being" that you mention cannot stay for ever. I'm sure there is quite enough place in Wikipedia to put the other city names that are of interest. There is nothing, literally nothing at all to prevent us from moving non-European names to another page. Adam78 00:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There is another big pro for moving these items to another list: the page is currently 156 kilobytes long. See Article size for details. Adam78 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been launched: Names of cities outside Europe in different languages. You can rename it or rephrase its content as you wish but you are not supposed to delete it. Consistency is essential. You can't expect all newcomers to observe a principle that contradicts the whole Wikipedia (let alone the real world). We're not building a museum of old conventions but a self-evident and easy-to-use encyclopedia. To put it shortly: please don't be a dick. :-) Adam78 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cities outside Europe
Jerusalem is not in Europe so its entry should be moved into another article (if there is such):

Adam78 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

See Transcontinental nation: Uzbekistan has exactly 0% per cent in Europe, regarding both geography and population.

Adam78 00:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

These two (and some other similar cities) have been moved to Names of cities outside Europe in different languages. Additions are welcome. Adam78 01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Define "Europe"! Is it historic, cultural, geographic, political, commercial? Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands are part of metropolitan Spain and the Azores is of Portugal: Algeria used to be as French (politically) as Marseille (but then so are Tahiti and Martinique!), but all in Africa. Morocco and Turkey have applied for EU membership, Cyprus is a member. Israel is a member of Eurovision and probably closer, culturally, to Europe than its neighbours. OSCE has a wide membership beyond "Europe". What about Iceland, Greenland and the Caucasus states? I agree that the article should be accessible and useful (which it is to me) and accurate, but there may be a case for flexibility to assist users with a loose knowledge of geography. Folks at 137 12:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not the task of this article to (re-)define Europe. You can read about the various possible definitions in the article named Europe – that's where all theories can and should be described with all their arguments. See also Transcontinental nation for all the dubious countries and territories that you're mentioning. The article about Europe should make it clear what definition of Europe is considered the most widespread, most common, most accepted worldwide. (If you think it doesn't make it clear enough, you should fix or consult it there, not here, to enable consistence.) And this is the definition to which other Wikipedia articles (including this one) should adhere, to avoid confusion and inconsistence, and because that's what most people will (understandably) expect. I don't think further ramifications of the definition in other articles of Wikipedia could be useful. Adam78 14:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, although I do think one could be flexible in this sort of article. In fact the articles you pointed out suggest more than one boundary. So, to actually answer my queries (I am not trying to confuse!):


 * Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands, Azores: excluded
 * Algeria and French overseas territories: excluded
 * Morocco: excluded
 * Turkey: the Europe article is clear that Turkey west of the Bosphorous is included, BUT suggests both inclusion and exclusion for the rest - the transcontinental nation article has a clearer definition - exclude
 * Cyprus and Israel: excluded
 * Caucasus states: partly included or wholly excluded (the transcontinental nation article offers 3 options - I suggest the most inclusive, which excludes just Armenia
 * Kazakhstan: partly included
 * Where a state overlaps the continental line (ie, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan) do we include the whole state? Probably not, but for the Caucasus states, maybe it's more convenient to just use the national boundaries, which leaves the Georgia/ Nakhichevan anomaly.
 * Sorry to be pedantic, but if we're being precise and correct, then these borderlines need clarity. Folks at 137 16:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Defining historical, cultural or population-related boundaries is vague, but defining geographical boundaries is easier (and it's actually described and drawn in maps in the article about Transcontinental nations). I think first we should decide if cities of a specific country should be treated equally, by their country, or separately, depending on their own location. (For example, in the first case, Istanbul and Ankara are treated equally, in the second, they aren't.) The case is obvious in the second case but we need to answer another question (your question) in the first case. In this case (if cities are grouped by counry, not by individual location), I think those countries should be included in Europe where the majority of their area is physically located in Europe. That may be the least questionable and most objective criterion as long as Europe is geographically defined (and it is). This means that Turkey should not be included in Europe because 96.95% of its area is located in Asia.

