Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/September

Calcutta
See Talk:Kolkata, an effort to move it back. We should at least watch this, to see what arguments prevail, and whether we need to change examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this thought process. Why would we want to change our entire guideline based on a discussion about one article? This is the sort of thing that I was trying to get to above, where everyone keeps adding specific exceptions and "rules" to this document. In the end it's all just one big mess that doesn't consistently inform people. I can see where I was mistaken before, but I think now that I was simply 180deg out: we shouldn't be pushing these things further out, we should be consolidating all of these "sub-guideline" spinouts back into the WP:NC policy. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 13:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we want to change any mentions of Kolkata, if moved.


 * In addition, if a new argument or idea comes up in the discussion which is useful enough to be applied elsewhere (which has happened), we may wish to consider mentioning it. Most importantly, we should keep this page aligned with what actually happens, both by commenting there, and by reflecting the result here; this page, unlike some other guidelines, is written to describe what Wikipedia actually does. (On average, and after consideration of past practice, of course; but that's why we should weigh in). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, of course if "a new argument or idea comes up" we should document it. Anything like that will stick out like a supernova, regardless. This guideline is not special, it's just like any others. You're a smart (person: guy?), I know that, but that statement about this document somehow being special makes it crystal clear that there's some emotion that is clouding things a little bit here for you. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, resentment at the guidelines that are used by some small clique to (attempt to) impose their view on the rest of Wikipedia. It usually doesn't work, but it's a public nuisance, and should be kept out of here by making sure this follows actual consensus instead of inventing it. The most likely change, if we move to Calcutta, would be to the sentence about Indian English being a national variety; but let's see where the discussion goes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're just playing into their hands. The people that you're talking about want all sorts of details because that muddies the waters for them, and some will still claim some sort of mandate regardless of what we do in these documents. All of these should be short - succint even, completely on point, and therefore crystal clear. Less is more. I'm not saying that you're wrong or that you should give up, I'm simply pointing out that you're on the wrong battlefield for that debate. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All this was intended to do is to encourage the interested to watch and comment on the discussion behind the link. Do so if you like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel
possibly foolishly, I have re-opened the C-or-K naming dispute at Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. If you have a strong opinion either way as to whether we should use the C form or the K form in the articles in question, please express it there. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Our principle here should be to use what present English sources about the eighteenth century use. Since English usage about the modern city is divided, and Cassell was the standard spelling in German until 1926, I have little doubt that the anachronistic hypercorrection is not necessary. But we should keep an eye on this to see if consensus is shifting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods, again
A related move discussion brought to my attention that most neighborhoods in San Francisco are named Alamo Square, San Francisco, California, and so on, although there are also Alta Plaza and Russian Hill, San Francisco. This is not consistency; it isn't disambiguation either: we have no other Alamo Square or Russian Hill, so disambiguating by San Francisco is more than enough (there are other towns of that name, but is any of them - save the city anglophones call Quito - large enough to have named neighborhoods? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)