Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)/archive

An attempt to work out a simple policy for geographic names in Central/Eastern Europe. The basic assumptions for the policy are:
 * 1) it should be practical: simple, easy to understand and to follow
 * 2) it does not have to be perfect, some controversies will not be avoided

No voting yet. Let's try to work out several reasonable proposals first (the less the better ;-). Please use the talk page for the discussion.

Proposal A version 1
''The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. When mentioned in a historical context, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical name in parentheses, where reasonable. This applies both to articles' contents and titles. A historical name can be used in title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled with the official name.''

Discussion

 * Oppose, see below. --Irpen 20:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal B version 1
''The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. When mentioned in a historical context, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical name in parentheses, where reasonable. This applies to articles' contents. Only the widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used in titles. Historical names are to be listed in the first line of the article. A historical name can be used in title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled with the official name.''

Suggested modification by Irpen

 * 1) The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used for the article titles (comment: this is tautologous since already prescribed by policy but worth a mention, criteria of establishing the accpeted English usage to be discussed separately)
 * 2) When mentioned in a historical context, the accepted name in modern academic literature devoted to the topic is preferred (e.g. "Rumania" in WW2 articles, "Lwow" in biographies of Poles of PLC time, "Chernigov" in topics about Rurikids and Rus, etc). This is largely left to the authors who write the articles since they are more likely to research literature than causial readers who might still have strong political preferences. If the current local official name is different from such an accepted usage in a particular historical context, the modern name may be added in parentheses, where reasonable. This applies to articles' contents.
 * 3) Other names are to be listed in the first line of the article only if they have any modern English usage. Otherwise, while not listed in the first line, they still may be used within text as context prescribes. Example: there is no English modern usage of Kaniow (Kaniv, Ukraine), hence Kaniow not to be listed in the first line. It still may be used within text when saying how the coty was granted Magdeburg rights within PLC (details of the a similar issue here.)


 * 1. OK. This is addressed in B2 below.
 * 2. Two problems here: 1. what is "modern" ? what is "academic" ? 2. what if multiple names are used in literature ? We've seen this problem with Danzig/Gdańsk that you surely are aware of. Using the official name has the advantage of being well defined. On the other hand I can think of counterexamples, like the Battle of Stalingrad. Historical context is the tough part of this.
 * 3. This is disputable, I think. Why would you not want to see "Kaniów" in the first line ? It seems informative and harmless. Do you find it offensive ? Using other names within the body of the article can be confusing to an unaware reader. --Lysy (talk)


 * 2. How to establish what's modern academic usage is a separate issue that also needs discussed. However, I was recently in a bookstore where I looked at a WW2 history book just published and it had Rumania. Battle of Stalingrad is really not applicable since the city was renamed unlike Romania or Chernihiv. Still, in historical literature, the name changes are made much more conservatively thani the news articles and there are reasons for that. Or would you write that king Stanislaus I Leszczyński was born in "Lviv". Even if the latter is OK with you personally, there is no way it is going to be accepted by the Polish WP community fom what I can tell


 * I can buy that "Stanislaus I Leszczyński was born in Lviv and Emilia Plater in Vilnius". I see nothing wrong with that. History sections in the respective city articles will explain the issue for those unsatisfied. Space Cadet 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As you expected, I don't see anything wrong with Leszczyński being born in Lviv as long as everyone follows these rules. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe most of the Polish editors would accept it. --Lysy (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 3. I don't find it offensive. I linked to the expanation at talk:Kiev but I can quote from there:
 * For some cities, their Polish name is so important that it may be found in English texts even nowadays (Lviv/Lwow/Lvov/Lemberg). For such cities it needs to be placed in the very first line of the article, except perhaps when the article has a name etymology piece close to the top where similar names are listed and explained (current solution at Kamianets-Podilskyi). In such articles all names except native are given within etymology discussion.
 * For some cities, while much of the Polish history still applies to them, they are never, or almost never, called nowadays by their Polish names in English language texts. Examples are Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow, Chernihiv/Chernigov/Czernihow, Kaniv/Kanev/Kaniow, etc. Polish name should be used for such cities in the history sections (like Voivodship name) but not in the first line, because otherwise (like for Kiev) any name of any country that ever conquered it (Lithuanian, German, Crimean Tatarian, Swedish, whatever was the Khazar language, Cuman, etc.) deserves the place in the first line. Similarly, Варшава, Белосток, Краков, at times conquered and controlled by Russia, by this token would need to be mentioned in the first lines of the respective articles (and I know some of our Polish friends will not take it lightly). This would be clutter and/or bad blood. We have a separate list article called Names of European cities in different languages for this information.