However, I think it's better to take the cities separately so we don't have to bother about their countries. Those cities that are located outside Europe (as marked on the maps of the article Transcontinental nation) could be moved to the other article. I think that's the easiest and most self-evident solution. Country borders might change over time but cities don't usually move from one place to another. :) Adam78 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed! City location should be the criterion. If we were to use the proportion in Europe instead, then Russia would be excluded (with St Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Moscow, etc - not acceptable!). Do you agree with my earlier inclusions/ exclusions? For the Caucasus, I advocate including Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan entirely, despite the definitions. They are an understandable unit and separation would add unnecessary complexity. Folks at 137 17:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with them. Thank you for your constructive support. Adam78 18:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Work commitments mean I have to leave it to you to explain the scope in the article. Folks at 137 18:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese
I added the Oxford and Cambridge in Chinese, because they are well-known cities which have their name translated by way of the meaning and not the sound. 203.218.141.99 14:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Prague in French?
Does anyone know how to say Prague/Praha/Praga in French? JesseRafe 14:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is "Prague" in French as well as English. Olessi 14:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought as much to begin with, because of the -ue spelling, but that doesn't hold true for The Hague - I guess I could've just gone to the Francais version of the Prague page - something someone could do for any of these cities actually.... JesseRafe 04:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag
No sources are cited, making these translations apparently Original Research. Tagged until sources for translations are cited.--Isotope23 16:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles themselves through their interwiki links provide the sources for the vast majority of these. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see. I randomly followed about 8 links.  2 had maybe 1/3 of the translations listed (though not sourced or cited) in their main articles.  The other 6 had no translations in their main article space.  Tag should stay up until some sort of external sourcing is established and either added to this article or the main article spaces.--Isotope23 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What better source than the matching article in each of the other languages? Try this: Click on Aachen (the second entry), then click on each of the 41 languages listed on the side panel (including Simple English). The title of the article will give you the name of the city in that particular foreign language. It's not rocket science, is it? Is that still not good enough? Are we going to have to start tagging every proper name, maybe every English word, lest it should be perceived as "Original Research"? Do us a favor and remove those tags, will ya?  Pasquale 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, not all of these are listed in interwiki links... Some have no article in the language listed. Secondly, WP:RS states "wikipedia can not cite itself as a source".  Can you advance any logical reason why that should be ignored in this case?--Isotope23 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some people have already started adding interwiki links in form of asterisks, that should be sufficient. Please bear in mind that WP:RS are guidelines not laws, and at least to me, it seems that a list of names of cities in different languages should be sufficiently sourced by providing interwiki links. I really hope that wikipedia still has a place for a list like this, I really find it extremely useful (and in a printed encyclopedia, you could expect this to be in an appendix, but not necessarily in a dictionary). Crix 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, WP:RS is a guideline not a policy... and you make a good point there. Please bear in mind that I'm not trying to argue removal of this list; I think that has already been decided by the AfD/DRV that took place in the last few weeks.  I just want to see some kind of sourcing here. I'm satisfied with the system that is being put in place right now with the asterisks...  I'll remove the tag for now and check back over the next several weeks on the progress of the sourcing.  I think any entry that does not have an interwiki entry should be removed to the talk page pending some sort of verification (I don't mean "missing an asterisk", I mean no interwiki page exists).--Isotope23 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been adding these links and was proceding alphabetically, then it seemed more efficient to move geographically, so it's been a little bit helter-skelter, by the way, we can all help. You'll also note that there are some without links, if these don't get sourced after we have the rest all sourced, they'll be commented out as unverifiable until someone can find a source. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Latin names
I was wondering if we should remove all the Latin names, since any European city of note has a Latin name (if not classical then mediaeval or neo-classical), we would end up having to add one or several (some cities have several Latin names, like Hamburg: Hammonia, Hammapolis, Hammaburgum, Hamburgum) Latin names to each and every one of them. There is a list over at Latin names of European cities that covers these names pretty well, I think. Crix 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * so I would suggest deleting all the Latin names, maybe except for those that were existant in the Roman era. Crix 14:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorbian names
I think the Sorbian names need a clean-up, maybe there's room for an own list. Here are all entries from the list with Sorbian contents and my comments.


 * 1 - Important city in Lusatia. Bautzen and Cottbus are the two centres.
 * 2 - Major German city. Some of them were founded by Slavic people (sometimes Sorbs, sometimes other people).
 * 3 - No relevance at all, population is less than 1000 and there were no important historical events.
 * 4 - Semi relevant cities, next to not notable when it comes to world politics.

I'd delete at least the category 3 entries and maybe even the category 4 entries. Cities in category 4 are Lusatian cities, like next to every village they have a German and a Sorbian name, some of them have (due to slightly different alphabets) two different Sorbian names. Than there are sometimes different names in Polish or Czech, mainly because they are located near the border. Since it's a en.WP standard to use the domestic name of a town (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote) it wouldn't make sense to write down every town near a border with different names on both sides of the border.

Categories 3 and 4 are comparable to Finnish cities with alternative Swedish names.

Category 4 is notable enough for an own list with Upper/Lower Sorbian, German and maybe Polish and Czech names. The English name would mostly be the one of the state in where the town is, here Germany.

--32X 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * D'accord for cat. 3, would go for inclusion of cat. 4 though. Hoyerswerda btw is a name that has reached a certain degree of infamy outside of the country, so I don't see a reason not to include it. As for your argument re WP guideline: as is expressly stated on top of the page, the purpose of this list is nothing more than to provide names of cities in other languages, devoid of official, political or historical consideration (as far as this is possible). And of course you are more than welcome to create a separate list encompassing all Sorbian proper names, maybe you could check the German wikipedia if they already have such a list and work from there. Crix 12:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * this is what I found: de:Liste deutscher Bezeichnungen obersorbischer Orte, you could copy it and Anglicise it. It seems that the name of the page is somewhat misleading, it should be de:Liste von obersorbischen Ortsnamen since it has the Upper Sorbian names for Lower Sorbian places as well as some places that were never Sorbian. Crix 13:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Limit the list?
The discussion about Sorbian above brings up larger questions as this list continues to grow. Should there be any limit to this list? Should the list be split by country? Should there be thresholds for inclusion in the list?

Some possibilities are to limit the list to cities that have more than one alternate form or to limit it to cities of a certain population size. Please comment. -  AjaxSmack   06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * well I think a certain size such as > 50K is a good mark. However, in case of historical significance I would also opt for including smaller cities, that's why I have been adding comments when including them, such as "site of famous battle", "part of the Décapole". Crix 09:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cities in Turkey and other transcontinental states
Hi, my recent addition of Izmir and Ankara has been reverted by User:Crix. Even if she does not think so, I was careful enough to read the preface and check the list to see the current situation regarding the placement of Turkish cities in the list. And I should add that I do not have a nationalistic ambition or so. I'm not proposing to add every single city in Turkey to the list. I thought that it would be useful to have these two cities on the list as I see them in the European context because of their history.

