Talk:Skåne County

The moving of the article
Just recently (today 13 April 2010) this article was moved from Skåne County. There has not been any discussion at all about this move. The historical province Skåne is under the exonym Scania. I think that is good, as this name is very much used in English and has been for many centuries. The administrative county (län), however, is a very recent amalgamation and I think it is often called Skåne County or even Skåne län also in English texts. I can understad that it is a bit strange with two different names for the two entities, as they cover (almost) the same territory. But I think anyhow that such a move should not be done unilaterally. --Muniswede (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A note on Skåne versus Scania
As per above, please note that the County's official name in English is Skåne County, it does not use Scania, the old translated form of the traditional province Skåne. Tomas e (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tomas E is wrong, for two reasons: First, the official name of the county is not Skåne County, it is Skåne län. Second, this is the name in Swedish, but in English it is never refered to by any other name than Scania. As for point one, there is no official name of this county in English, and even if there were one, we shouldn't use it because of point two. John  Anderson   (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, of course the only official name of a county in Sweden is in Swedish. But much information from agencies and authorities is translated into English, sometimes to an extent one could think the country is biligual. Here you can see that the "County Administration Board of Skåne"  uses the Swedish endonym even in English. Here ] you can see the same thing from region Skåne. --Muniswede (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, John A., I'm not wrong. The official name of Skåne län, a comtemporary administrative/governmental division in Sweden, in English is Skåne County and nothing else. This type of body has an official name in English. This county also has a county administration, a governor etc., which naturally follow. The name of the traditional provice of Skåne is Scania. The traditional province is not the same as the County or the County administration; here is a link to check out. I'm afraid your comment indicates that you have not understood the difference between the two, and it seems you have not checked up reliable sources. Please do before moving articles to erroneous names. Tomas e (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The principle at Wikipedia is to use the name for a geographical entity which is commonly used by people, regardless of if the rulers use another word. Scania is called Scania in English, not Skåne. This is true both for the historical province and for the modern administrative area. Cf Burma/Myanmar. So I am afraid you are the one who is wrong in this matter, Tomas e. John  Anderson   (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not produced a single reliable source saying that the official name of Skåne län is "Scania County". It seems from your entries here that you haven't even bothered to understand the difference between Swedish counties (in this case created in 1997) and provinces (existing since time immemorial), which are separate entities. It more-or-less seems that you're not reading the replies you get, otherwise this should already be extremely clear to you. And, referring to your sweeping claim, in which context is "Scania County" commonly used by people (which people, by the way)??? The name is surely only commonly used by people speaking Swedish, and they say Skåne län. It's just that you've gotten the idea that your own translation of it into English should take precedence over the actual official translation. It doesn't. I have personally nothing against the name "Scania County", and when spoken it sits better in an otherwise English sentence than "Skåne County". But that's completely beside the point, because the slightly clumsy term is the official translation as given by reliable sources, and anything else is just your personal point of view. You're argument about people vs. rulers just seems like a way to obscure this. "Scania County" is indeed a useful redirect given the common translation of the province's name, but not an offical name. You're therefore again and again introducing factual errors in the article and not respecting the WP:RS principle. You're not being constructive. Please stop this once and for all. Tomas e (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * People outside Sweden seldom talk about the administrative subdivision entites. They have pure domestic functions. Skåne län and Region Skåne were created just some ten years ago. The old exonym Scania is used for the traditional province (but sometimes the endonym Skåne is used also in that case). But English texts about the county or the region are mostly written by Swedes employed by the respective entities. And they have decided to use the endonym for some reason or other. Therefor it is correct to use it here. --Muniswede (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do Swedes decide what's the correct word to use in English? No, I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.61.234.225 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * English is spoken in many countries. If you can show that Englishmen, Irish, Canadians, Australians, Scots, Americans and other English speaking peoples frequently talk about "Scania County" using that form, you are very welcome. --Muniswede (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what they do. Should I add audio files of my conversations with people? Swedes do not decide what things are called in English, not even if they are Swedish phenomena. Do you think we should move the en: article on California to Kalifornien too? John  Anderson   (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You who argue it should be Skåne should consider this: Naming conventions (geographic names): 'When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.' John  Anderson   (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you even read a single of the posts above? You have still NOT PROVIDED ONE SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE that "Scania" is used as a translation of Skåne län and you constantly ignore the multiple reliable sources where the offical use of "Skåne" is clearly shown. You also seen to show complete disregard for consensus building. Stop your disruptive editing right now, thank you. Tomas e (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Calm down, please. Scania is under the name Scania in Wikipedia. What more evidence do you need? I think you are the one who should explain why there should be a difference. Scania is the most expected name for English speaking people. John  Anderson   (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should study Writing better articles. This is a key guideline in Wikipedia, superceding any name an entity might use about itself. John  Anderson   (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with John Anderson on this. Swedes shouldn't teach Englishmen or Americans how to speak English. -Ulla — 01:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it wouldn't be better English to write County of Scania, but I don't know, I'm not English. Scania is a given, though. 