 * I hope I answered some of your conserns. --Irpen 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I say below, this proposal is completely unworkable. It basically says that historical names are not to be used to refer to cities at the times when they were known by this historical name.  Not only has this approach been repeatedly rejected for Central European cities in votes (c.f., for instance, the vote regarding usage of Gdansk, which demonstrated massive majorities in favor of using Danzig for the period from 1793 to 1945), but this approach explicitly states that cities whose names have been officially changed, like Istanbul or Kaliningrad, should always be referred to by their current names, except in parentheses.  I'm sorry, but this is just totally unacceptable. john k 22:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * John, I am all confused. Which of the proposals is totally unacceptable. Mine? I thought it exactly takes care of the issue. The problem with Gdansk/Danzig was not the resultrs of the vote but the lack of common sense in their application. When people were adding Danzig to an article on modern polish soccer club it backtfired and caused quiet some bad blood. But this should not have been done at the first place? What's your take then? --


 * Also, it is nice to know that Space Cadet won't have a problem with king Stanislaus I Leszczyński being born in Lviv. I strongly doubt that it would still be OK with too many Polish editors. As well as Варшава and Краков in the first lines of respective articles. --Irpen 23:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Irpen, your proposal is fine with me. I was referring to Lysy's proposal as being unacceptable. Sorry for the confusion. In terms of Gdansk/Danzig, I agree with you that there's no need to refer to the name Danzig in references to the city since 1945, and that it was stupid that people tried to do this.  My only concern is with pre-1945, where I think "Danzig" is the most common name used to refer to it from at least the 14th century on.  john k 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal B version 2
Slightly rephrased:

''The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.''

''The contents: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. Historical names, including other languages where appropriate, are to be listed in the first line of the article's contents. When mentioned in a historical context, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical name in parentheses, where reasonable.''


 * Support--AndriyK 21:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support-- with an obvious exception to cities that had their names changed, like Königsberg etc. Space Cadet 21:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point about the exception for the changed names. Maybe that's the key ? --Lysy (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. I much prefer Irpen's modifications, which adhere much more closely to current usage, and to the preferences demonstrated by wikipedians in numerous votes on individual articles.  This proposal is particularly bad, as it indicates that we should say that the capital of the Byzantine Empire was Istanbul, that the Germans besieged St. Petersburg for 900 days during World War II, that the Viceroy of India was stationed at Kolkata prior to 1911, and so on and so forth.  Votes on the Gdansk issue, and others, have shown clearly that most wikipedians believe that the "appropriate historical name" ought to be used in historical contexts. john k 21:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at B3 below then. I'm sure you know that the Gdansk voting was not only controversial but had many serious flaws. --Lysy (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Some parts may have been problematic. Nevertheless, an enormous majority said that it should be called "Danzig" from 1793 to 1945. john k 23:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * JK, please can you not bring the Gdansk issue here. I know we could discuss this for ages and I have my arguments that I do not want to bring up now. One of the reasons of having good rules is to avoid cases like Gdansk, that did more harm than good. If you want to hear why I consider the Gdansk vote faulty, you're welcome to my talk page. --Lysy (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Lysy - I am not referring to the controversial parts of the vote on Gdansk. I am referring to the utterly uncontroversial fact that 61 people voted to use "Danzig" from 1793 to 1945, and 10 people voted to use "Gdansk".  Until you opened this discussion, nobody has ever suggested that this part of the vote was faulty, or in need of revision, although various anons (and occasionally Space Cadet) have tried to unilaterally change various individual articles.  As I said, any attempt to codify a policy (a general idea which I support), should take into account that this is an overwhelming consensus - any general rule which we should devise should be one which accommodates using "Danzig" for this period.  As to not bringing up the Danzig issue, please.  Issues relating to the naming of cities like Danzig are clearly what is at the center of this proposal, which in its original form was so clearly geared towards these names that it would have mandated talking about the Fourth Crusade's sack of Istanbul in 1204.  john k 00:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal B version 3
"The Battle of Stalingrad" case taken care of:

''The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.''