The list already includes cities like Antioch, Bursa and Kayseri on the Asian part of Turkey, and what I get from the introduction ("This article also lists cities of Turkey, Cyprus, and republics of the former Soviet Union that are in Europe") was that the whole of Turkey (a country geographically both in Asia and Europe) and Cyprus (a country geographically in Asia) are within the scope, and the area corresponding to former USSR states that are geographically in Europe. I think a consensus should be reached on the way transcontinental states are included in this list. And after that, if we are not to include Izmir and Ankara, the cities I named in the beginning of this paragraph and other cities geographically in Asia currently on the list should be removed, for consistency. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I followed the precedent established on the talkpage. Although I do assume good faith here, you do not seem to have read the above comment by User:Folks at 137 thoroughly enough. It says "Turkey: the Europe article is clear that Turkey west of the Bosphorous is included, BUT suggests both inclusion and exclusion for the rest - the transcontinental nation article has a clearer definition - exclude". This is the consensus previous editors have agreed upon. Of course nothing speaks against changing this, but please let's discuss this first before doing that. So in the same vein, if Kayseri etc. are in the Asian part of Turkey, they should probably go too. Because if the Asian areas of Turkey are included, why not include Jersualem and Tel Aviv. We need to find a line, and as I'd think it best to avoid politics, why not go with the geographical definition. Crix 16:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I don't think the inclusion of Turkey as a whole in this list should lead to inclusion of Israeli cities. Israel is geographically not a transcontinental country and its situation is not comparable to those of Turkey, Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, in this respect. I guess the issue here is whether to include transcontinental states as a whole or not. What I understood from the current introductory paragraph and the fact that there already are Asian cities of European transcontinental states in the list led me to think they are included as a whole and to include Izmir and Ankara. I think it's also OK to take the cities by themselves (without reference to the state they are a part of) and apply strict geographical criteria for their placement on the list. The current name of the article also suggests this (it's not "names of cities in European countries ..." or something). If this is the consensus, Antioch, Nicosia and other cities in Asia currently on the list should be removed. Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, according to the article on transcontinental nations, Israel can be regarded as such, as can be Morocco. Anyhow, so I guess it would be a good idea to move Kayseri, Antioch etc. to Names of Asian cities in different languages, if they're not already there. Crix 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There seem to be no more comments, I'm moving the cities I recognize as being geographically in Asia to the Names of Asian cities in different languages article. Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Countries
Maybe it would be useful to list the countries in which the cities are. Lemmy Kilmister 11:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Also I believe the official name of the city in in its own country should be right nect to the English version, and not hidden away somewhere in the middle of all "Other language". I note that essentially this same suggestion was made before, under Reformat, on 15 August 2005. But apparently this sensible suggestion was ignored and there was no further discussion. I wonder why?

Syrenab 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that's a good idea. The table might look something like the partial one below. Any suggestions? Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * {| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"

! width="100" | English Name ! width="80" | Country ! width="80" | Name in the local language ! Other names or former names
 * Aabenraa
 * Denmark
 * Åbenrå (Danish*)
 * Åbenrå (Swedish*), Apenrade (German)*, Abenra - Абенра (Macedonian), Obenrio (Lithuanian)*,
 * Aachen
 * Germany
 * Aachen (German*)
 * Aachen (Bahasa Indonesia*, Danish*, Estonian*, Finnish*, Gaelic*, Hungarian*, Interlingua*, Norwegian*, Romanian*, Slovak*, Slovenian*, Swedish*, Turkish*), Āhene (Latvian)*, Aix-la-Chapelle (French)*, Aken (Dutch)*, Akwizgran (Polish)*, Ακυίσγρανον (Greek - καθαρεύουσα), Aoke (Limburgish)*, Achenas (Lithnuanian)*, Aquae Grani or Aquisgranum (Latin)*, Aquisgrà (Catalan)*, Aquisgrán (Spanish)*, Aquisgrana (Italian *, Aquisgrana or Aquisgrão (Portuguese)*, Åxhe (Walloon)*, Cáchy (Czech)*, Óche (local Ripuarian)*, Oochen (Luxembourgish)*, Aachen - Άαχεν (Greek)*, Aaxen (Azeri)*, Aachen -  אאכן  (Hebrew)*, Aakhen - Аахен (Russian*, Ukrainian*), Ahen - Ахен (Bulgarian*, Serbian*, Macedonian), Oche (Kashubian)*, Yachen - 亚琛 (Simplified Chinese)*
 * -; آخن (Arabic)*, آخن (Farsi) *, アーヘン (Japanese)*, აახენი (Georgian)*, 아헨 (Korean)*, อาเค่น (Thai)*, Aheng 阿亨 (Chinese)*
 * Aalst
 * Belgium
 * Aalst (Dutch*)
 * Aals (Limburgish)*, Aalst (German), Alost (French)*, Alst - Алст (Macedonian, Serbian), Αλόστη (Greek)
 * Aarhus
 * Denmark
 * Århus (Danish*)
 * Aarhaus (former German*), Finnish*, German*, Swedish*), Aarhus (Dutch*, Hungarian*), Aoerhusi - 奥而胡斯(Simplified Chinese)*, Arenhusen (former German *), Orhūsa (Latvian)*, Orhus (Lithuanian)*,Orhus - Орхус (Bulgarian*, Macedonian, Russian)
 * Abbeville
 * France
 * Abbeville (French*)
 * Abbekerke (Dutch)*), Abbatis Villa (Latin), German, Romanian*), Abvil - Абвиль (Russian)*, Abvil - Абвил (Macedonian)
 * }
 * Abbeville
 * France
 * Abbeville (French*)
 * Abbekerke (Dutch)*), Abbatis Villa (Latin), German, Romanian*), Abvil - Абвиль (Russian)*, Abvil - Абвил (Macedonian)
 * }

