User talk:Uness232/Archives/2022/March

Greek and Turkish geographic names
Hello

I write for your revert on Marmara Island. The hard-won consensus on Greek and Turkish historical and geographical names says to put historical names either in the lead, or alternatively in a special section. Incidentally, that's exactly what is suggested in the guideline you cited:

"Alternatively, all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead".

"Alternatively" means either one or the other way, not both. In the case of Marmara, since there is an etymology section the name goes there, just as in the case of Meis, the Turkish name of Kastellorizo, article which is regularly targeted by Turkish language warriors. As for me, being Italian and Swiss, and therefore not involved in these language battles, at the slightest hint of an edit war over a name I report the case to an administrator. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Alessandro57 Thanks for informing me. I have self-reverted another edit, since I used the same argument there. There are two edits,, which I have not reverted, as I believe those still stand, but you can take a look at them.
 * As you seem knowledgable about the topic, I would also like to ask you a related question. There have been numerous accounts who seem to be adding historical names of Turkish cities into infoboxes (as seen in Kozan, Adana). This seems unusual to me. Since MOS:INFOBOXGEO is unclear about it, are you aware of any community consensus on this?
 * (Also I think I mis-mentioned you in the edit summary, sorry for that.) Uness232 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Uness232 and thanks for your kind reply.


 * Why do you still have doubts? I think that the guideline is clear: historically important names (like the Armenian name for Turkish cities or the Turkish name for Greek islands) go either in the lead, or, if there is one, in the "Names" or "Etymology" section. For example the Turkish name for Rhodes (which by the way thanks to the Italians :-) also has a Turkish minority living there) is in the Etymology section.


 * Moreover, you have to consider that not everyone sticks to guidelines and consensus: the issue of historical names is a battleground for nationalists in every country. The problem of the language warriors is well known, and there is a growing awareness among the community, so it is usually enough to notify an administrator. Usually these people are first blocked (mostly because of WP:NOTHERE), and then forced to abandon the project. Alex2006 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Alessandro57, my doubts were not related to the case where you reverted me. I understand the issue with my edits, and if you're referencing the comment below, I did not answer their question out of tentativeness. I am also aware that not everyone follows WP's guidelines (I'm new relative to you, I guess, but I have done my fair share of anti-POV editing, notified administrators and such).
 * My related question was about the infoboxes. Since names should not go both in the lead and in a separate names section, I was wondering if a similar consensus exists on names being included in both the lead and the infoboxes, since some editors were resolute on adding alternative names there (again, as seen in Kozan, Adana). Uness232 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry Uness232, you are right. Yesterday I had my wife bothering me, I was trying to listen to her while reading your question, but when I try to do two things at once, not being Napoleon, it doesn't work as well for me as it did for him. :-) I agree that the guideline is not very helpful in this case. What does "beneficial" mean? Putting another infobox just for the history data usually seems excessive for cities which did not have a complex history. What I usually do is to leave alternative names under the main name only if there are ethnic minorities who use that name in the city described by the article. For example, Trieste certainly deserves the Slovenian name under the Italian one, but Palermo doesn't need the Greek name (incidentally, I deleted it a couple of days ago).  My opinion is that in the infobox should go  only the main information, otherwise it becomes unreadable. Alex2006 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm confused :)
Hello. I felt the need to ask a question after you reverted my changes. You probably saw my changes as "ideological" since the pages in question are subject to constant changes, but I made them by referencing other articles -as I wrote in the summary (Sea of Marmara)-. As you probably know, Greek or Armenian names appear on the pages of almost all places in Turkey, often before their Turkish names. I can understand this because the ancestors of Greeks and Armenians lived in these places, but I cannot see this in other articles, and this raises suspicions of double standards in me. For example, why are Turkish names not included at the beginning of the Aegean Islands, but only briefly mentioned in the "Etymology" or "Name" sections? (Exp. Rhodes or Crete). We know that there has been a Turkish presence on these islands for a long time. I will be happy if you inform me. Kyzagan (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Kyzagan,
 * I'm unsure of how to respond, because I've been alerted that I do not know the most recent consensus well enough either, as you can see by the conversation right above this one. I've reverted some of my own changes as well, and others I've provided to @Alessandro57. I'm not sure if he's available, but he might be able to help you a bit better. Uness232 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hallo @Kyzagan, I don't think you can define this a double standard: the standard is only one, and it is given by the guideline, which seems clear to me. There are people who try to apply the standard, and people who don't. We try to make an encyclopedia, and in the encyclopedia go useful information. Historical names certainly are, if only because they remind us that during a certain period in that place a people dominated different from the current one. In other cases, like Kastellorizo, they are fundamental, because if one arrives in Kas from Antalya by bus, sees the island in front of the harbor and asks the driver how it's called, he will answer "Meis" (to me happened just so) and so it's important that the Turkish name is mentioned in the article. Unfortunately, not all those who write here do it to create an encyclopedia, but many are frustrated nationalists who have the impression that removing or adding names will correct past and today's wrongs (real or alleged). There are administrators to deal with these people, anyway, so if you have any problems, I suggest you to contact one, citing the guideline and politely explaining that you are dealing with a language warrior. Also remember to always cite the source of the information you are trying to maintain. The more reliable the source, the more difficult it will be to remove it. It is also interesting to note that the only Wikipedia where such things happen is the English one. On the Greek one for example each village of northern Cyprus has its article with the article's name in Turkish (which is actually quite strange) and nobody says anything. bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Alessandro57. First of all, thank you for taking the time to explain. However, I still think that I am not able to explain myself fully. Maybe it's because you think of me as one of those nationalists, and I can understand why you think that way. As I said in my first message, I think that if more than one name is currently used for a place (or used over time), they should definitely be included. The situation that arouses double standards for me is that Turkish names are only briefly included in the "etymology" or "name" sections, while Greek names are also included at the top of the pages (often before their Turkish names. There are even Turkish islands with Greek names in their titles instead of their official names like Tenedos or Imbros) and I don't think there is enough empathy on this issue. If Turkish names were used on the pages of Greek places (I don't want that to happen), I'm sure it would be quite annoying and provocative for the Greeks. If there is any justification for that, I'll accept it, but at first glance it looked like ideological changes to me. It seems like it's always the same people who add Greek names to top of the pages and prevent them from being deleted. If you ask me, alternative names should be given in the same way in places belonging to both Greece and Turkey. Kyzagan (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)