''The contents: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. Historical names, including other languages where appropriate, are to be listed in the first line of the article's contents. When mentioned in a historical context, the widely accepted English historical name can be used where there's no doubt about the usage. Otherwise, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical name in parentheses, where reasonable.''

How about this now then ? --Lysy (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, because some users have no doubt, some others do. Stalingrad, Kaliningrad etc. should not be covered by this proposal. Space Cadet 22:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as it says, if there is any doubt, use the current official name instead. --Lysy (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal B version 4
The "name change" case taken care of:

''The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.''

''The contents: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. Historical names, including other languages where appropriate, are to be listed in the first line of the article's contents if they are in English usage. When mentioned in a historical context, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical (foreign language) name in parentheses, where reasonable. Only for the names that were changed (not merely translated), the historical name can be used in appropriate historical context instead.''

Hopefully this addresses the concerns of Irpen, John K and Space Cadet ? --Lysy (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This most certainly does not address my concerns. Look, a vast majority of people think Gdansk should be called Danzig between 1793 and 1945.  This was demonstrated in a vote with a very high turn out, and many Polish contributors voted for this solution (perhaps disingenuously?).  The results on pre-1793 were considerably more ambiguous, but any responsible proposal should take into account that there is strong consensus for having an article on the Free City of Danzig and not on the Free City of Gdansk, and for discussion of the city in the 19th century to refer to "Danzig," and so forth. Otherwise, this proposal is clearly just an end run around consensus.  john k 23:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't want to go into detail on if the vote was valid or not, as it's not our goal here. this said, the Free City of Danzig is an article about a historic state, not about a place, therefore our rules here do not apply for this particular article's title. But I see your point. --Lysy (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal B version 5

 * 1) The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
 * 2) The contents: For the names that were changed (not merely translated), the historical name can be used but only in appropriate historical context. For all other cases, the same name as in the title is to be used. When mentioned in a historical context, the name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical (foreign language) name in parentheses, where reasonable.
 * 3) The first line: The same as the title. Other names can also be listed but only these that were used within the article according to rule #2.

Proposal C version 1
Per Irpen:

The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used

''The contents: When mentioned in a historical context, the accepted name in modern academic literature devoted to the topic is preferred. This is largely left to the authors who write the articles since they are more likely to research literature than casual readers who might still have strong political preferences. If the current local official name is different from such an accepted usage in a particular historical context, the modern name may be added in parentheses, where reasonable. Other names are to be listed in the first line of the article only if they have any modern English usage. Otherwise, while not listed in the first line, they still may be used within text as context prescribes.''

I am much happier with this proposal. I would suggest however, that we do split issues in three rather than in two parts: It's just that these are three issues and three reasons for edit wars. Agreed? --Irpen 00:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) article titles
 * 2) names in context
 * 3) names that qualify for the first line


 * This proposal seems like the best one so far, and I think Irpen's proposed revisions make sense. john k 00:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal C version 2

 * 1) The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used
 * 2) The contents: The same as the title, unless mentioned in a historical context, when the widely accepted name in modern English language academic literature devoted to the topic is preferred. This is largely left to the authors who write the articles since they are more likely to research literature than casual readers who might still have strong political preferences. If the current local official name is different from such an accepted usage in a particular historical context, the modern name may be added in parentheses, where reasonable.
 * 3) The first line: Other names are to be listed in the first line of the article only if they have any modern English usage. Otherwise, while not listed in the first line, they still may be used within text as context prescribes.