That table is certainly more useful than the one in the article. I think someone should change the article to fit that style. Lemmy Kilmister 15:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because of the article's size, it will likely be split soon by country, so that will take care of one issue; the other is local language which may present a problem as to whether that means (1) the official name given by the country in question; (2) the name in the language which is used by the majority of the population in ths city; (3) the "local" name, which could be an informal reference or a dialectual difference. Consider: Brussels; which has 2 official names Bruxelles (French) and Brussel (Flemish/Dutch); the majority in Brussels is said to be French. Which is local? Consider Luxembourg (French), Luxemburg (German), and Letzeburg (Luxembourgian), which is which? Do we know what the person on the street calls the town? Consider Cologne? Köln in German, but Kölle in the local dialect, but how many of the people really speak that dialect versus German? Is that verifiable. Because the page specifically does not want to take sides in what is the "right" name for any city, the "local" name injects some politics/ambguity/unverifiabilty/POV into what really is best as an unbiased reference. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. But I still think that it would be useful to have a separate column for the name or names actually used to refer to the place by its own residents, as it now takes some time and effort to pick these from between the names of the place in foreign languages. Could one use a caption like "local name(s)" or "official name(s)", perhaps? Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, here is one contributor who disagrees with this proposal. In my opinion, if you are going to look up a European city in this list, say Trieste, Kaliningrad, or Chişinău, you already know where it is located. A lot of these cities have been part of several different countries in recent history. What matters from the point of view of this article is that they are European cities, mostly with a good deal of history behind them and with individual personalities that are not determined by the country they are currently part of. And captions like "local name(s)" or "official name(s)" are redundant, because, when applicable, these distinctions are already covered under each entry. (One more thing: can we please remove the unsourced warning? We discussed that a long time ago and decided against it, then someone put it back in there, ignoring the previous discussion.) Pasquale 01:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this idea as well, and Atilim Gunes Baydin's suggestion. I also think a demonym column would be good. Jake95 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested split proposals
This list is growing large to the point of being cumbersome and is likely to continue to do so. To prevent it from becoming too large to be of use, please consider the following ideas to limit the list.

1. Limit the list to cities with more than a certain number of alternate forms (e.g. 2, 3, 4) not including non-Latin alphabet languages (e.g. Russian, Chinese, Hindi) or languages that translate all toponyms (e.g., Latvian, Lithuanian) since these languages would automatically push every city over any threshold.

2. Limit the list to cities with more than a certain number of inhabitants with exception for historically important places where alternate names are important (e.g., Oświęcim, Ypres, Pompeii, Bakhchisaray)

Such limits would not require the deletion of any information currently in the article. The names that don't fit the established criteria can be put into individual country, region, or language lists like Place names in Irish, List of traditional Greek place names, or List of cities in Switzerland. For an example and further discussion, see Sorbian names above.

In the long term, this will keep this list at a managable size while providing more space for special cases of extensive bi- or triligualism (e.g. Wales, Transylvania, Basque Country, Belarus)

Below are two polls to generate discussion and gauge opinion.

-  AjaxSmack   05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)