'Skåne' just sounds weird in English. The Great Cucumber (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind when reading the above that, and  are the same person after a checkuser done at their homewiki, svwp, so take lightly on their comments. GameOn (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you count their voice as one, but do you have any real arguments against their view? I think not. This page should either be called County of Scania (the English name) or Skåne län (the Swedish name). The present mix of Swedish and English is just bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.50.209 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The current spelling seems to be the one used in reliable English sources. However, I will note that this does not mean that Scania should automatically be moved to Skåne; it is quite possible that reliable English sources use one spelling for the cultural entity and a different spelling for the administrative entity. Look before you leap. Aervanath (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Skåne County → Scania County – "Skåne län" is the equivalent of "Skåne" but on the government administrative side. Skåne is presented in English Wikipedia under its English name Scania when presented as a cultural and historical territory and should be presented in the same way as an administrative province too. Everything else is just inconsistent. Witness is given above that English speaking people is calling the province Scania in English, not Skåne. (If Scania County should not be called Scania in English, then the cultural province shouldn't be called Scania either but should be moved to Skåne.) 'When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.' relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC) 83.189.156.67 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed over and over again. Just look a few inches up this page. --Muniswede (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as the nomination, for consistency and as there are no reasons given against the moves in the above discussions except personal opinions. Mr. Atom Scania (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Pinut (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, a logical suggestion. Suédoise (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, there is no reason why Scania County should not have this name in English Wikipedia. The lack of knowledge or disrespect of the English name with some regional government officers in Sweden is no reason for the name to be incorrect here. Dagrqv (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nom cites concerns of inconsistency with other articles, and I have not seen any other arguments put forward yet, but the standard usually applied to article naming is WP:COMMONNAME (without regard for applying consistency to names that appear inconsistently among reliable sources - see William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor for example).  The common name standard stipulates, in short, that if a name clearly predominates among English-language reliable sources then that name is generally preferred for article names on en.WP.  That does not mean that we should use the most common Anglicized name, but rather the name most commonly used in English-language sources (not just Google hits, but reliable sources).  Google tests may give some indication of preference among certain types of sources but can also have a tendency to show duplicate/mirrored results, and Google web searches are particularly problematic.  Still, I did a quick Google book and journal test, and here are my results (results also tend to vary depending on time and geographic location):
 * Google Scholar "Scania County" -wikipedia 67 hits
 * Google Book "Scania County" -wikipedia 45 hits
 * Google Scholar "Skåne County" -wikipedia 645 hits
 * Google Book "Skåne County" -wikipedia 337 hits
 * So I would say Google testing indicates that Skåne County may have the edge over Scania County in terms of common name (assuming all those hits are reliable English-language sources), but even the most careful Google testing is not as reliable as a genuine familiarity with reliable sources, so I hope some of this article's contributors can say what the English language sources tend to call the county. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 14:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It is hard to find out what is most used. I checked Encyclopedia Britannica and it uses both names in the article about the province and in some biographical articles they use only one of the names and in others only the other one of the names. Some other sources seems to be equally inconsistent. However, I remain in my opinion here. It does seems to be a majority for it too. Wikipedia should decide to use one name for my part of Sweden. Mr. Atom Scania (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * support it should be the same English name for both incarnations of Scania and since Wikipeia has decided on Scania for the original Scania it should be the same for the län which takes it name from the historical province. You don't have one article about (the historic) "Saxony" and one about (the modern) "Free State of Sachsen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.247.245 (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, based on the numbers provided by Wilhelm Meis. Favonian (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; it seems to me that Skåne is the more common; I agree with Wilhelm Meis and Favonian. Plus, Skåne is the actual name, which I think should be added to the scales even if it's not a particularly heavy weight on its own. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Skåne is the acctual name in Swedish, not in English. Mr. Atom Scania (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The region and the county have the same name and almost the same boundaries, so they should be spelled consistently. This means that the issue is whether "Scania" or "Skane" is more common (rather than "Scania county" vs "Skane country"). After screening for the truck company, I get 10,200 post-1990 English-language Google Book hits for "Scania", 12,500 for Skane. The Local, Sweden's English-language news site, calls it "Skåne", as does Radio Sweden. Kauffner (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, consistency is the main issue here. So if there will be no move according to the suggestion, Scania should rather be moved to Skåne, immediately. BTW, when will this issue be decided upon? Mr. Atom Scania (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incidentally, I concur with the closure. (I was about to close this myself.) And for background, I read over: Talk:Scania/Archive_1, Talk:Scania/Archive_1, Talk:Scania/Archive_1, Talk:Scania/Archive_1, Talk:Scania/Archive_1, and this talk page. Any future rename/move request should probably read those over to see what ground has already been covered. Hope this helps. - jc37 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is a sad decission, when the Wikipedia practice of not taking its own stand leads to these inconsistencies when two articles about what is virtually the same entity should present it with two different names. It can't make much sense for people who haven't read all these discussions about the name and probably don't even know to look for them. Suédoise (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)