Proposal C version 3

 * 1) The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used.
 * 2) The contents: The same as the title, unless mentioned in a historical context, when the widely accepted name in modern English language academic literature devoted to the topic is preferred. This is largely left to the editors. If the current local official name is different from such an accepted usage in a particular historical context, the modern name may be added in parentheses, where reasonable.
 * 3) The first line: The same as the title. Other names can also be listed but only these that were used within the article according to rule #2.

Proposal C version 4

 * 1) The title: The widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used.
 * 2) The contents: The same as the title, unless mentioned in a historical context, when the widely accepted name in modern English language academic literature devoted to the topic is preferred. This is largely left to the editors. If the current local official name is different from such an accepted usage in a particular historical context, the modern name should at least once be added in parentheses, then where reasonable.
 * 3) The first line: Other names are to be listed in the first line of the article only if they have any modern English usage. Otherwise, while not listed in the first line, they still may be used within text as context prescribes, according to rule #2

Proposal D version 1

 * 1) The title: For an article about a geographical location, the widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used. A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
 * 2) The first line: The title name in the first line can be followed by a list of alternative names that are or have been in English usage. Any archaic usage name in the list has clearly to be marked as such.
 * 3) The contents: The same name as in title is preferred. In historical context a historical name different to the one in the title can be used only if it has well established English usage. If in doubt always fallback to the name from the title. In case a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence.

Proposal D version 2
Scope: Articles about contemporary geographical locations only (for now)


 * 1) The title: For an article about a geographical location, the single widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used (or the most widely used of them in case there are more than one). A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
 * 2) The first line: The title name in the first line can be followed by a list of alternative names that are or have been in English usage. All names on the list should have briefly explained their origin and usage, if not obvious. Any archaic usage name in the list has clearly to be marked as such. The foreign names should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Alternatively,  the foreign names can be explained in an ethymology section immediately following the lead paragraph. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line is not recommended.
 * 3) The contents: The same name as in title is preferred. In historical context a historical name different to the one in the title can be used only if it has well established English usage. If in doubt always fallback to the name from the title. In case a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence in a given section.

Proposal D version 3
Scope: Articles about contemporary geographical locations only (for now)


 * 1) The title: For an article about a geographical location, the single widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used (or the most widely used of them in case there are more than one). A historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
 * 2) The first line: The title name in the first line can be followed by a list of alternative names if they or their derivatives are or have been in English usage. All names on the list should have briefly explained their origin and usage, if not obvious. Any archaic usage name in the list has clearly to be marked as such. The foreign names should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Alternatively,  the foreign names can be explained in an ethymology section immediately following the lead paragraph. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line is not recommended.
 * 3) The contents: The same name as in title is preferred. In historical context a historical name different to the one in the title can be used only if it has well established English usage. If in doubt always fallback to the name from the title. In case a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence in a given section.

Proposal E version 1
Italic indicates changes from proposal D 3.

Scope: Articles about contemporary geographical locations only (for now)


 * 1) The title: For an article about a geographical location, the single widely accepted English name is to be used. If there is no applicable English name, the current local official name can be used (or the most widely used of them in case there are more than one). Thus if there is an English alternative, a historical or foreign language name can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
 * 2) The lead: The title name in the first line can be followed by a list of alternative names if they or their derivatives are or have been in English usage. All names on the list should have briefly explained their origin and usage, if not obvious. Any archaic usage names in the list, as well as names used before the standardization of English orthography should be clearly marked as such. Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in an ethymology parsection immediately following the lead paragraph. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesfootnote) and a footnote indicating that there is a separate paragraph or section with alternative names. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.
 * 3) The contents (this applies both to the article on a given geographical place and to other articles linking to it): The same name as in title is preferred, however in historical context a historical name different to the one in the title can be used, but only if it has widely accepted English usage. In case a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence in a given section. If more than one historical name with well established English usage is applicable for that historical context, it should be followed by the other applicable names in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence in a given section, after the modern English name. Foreign names can be used only if there are no established English names. Those uses and rationale for them should be described in the appopriate ethymology section and/or on the article's talk page.
 * 4) Dispute resolution process: This guideline should be used in all articles where an objection have been raised regarding naming conventions of geographical places. This guideline may be revised to be applicable in situations not envisioned by its current creators, however please use the talk page to obtain support for your change before changing this guideline. If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars a modern English name should be used in all occurences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page. If in doubt the name from the title is a recommended safe choice. It is recommened that for repeated naming disputes, a template is created and used on talk pages of affected articles, directing disputants to a single talk page where they can reach a consensus''.