Support

 * 1) Support limiting the list to cities with more than two alternate forms not including non-Latin alphabet languages or languages that translate all toponyms (e.g., Latvia). -   AjaxSmack   05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support limiting the list to cities with more than four alternate forms not including non-Latin alphabet languages or languages that translate all toponyms. Where there are less than 4 forms, these can be easily listed in individual articles' leads per WP:NC(GN). --Lysytalk 06:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Unless I've misunderstood, this is ridiculous!!. If I want to know the current English or another name of Tarnowitz or Moldvahosszúmező or Kale, I don't care if there's only one or two options: I still need to know. If we limit the list to cities with more than two alternate forms, ie, exclude those with just two, then there's little change and little impact, apart from removing several Welsh and Irish placenames - and you don't annoy those people, believe me! Folks at 137 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I completely agree with Folks at 137. I don't find the list at all cumbersome or unwieldy. I happen to be a long-time user and contributor and the only thing that irks me is the errors of alphabetization and formatting that contributors frequently make. But that wouldn't change with the proposed changes!  Pasquale 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
The usefulness of a list like this is that it's complete. An arbitrary limit or grouping is unhelpful. It's said to be cumbersome: I've used this list by searching on a name - no problem at all. It's also likely that most contributors are only aware of one or two versions, so the addition of new places would be inhibited and an unlisted place with enough names to qualify might never be added. An example: I know that the French version of London is Londres, but that's all I know so I don't add this to the list. Someone else knows the Greek version, but nothing else, so also doesn't add it - and so on. This is worse the more versions are required. Also, looking at the list, I could circumvent the qualification by trawling for various languages that are not particularly significant - although it's useful to have a load of versions of Sarajevo (given the fragmented language map of the Balkans and the city's multi-ethnic heritage). On the other hand, to list the Azeri version of Dublin seems obscure, particularly when it's "Dublin". Folks at 137 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point - For me, the inclusion of same spellings in multiple languages, eg, look at Aachen, is not useful. If there's a consensus on this, then the list could be reduced in size. Folks at 137 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support limiting the list to cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants with exception for historically important places where alternate names are important -   AjaxSmack   05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. This requires further discussion. Which alternate names are important and which are not ? Also the size of an "important" city may differ country by country and region by region. What seems a big city in the Baltics could be considered a small town in East Asia. Finally, we would end up with separate lists for "big towns", "small towns" etc. which does not seem to make much sense. --Lysytalk 06:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Lysy says it for me. Folks at 137 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I completely agree with Lysy and Folks at 137. At the risk of repeating myself, I don't find the list at all cumbersome or unwieldy. I happen to be a long-time user and contributor and the only thing that irks me is the errors of alphabetization and formatting that contributors frequently make. But that wouldn't change with the proposed changes!  Pasquale 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
In what way is the list cumbersome? Please make the case for change. The point is to be accessible to readers. Folks at 137 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Execute an edit and the first line is "This page is 252 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." (Certainly the split if > 50 KB guideline is a little low for lists but there are computer/internet issues in some parts of the world.)  The article is not going to get any shorter and can potentially expand infinitely in the future (see below) so the motive for a poll was to put the idea out there and stimulate discussion.  Having individual country articles does nothing to limit accessibility.  -   AjaxSmack    06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely the point of wikipedia is to inform the reader? That makes accessibility top priority. If the only problem is a warning message, then - tough, not a real problem. I accept that loading might be slowed but I have more problems when the servers are busy. Folks at 137 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative split proposal
Here is an alternative split proposal. If this article really must be split because of its size, then it can be split by subregions, i.e. geographical areas within Europe, e.g. British Isles, Continental Europe, Scandinavia, Iberian Peninsula, or whatever (these are just examples). Compare the way the former List of Latin place names in Europe was split into several articles, e.g. List of Latin place names in Continental Europe, List of Latin place names in the Balkans, etc. Of course, the problem with these subdivisions is that, in many cases, they are ill-defined. But one could start with the obvious ones, e.g. separating the British Isles from Continental Europe, for starters, and then continue, only if necessary because of size. Pasquale 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dividing by regions is an option but dividing by country avoids most definition problems you cite. -  AjaxSmack    07:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't agree. Country boundaries move - geographic don't. Into which national lists would we place, say, Strassburg, Stettin, Breslau, to name but a few? The change in spellings often coincides with political change and could justify multiple entries for such places. Fewer lists = fewer disputes. Folks at 137 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant the current country location -- Stettin in Poland, etc. Of course, country boundaries change occasionally and there will always be Görlitz/Zgorzelec cases but check out the effort to get some editors to accept that Ankara is not a European city and you get an idea of what vague regions might entail.  There has been only one significant boundary change in Europe since the birth of Wikipedia. -   AjaxSmack    05:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * After consideration: Split based upon current national boundaries sounds like the least bad proposal, although some supra-national groupings might suffice, eg, Benelux, Scandinavia, Baltics, even Germany with Austria(?). Maybe try it on one grouping as a trial. Folks at 137 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the future and it is...
...a very long list. Below is a list (unformatted) of "Names of European cities in different languages" only from the southern part of Austrian Carinthia (a rather small region). Multiply this by hundreds for the many bi- or tri-lingual areas in Europe and you get an idea of the future. -  AjaxSmack    07:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Abtei					Apače [slv]
 * Agoritschach				Zagoriče [slv]
 * Aisch					Dob [slv]
 * Altfinkenstein				Stari Grad [slv]
 * Arnoldstein				Podklošter [slv]
 * Augsdorf				Loga Ves [slv]
 * Bach					Potoče [slv]
 * Bach Wellersdorf			Potok Velinjaves [slv]
 * Bad Vellach				Bela [slv]
 * Blasnitzen				Spodnja Plaznica [slv]
 * Bleiburg				Pliberk [slv]
 * Bodental				Poden [slv]
 * Carnic Alps [mts]			Karnische Alpen [ger]; Alpi Carniche [ita]; Karnske Alpe [slv]
 * Damtschach, Domtschach			Domačale [slv]
 * Diex					Djekše [slv]
 * Drobollach a. F. S.			Drobollach am Faaker See [ger]; Drobolje [slv]
 * Ebental				Žrelec [slv]
 * Ebernsdorf				Dobrla Ves, Dobra Ves [slv]
 * Ebriach				Obirsko [slv]
 * Edling					Kazaze [slv]
 * Egg					Brdo [slv]
 * Eisenkappel				Železna Kapla [slv]
 * Eisenkappel-Vellach			Železna Kapla-Bela [slv]
 * Emmersdorf				Smerče [slv]
 * Faakersee [l]				Baško Jezero [slv]
 * Feistritz a. d. G.			Feistritz an der Gail, Feistritz a. d. G. [ger]; Bistrica na Zilji, Ziljska Bistrica [slv]
 * Feistritz i. Rosental			Bistrica v Rožu [slv]
 * Ferlach				Borovlje [slv]
 * Finkenstein				Bekštanj [slv]
 * Föderlach				Podravlje [slv]
 * Förolach				Borolje [slv]
 * Freibach				Frajbah [slv]
 * Fürnitz, Firnitz			Brnica [slv]
 * Gail [r]				Zilji (slv)
 * Gailtal [vl]				Ziljska Dolina [slv]
 * Gallizien				Galicija [slv]
 * Glainach, Ferlach-Glainach		Glinje [slv]
 * Glan [r]				Glina [slv]
 * Globasnitz				Globasnica [slv]
 * Gödersdorf				Diča Ves [slv]
 * Göltschach				Golšovo [slv]
 * Göriach				Gorje [slv]
 * Görtschach				Goriče [slv]
 * Gottestal				Skočidol [slv]
 * Grafenbach				Kneža [slv]
 * Grafenstein				Grabštanj [slv]
 * Griffen				Grebinj [slv]
 * Gurk [r]				Krka [slv]
 * Gurnitz				Podkrnos [slv]
 * Haimburg				Vovbre [slv]
 * Hart					Ločilo [slv]
 * Hermagor				Šmohor [slv]
 * Hof					Dvor [slv]
 * Hohenthurn				Straja Ves [slv]
 * Homölisch				Homeliše [slv]
 * Hörtendorf				Trdnja Ves [slv]
 * Jaunstein				Podjuna [slv]
 * Jauntal [vl]				Podjuna [slv]
 * Kappel a. d. D., Ferlach-Kappel	Kapla na Dravi, Kapla pri Dravi [slv]
 * Karawanken [mts]			Karavanke [slv]
 * Karnburg				Krnski Grad [slv]
 * Kerschdorf				Črešnie [slv]
 * Keutschach				Hodiše [slv]
 * Kirschentheuer, Ferlach-Kirschentheuer	Kožentavra [slv]
 * Klagenfurt				Celovec [slv,cze]; Clanfurt [frl]; Klagenfurth [fre]; Celowc [sor]; Celowiec [pol]
 * Klopeinersee [l]			Klopinjsko Jezero [slv]
 * Koprein-Sonnseite			Koprivna [slv]
 * Kossiach				Kozje [slv]
 * Köstenberg				Kostanje [slv]
 * Köttmannsdorf				Kotmara Ves [slv]
 * Kranzlhofen				Dvor nad Vrbo [slv]
 * Kreuth, Bleiberg-Kreuth		Rute [slv]
 * Krumpendorf				Kriva Vrba [slv]
 * Kühnsdorf				Sinča Ves [slv]
 * Labientschach				Labenče [slv]
 * Lambichl				Ivovje [slv]
 * Lassendorf				Vasja Ves [slv]
 * Latschach ob d. F. S.			Loče n. B. Jezero [slv]
 * Lavamünd				Lobot [slv]
 * Lavant [r]				Lobod [slv]
 * Ledenitzen				Ledenice [slv]
 * Lendorf				Dhovše [slv]
 * Lettenstätten				Letina [slv]
 * Lind ob V.				Lind ob Velden, Lind ob V. [ger]; Lipa, Lipa nad Vrbo [slv]
 * Lipizach				Lipica [slv]
 * Lippitzbach				Lipica [slv]
 * Loibach, Bleiburg-Loibach		Libuče [slv]
 * Loibltal				Brodi, Ljubelj [slv]
 * Lorenzenberg				Št. Lovrenc [slv]
 * Ludmannsdorf				Bilčovs [slv]
 * Maglern					Megvarje [slv]
 * Mallestig				Malošče [slv]
 * Maria Elend				Podgorje [slv]
 * Maria Gail				Marija na Zilji [slv]
 * Maria Rain				Žihpolje [slv]
 * Maria Saal				Gospa Sveta [slv]
 * Maria Wörth				Otok [slv]
 * Matschiedl				Močidlo [slv]
 * Mellweg					Melviče [slv]
 * Mitterwinkel				Srednjie Kot [slv]
 * Möchling				Mohliče [slv]
 * Möderndorf				Mičice [slv]
 * Moos					Blato [slv]
 * Moosburg				Možberg [slv]
 * Neuhaus				Suha [slv]
 * Nötsch					Čajna [slv]
 * Oberdorf				Gornjaves [slv]
 * Oberdörfel				Zvrhnja Vesca [slv]
 * Obermieger				Medgorje [slv]
 * Ossiacher See [l]			Osojsko Jezero [slv]
 * Ottmanach				Otmanje [slv]
 * Penk					Ponikva [slv]
 * Pfannsdorf				Banja Ves [slv]
 * Pirk					Breza [slv]
 * Pischeldorf				Škofji Dvor [slv]
 * Poggersdorf				Pokrče [slv]
 * Pörtschach a. W. S.			Pörtschach am Wörther See, Pörtschach a. W. S. [ger]; Poreče [slv]
 * Pustritz				Pustrica [slv]
 * Radsberg				Radiše [slv]
 * Rattendorf				Radnja Ves [slv]
 * Rechberg				Reberca [slv]
 * Reifnitz				Ribnica [slv]
 * Rinkenberg				Vogrče [slv]
 * Rinkolach, Bleiburg-Rinkolach	Rincole [slv]
 * Rosegg				Rožek [slv]
 * Rosenbach				Podrožca [slv]
 * Rosental [vl]				Rož [slv]
 * Rottenstein				Podgrod [slv]
 * Rückersdorf				Rikarja Ves [slv]
 * Ruden					Ruda [slv]
 * Rupertiberg				Na Gori [slv]
 * Saak					Čače [slv]
 * St. Andrä				Vajškra [slv]
 * St. Egyden				Št. Ilj [slv]
 * St. Georgen a. W.			Sankt Georgen am Weinberge, St. Georgen a. W. [ger]; Št. Jurij [slv]
 * St. Georgen i. G.			Sankt Georgen im Gailtal, St. Georgen i. G. [ger]; Št. Jurij [slv]
 * St. Jakob i. R.				Sankt Jakob im Rosental, St. Jakob i. R. [ger]; Št. Jakob v Rožu, Šentjakob [slv]
 * St. Johann i. R.			Sankt Johann im Rosental [ger]; Št. Janž v R. [slv]
 * St. Kanzian a. Klpnr. S.		Sankt Kanzian am Klopeiner See, St. Kanzian a. Klpnr. S. [ger]; Škocijan [slv]
 * St. Leonhard				Št. Lenart [slv]
 * St. Lorenzen i. G.			Sankt Lorenzen im Gitschtal, St. Lorenzen i. G. [ger]; Št. Lovrenc [slv]
 * St. Margareten im Rosental		Šmarjeta v Rožu [slv]
 * St. Margarethen			Šmarjeta [slv]
 * St. Margarethen			Šmarjeta [slv]
 * St. Martin				Šmartin [slv]
 * St. Martin, Villach-St. Martin		Št. Martin [slv]
 * St. Michael				Šmihel [slv]
 * St. Michael o. d. G.			Sankt Michael ob der Gurk, St. Michael o. d. G. [ger]; Šmihel nad Krki [slv]
 * St. Niklas a. d. Dr.
 * St. Paul a. d. G.			Št. Pavel, Šentpavel na Zilji [slv]
 * St. Peter am Bichl			Št. Peter na Gori [slv]
 * St. Peter, Klagenfurt-St. Peter	Št. Peter [slv]
 * St. Peter a. W.				Sankt Peter am Wallersberg, St. Peter a. W. [ger]; Sv. Peter na Vašinjah [slv]
 * St. Ruprecht, Klagenfurt-St. Ruprecht	Št. Rupert [slv]
 * St. Ruprecht am Moos			Št. Rupert [slv]
 * St. Stefan				Šteben [slv]
 * St. Stefan a. d. G.			Sankt Stefan an der Gail, St. Stefan a. d. G. [ger]; Sv. Štefan, Št. Štefan [slv]
 * St. Thomas				Št. Tomaž [slv]
 * St. Thomas a. Z., Zeiselberg		St. Thomas am Zeiselberg, St. Thomas a. Z., Zeiselberg [ger]; Čilberk [slv]
 * St. Veit i. J.				Sankt Veit im Jauntal, St. Veit i. J. [ger]; Št. Vid [slv]
 * Saualpe [mts]				Svinja Planina [slv]
 * Schiefling a. S.			Schiefling am See, Schiefling a. S. [ger]; Škofliče [slv]
 * Schilterndorf				Cirkovče [slv]
 * Schwabegg				Žvabek [slv]
 * Selkach				Želuče [slv]
 * Seltschach				Sovče [slv]
 * Sittersdorf				Žitara Ves [slv]
 * Stallhofen				Gumno [slv]
 * Stein i. J.				Koman [slv]
 * Sternberg				Strmec [slv]
 * Strugarjach				Strugarji [slv]
 * Suetschach				Sveče [slv]
 * Tainach				Tinje [slv]
 * Techelsberg, St. Martin a. Techelsbg.	Dholica, Št. Martin na Dholici [slv]
 * Techelweg				Holbiče [slv]
 * Tessendorf, Klagenfurt-Tessendorf	Trnja Ves [slv]
 * Thörl					Vrata [slv]
 * Tigring					Tigrče [slv]
 * Traundorf				Strpnaves [slv]
 * Trögern				Korte [slv]
 * Tröpolach				Dropolje [slv]
 * Tschachoritsch			Čahorče [slv]
 * Unterloibl, Ferlach-Unterloibl	Podljubelj [slv]
 * Unterthörl				Spodnja Vrata [slv]
 * Velden a. Wörther S.			Velden am Wörther See, Velden a. Wörther S. [ger]; Vrba [slv]
 * Vellach [r]				Bela [slv]
 * Viktring				Vetrinje [slv]
 * Villach					Villaco [ita], Vilac [frl]; Beljak [slv]; Bělák [cze]; Santicum, Bilachium [lat]
 * Völkermarkt				Velikovec [slv]
 * Vorderberg				Blače [slv]
 * Wabelsdorf				Vabla Ves [slv]
 * Wackendorf				Večna Ves [slv]
 * Waidegg				Bajdek [slv]
 * Waidisch, Ferlach-Waidisch		Bajdiše [slv]
 * Waisenberg				Važenberk [slv]
 * Weißbriach				Višprije [slv]
 * Weizelsdorf				Svetna Ves [slv]
 * Wellersdorf				Velinja Ves, Belenja Ves [slv]
 * Wernberg				Vernberk [slv]
 * Windisch-Bleiberg			Slovenji Plajberg [slv]
 * Wölfnitz				Golovica [slv]
 * Wörthersee [l]				Vrbsko Jezero [slv]
 * Zell-Pfarre				Sele-Fara [slv]