Proposal E version 2
Items 5 an 6 are added. Italic indicates changes from proposal E 1 in the rest of the text.

Scope: Articles about contemporary geographical locations only (for now)


 * 1) The title: For an article about a geographical location, the single widely accepted English name is to be used. If there is no applicable English name, the current local official name can be used (or the most widely used of them in case there are more than one). Other (historical, foreign language, etc.) names can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
 * 2) The lead: The title name in the first line can be followed by a list of alternative names if they or their derivatives are or have been in English usage. All names on the list should have their origin and usage briefly explained, where not obvious. Any archaic usage names in the list, as well as names used before the standardization of English orthography should be clearly marked as such. Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in an ethymology parsection immediately following the lead paragraph. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesfootnote) and a footnote indicating that there is a separate paragraph or section with alternative names. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.
 * 3) The contents (this applies both to the article on a given geographical place and to other articles linking to it): The same name as in title is preferred, however in historical context a historical name different to the one in the title can be used, but only if it has widely accepted English usage. In case a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence in a given section. If more then one historical name with well established English usage is applicable for that historical context, it should be followed by the other applicable names in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence in a given section, after the modern English name. Foreign names can be used only if there are no established English names. Those uses and rationale for them should be described in the appopriate ethymology section and/or on the article's talk page.
 * 4) Dispute resolution process: This guideline should be used in all articles where an objection have been raised regarding naming conventions of geographical places. This guideline may be revised to be applicable in situations not envisioned by its current creators, however please use the talk page to obtain support for your change before changing this guideline. If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars a modern English name should be used in all occurences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page. If in doubt the name from the title is a recommended safe choice. It is recommened that for repeated naming disputes, a template is created and used on talk pages of affected articles, directing disputants to a single talk page where they can reach a consensus.
 * 5) The geographic location is considered to have a widely accepted English name if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously:
 * 6) *The English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta) consistently use this name in all articles where the corresponding location is mentioned.
 * 7) *This name obtains the largest number of Google hits when searched over English language pages excluding the words -wikipedia, -wiki, -wikimirror. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inapropriate pages from the count.
 * If one (or both) of the two conditions is not satisfied or neither of the above encyclopedias mention the location, it is considered as not having a widely accepted English name.
 * 1) The geographic location is considered to have a historical name with widely accepted English usage if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously:
 * 2) *The English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta) consistently use this name in all articles when the corresponding location is mentioned in relation of some historical period.
 * 3) *This name obtains the largest number of Google hits when searched over English language pages in combination with words that constrain the search to the pages related to the period, and excluding the words -wikipedia, -wiki, -wikimirror. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity care should be taken to exclude inapropriate pages from the count.

Proposal E version 3

 * This proposal replaces Google with Google Books and Google Scholar tools in E-2 points 5 and 6.