 * Nice point! In English, this is called an "Aunt Sally" - a parody or exageration of an opponent's argument in order to make it more easy to demolish. The intro to the list defines its contents as "major cities" or *some smaller towns that are important because of their location or history." This should exclude the mass of genuinely insignificant locations. Are you able to argue for every item on the south Austrian list? Folks at 137 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You just made my point for me: "This should exclude the mass of genuinely insignificant locations." I was merely curious if there was interest in formalizing this intent since the list is already growing long and has at least one redlinked location (a possible suggestion of lesser importance).  As far as I know, there has yet to be a single location deleted for lack of significance.  My thought was to avoid that (and the disagreements that go along with it) and find new homes for less significant places. -   AjaxSmack    05:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And, no, I wouldn't argue for every item on the above list. Only Klagenfurt and Villach.  -   AjaxSmack    05:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still an "Aunt Sally"! I suspect almost all of those places are unlikely to even be proposed seriously. Define "significance" Discussions above have shown how subjective this is. Having slept on it, I think there may be a germ of an idea in split lists - my interest has been finding places and translating them. If a search on wiki gets me to the right entry - I'm content. BTW, most geographical aticles now list alternate names - see the one on Tallinn/ Reval and the talk page if you want to see the debate that can arise. Oh, and did you type that lot in? You must have time on your hands! Folks at 137 06:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still an "Aunt Sally" - yes. Define "significance" -- That's the discussion I was trying to stimulate above.  Discussions above have shown how subjective this is - naturally, that's why the guidlines with exceptions.  Most articles do list alternate names and that's good if it's a relevant few.  However, something like this


 * Roma [ita,ita-p,ita-s,ita-v,lad,frp,cat,spn,ast,spn-a,gal,por,occ,rum-g,rum-m,rum-p,rum-s,rum-t,rum-v,lit,ltv,tur,ind,tag,tsw,lat], Romma [ita-c]; Ròma [ita-l]; Rome [fre,frl,net], Erroma [bas]; Rom [ger,ger-s,ger-p,bre,dan,swe,nor-b,nor-n,cor,mos], רױם [Roym] [yid]; Rum [mlt]; روما [Rūmā] [ara]; Ρώμη [gre]; Rim [slv]; Rim Рим [sbc]; Romë [alb]; Рим [Rim] [mac,bul,rus,chv]; Roma {Рома} [rom]; Roum [lux]; Roeme [net-l]; Róma [hun]; Řím [cze]; Rím [slo]; Rzym [pol]; Rzim [ksh]; Рим [Rym] [ukr]; Рым [Rym] [bel]; Rooma [fin,est,est-v,som]; an Róimh {an Róiï} [iri]; an Ròimh [gae]; Rhufain [wel]; Róm, Rómaborg [ice]; Ром [Rom], Рим [Rim] [oss]; რომი [Roma] [geo]; Հռոմ [Hŕom], Հռովմ [Hŕovm]; Roma {Рома} [aze]; Roma رۆما [kur,kur-s,zaz]; רומא {רוֹמָא} [Rômâ] [heb]; رُم, رم [Rom],  روم [Rūm] [far]; Rim {Рим} [tkm,uzb];  رىم [Rim] Рим [Rim] [uyg]; རོ་མ [Ro.ma],  ལོ་མའ [Lo.ma'] [tib]; Рим [Rim]  ریم [Rīm] [taj]; روم [Rom], روما [Romā] [psh];  روم [Rom] [urd]; ਰੋਮ [Rom]; रोम [hin,mar,nep]; রোম [Rom] [ben]; Ром [Rom] [mon]; 罗马, 羅馬 [Luómǎ] [chi]; 羅馬, 罗马 [Lòhmáh] [can]; ローマ [Rōma], 羅馬 [jap]; 로마 [Roma] [kor]; Rôma, La Mã [vie];  រូម [Rūm] [khm];  โรม [Rōm] [tha]; ရောမ [Ẏɔ̀má], ရောမမ္ရ [bur]; Rōma [mao]; روما / Ṛuma [kab]; Rum [hau]; Rôma [sng,mlg]; ሮም [Rom] [amh]; Rumi [swa]; iRoma [zul,xho,nde]; Wòm [kre]; ῾Ρώμη [gre-c]; Римъ [Rimŭ] [ocs];  [Ruma] [got]