 * 1) The title: For an article about a geographical location, the single widely accepted English name is to be used, if possible. If there is no applicable English name, the current local official name should be used (or the most widely used of them in case there are more than one). Other (historical, foreign language, etc.) names can be used in the title of an article about a place only in case of a redirect to the appropriate article titled according to the above rule.
 * 2) The lead: The title name in the first line can be followed by a list of alternative names if they or their derivatives are or have been in English usage. All names on the list should have their origin and usage briefly explained, where not obvious. Any archaic usage names in the list, as well as names used before the standardization of English orthography should be clearly marked as such. Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in an ethymology parsection immediately following the lead paragraph. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesfootnote) and a footnote indicating that there is a separate paragraph or section with alternative names. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.
 * 3) The contents (this applies both to the article on a given geographical place and to other articles linking to it): The same name as in title is preferred, however in historical context a historical name different to the one in the title can be used, but only if it has widely accepted English usage. In case a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence in a given section. If more then one historical name with well established English usage is applicable for that historical context, it should be followed by the other applicable names in parentheses at least on one, preferably the first occurence in a given section, after the modern English name. Foreign names can be used only if there are no established English names. Those uses and rationale for them should be described in the appopriate ethymology section and/or on the article's talk page.
 * 4) Dispute resolution process: This guideline should be used in all articles where an objection have been raised regarding naming conventions of geographical places. This guideline may be revised to be applicable in situations not envisioned by its current creators, however please use the talk page to obtain support for your change before changing this guideline. If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars a modern English name should be used in all occurences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page. If in doubt the name from the title is a recommended safe choice. It is recommened that for repeated naming disputes, a template is created and used on talk pages of affected articles, directing disputants to a single talk page where they can reach a consensus.
 * 5) The geographic location is considered to have a widely accepted English name if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously:
 * 6) *The English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta) consistently use this name in all articles where the corresponding location is mentioned.
 * 7) *This name obtains the largest number (75% or more of total hits considering all possible variants) of Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the world is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inapropriate pages from the count.
 * If one (or both) of the two conditions is not satisfied or neither of the above encyclopedias mention the location, it is considered as not having a widely accepted English name.
 * 1) The geographic location is considered to have a historical name with widely accepted English usage if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously:
 * 2) *The English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta) consistently use this name in all articles when the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the historical period in question.
 * 3) *This name obtains the largest number (75% or more of total hits considering all possible variants) of Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the world is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the historical period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inapropriate pages from the count.
 * If one (or both) of the two conditions is not satisfied or neither of the above encyclopedias mention the location, it is considered as not having a historical name with widely accepted English usage.

Proposal F
This is version F of the proposal for a guideline for choice of geographic names used in the articles. Version F is an attempt to summarise E-3 in a shorter form (avoid instruction creep).

Proposal for convention regarding geographical location names.


 * 1) The title: The single widely accepted English name in modern context (swaEn) is to be used when possible. If there is no swaEn, the modern local official name should be used. If there is no modern local official name (the place does not exist anymore) the widely accepted historical English name (wahEn) should be used. If there is no wahEn then the modern local historical name should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.


 * 1) The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (archaic: name1) Relevant foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesNames). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.
 * 2) The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historical English name (wahEn) for a specific historical context. In cases when the wahEn is used, it should be followed by the modern English name (swaEn) in parentheses on the first occurrence of the wahEn in all applicable sections of the article i.e.: historical name (modern name). If more then one wahEn is applicable for that historical context, those other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: historical name (English name, other historical names). Foreign names can be used only if there are no established English names. Rationale for historical usage should be explained on the article's talk page and in the name's section of the article about the geographical place in question.

Dispute resolution:
 * 1) Avoid revert wars: If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s). If the dispute is affecting many pages, in order to pull all the disputants into one talk page a template may be created. See Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice for an example of such a notice.
 * 2) Ask for help: If a consensus cannot be reached, it is recommended to ask for help at the Requests for comment/History and geography.

Definitions:

Examples:
 * Gdańsk or Danzig? Discussion at Talk:Gdansk/Vote determined that Gdańsk is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Danzig is its widely accepted historical English name for certain historical contexts. There is no city of Danzig at present, but this term can be used in various historical contexts as described on the discussion page.
 * Volgograd or Stalingrad? Volgograd is the single widely accepted English name in modern context but Stalingrad is a widely accepted historical English name for certain historical contexts. Therefore during the Second World War there was a Battle of Stalingrad, not a Battle of Volgograd, and when referring to the city during the Stalinist era, the term Stalingrad is more correct than Volgograd.
 * Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.
 * Vilnius or Wilno? Vilnius is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Wilno is the widely accepted historical English name in historical contexts where the Polish language was more popular than the Lithuanian language (during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).