 * would cause eyes to glaze over. -  AjaxSmack    07:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ajax. Ok. Split based upon current national boundaries sounds like the least bad proposal, although some supra-national groupings might suffice, eg, Benelux, Scandinavia, Baltics, even Germany with Austria(?). Maybe try it on one grouping as a trial. Your Rome example is interesting - although it might induce catatonia if read - Rome might actually warrant such a list given its historical importance, whereas a similar list for, say, Milton Keynes or Sczeczin might be "infradig". Maybe the reverse question should be posed: should every entry have as many translations as Rome?? If not, why not? So, I agree that some qualifications might be necessary.


 * Initial stab at qualifying criteria:
 * language(s) of inhabitants of place (eg, Roma)
 * official language(s) of state where place is located (eg, Ypres/ Ieper and Baile Átha Cliath)
 * names used in history (eg Dubh Linn)
 * alternative names where place has changed state (eg, Breslau/ Wroclaw)
 * alternative names where national or political groups have a dispute (eg Derry/ Londonderry)
 * names where a place has been renamed (eg St Petersburg/ Petrograd/ Leningrad)
 * exceptions on a consensus basis(eg a significant location with established links to another culture such as Rome - it conquered, governed, traded, fought all over)


 * Let battle commence!! Folks at 137 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Some more questions
1. If the English name is merely a transliteration from Cyrillic with the "ь" ("soft sign") omitted, then why should the other version of the transliteration be considered as a different name? Examples: Bilohirsk - Bilohirs'k (Ukrainian); Homyel' - Homiel (Belarusian). Both are simply two ways to transliterate the same name from the same language!

2. What is the point of entries like Berlin - Berlin (French, German, etc.)? It really is the way towards a table with all cities in all languages.

3. In the Russian language, a foreign city's name is normally a transcription into Cyrillic (Aix-en-Provence - Eks-an-Provans, New York - Nyu-York). It is therefore possible to enter a Russian name for EVERY city in the list. Do you think it would make sense?

4. Shouldn't there be some formal criteria established for cities to be included? For example, only cities with more than 50000 inhabitants, or administrative centres, or other places of historical value?

5. And the fact is, one can find a city's Wikipedia article, choose the desired language in the left column, and have the city's name in that language.

--Ivan Volodin 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What about this version?
This is what many of you have been talking about. Comments? --Ivan Volodin 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's certainly an original idea and I liked the matrix-like character. I think that could be the way to go with. But I think you should not create test articles in the main namespace. You could do that as a test page under your username in the user namespace. Please see Namespace and User page. And the way you sorted languages just seems arbitrary to me. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone has already moved it there! --Ivan Volodin 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that languages could be sorted in another order. My criterion was the total number of Wikipedia articles. Could also be alphabethic or by country populations. --Ivan Volodin 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the matrix for verifiability and cross reference purposes, the languages should probably be sorted alphabetically by WP code perhaps, but the article itself should have the names or did I miss something? Carlossuarez46 16:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wanted comments before starting to rewrite the whole list. --Ivan Volodin 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted New Orleans
It is not an European city. The deleted line is saved here:


 * New Orleans
 * La Nouvelle-Orléans (French), 新奧爾良、纽奥良 (Chinese), Yeni Orlean (Azeri), Nueva Orleans (Spanish), Ngọc Lân (Vietnamese)

pabouk 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gothenburg in French? or, How not to establish the foreign-language names of cities
At the risk of starting an argument, I'm not at all sure that using the titles of the interwiki articles is the best way to ascertain the names of cities in non-English languages. The French Wikipedia article entitled Göteborg begins with the words "en français Gothembourg." Which I think tells the real story. --Tkynerd 16:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned
This list (and similar) are related to the scope of proposed Naming conventions (geographic names).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong objection to first column being "English name"
Why is this identified as "English name", especially in cases where there are a number of English names that have been or could be used at the names of the articles, and especially when that name uses a redirect to pipe to a spelling different from the one at which the current article resides. Note in particular that Naming conventions provides: Furthermore, in many cases, the article title is not the most common English name. Gene Nygaard 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that title name, nor that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles.


 * Oh well, it's just because this is the English-language Wikipedia, i.e. an English-language encyclopedia! The alternative would be to display the local name in the first column, but how many English-speakers know that the local names, say, for Bucharest, Lisbon, and Warsaw are, respectively Bucureşti, Lisboa, and Warszawa? And what about languages that do not use the Latin script? Is the first column going to show Москва for Moscow and Αθήνα for Athens? And maybe 東京 for Tokyo and 上海 for Shanghai? And how would you then alphabetize these entries? I am sorry, but if your strong objection were to be taken seriously, it would be a recipe for disaster. Pasquale 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)