Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rationale given here. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of European cities in different languages[edit]

There is no particular reason why an incomplete list of cities in Africa in different languages is in any way relevant or notable to an English-language encyclopaedia, particularly as it violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While some articles include the name of a place in different languages that may be relevant to the place in question, there is no reasonable reason why a Wikipedia user needs to know what Paris is called in Hindi. If anything; this should be either deleted as irrelevant or moved to WikiDictionary or WikiSource. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful and interesting list. Cross-language naming issues are culturally and politically important in Europe, and I guess elsewhere in the world as well. Good to have a centralised overview of them in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hmmm. As a student of Hindi, and a person who tries to be reasonable, I can easily think of many contexts in which someone would want to know what Paris is called in Hindi. Interlingua ^talk
Delete, per nom. These cross-language articles cause huge problems for verifiability (OR), and Wikipedia is not a translation service. If you want to know the name of a European city in another language, then click on the relevant inter-lingua link on the "Paris" article. It has a far better chance of being verified and correct. - Motor (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discount the other arguments for deletion but the "inter-lingua link redundancy" argument is specious. First, not all of the foreign language variants have Interwiki pages. Second, foreign language using non-Latin alphabets do not usually contain transliteration or pronunciation information. E.g., Madrid has no Irish article and the Greek article does not tell how to render Μαδρίτη into something readable to a non-Greek.

In general, Interwikis are very Eurocentric whereas lists such as these have the potential to include important non-European forms. AjaxSmack 17:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Wikipedia is not a translation service, and if articles on other language wikipedias are inadequate or missing, fix those. Lists like this cause huge problems... for very little gain. - Motor (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Greek, Japanese, or Chinese would have no need for a phonetic rendering of something in his own language -- that's something only appropriate to a foreign wiki. And one might know the name of Damascus in Hebrew but not be qualified to write an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia on Damascus. Whether encyclopedic or not, these lists provide information that Interwikis either cannot or will not. AjaxSmack 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"So fix it." Fix what? And why don't you fix it, if you (apparently) think it's broken? And then, after you have fixed it, should I learn Irish to find out on the Irish Wikipedia how Madrid is called in Irish? --Lambiam ^Talk 11:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign city names create verifiability problems? Are you serious? Lists on the English WP do not depend on a foreign-language article being created. Keep because WP allows for lists as quick reference for info established elsewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Yes, they cause major verifiability problems because of the (mass) cross-language nature of the page. How can I judge the edit someone has just made, when there are (at least) a dozen languages on that page? I've had this problem before when someone added an "international section" to Cookie Monster. People kept adding names... but there was absolutely no way to verify any of it (not least because they didn't provide sources, and even if they had they would probably be in the language in question). How was I supposed to know what his name was in Hebrew? I couldn't even search for it because the alphabet is incomprehensible to me. For all I know, it could be vandalism and/or someone's school nickname. This is the English Wikipedia... we can only rely on verifiablity in English, without extreme hassle (which is multipled when you have that many different languages on the page). That's why I say they can find the city's article, then click on the inter-lingua link and go to the page on the relevant langauge wiki... where the information will have a better chance of not being vandalism/gibberish. - Motor (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that some editors cannot verify some of the contents of some pages (because of their OWN SHORTCOMINGS) is no reason to delete a page. Perhaps, Motor would not be in the best position to police that particular part of WP -- I don't verify whether the descriptions of various drugs have the reputed effects on their WP page; I'm just not qualified. Most of us are similarly not qualified, so should they be deleted? All of them? WP is not the lowest common denominator. For quick verification of nearly the entire page, we can always look to the interwiki links to many of the articles on the cities listed; I will assume that the editors of the Japanese wiki know what Berlin is called in Japanese better than I and if WP:ja has Berlin as ベルリン that's verification enough. For the rest, if one is doubtful, you can discuss the matter on the discussion page. But note: just because a source is not in English doesn't make it useless especially when it is the name by which one place is known in another language not some kernel of truth waiting for someone to translate it. The outright arrogance demonstrated by the ENGLISH only crowd never ceases to amaze and disappoint me. <sigh> Carlossuarez46 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has, what, a dozen languages on it? To verify any changes made to this page needs an editor (or editors) who can speak those languages. It is a maintenance horror and a vandalism hotspot. How, exactly, do you expect recent changes patrolling to work? I'm guessing that you don't, and you haven't thought it through properly and you'd rather get angry about some perceived snub. Anyway, I'll ignore the rest of your bad tempered rant and just repeat what I've already said: Wikipedia is not a translation service... it is not setup to be one. The way it works, and its reliance on editors to check and verify material added or changed, makes articles like this virtually unworkable and a verifiability nightmare. Someone has to maintain this page when "you" get fed up and leave. Someone has to check the changes across all the languages. It just does not belong here. I'll just add one more thing here: User:Carlossuarez46 has also been on my talk page basically accusing me of being part of some "English-only movement". I would say exactly the same thing about this article if this were the French or German Wikipedia. Articles like this, with lots of translations, do not work on Wikipedia because of the way it is informally edited and checked make it a maintenance and verifiablity nightmare. You may imagine it as part of some grand conspiracy if you like, but it is simple practicality. - Motor (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the inability of one user to read a particular language does not render a fact unverifiable. But I'd also like to echo the sentiment just left by Goldom, below, where he or she cautions against letting this discussion become personal. The article is either right for Wikipedia, or it isn't. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Motor: You misrepresent what I said on your talk page, if anyone cares about that sideshow that can look for themselves. This article is right for WP for the numerous reasons already mentioned. I don't claim to be the sole maintainer of the article; all editors are maintainers of all articles they think they are capable of. Someone who isn't up on geography or cannot verify a foreign language addition to an article probably is not the person best to take on responsibility for this article, just as I couldn't contribute much to the Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia article you have because I am not a trekkie and have no idea what ranks are merely conjectured to be part of the story. We choose our interests and sometimes I look at recent changes/creations but what I don't understand and what is not clear vandalism -- like the anon who was adding BLAHBLAHBLAH to a bunch of pages yesterday -- I move on to work on what I do understand. I think the number of editors of that page and those who seem to care enough about the article to support keeping it means that if I get run over by a bus tomorrow, it'll still be maintained. Carlossuarez46 01:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I couldn't care less about Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia, I can still spot gibberish or vandalism... and "I" (meaning anyone on the English Wikipedia) can do a bit of research using google, or read any references supplied. As for me misprepresenting you... I did not, considering your posts here and on my talk page. Furthermore, I haven't claimed you are the sole maintainer. This article needs editors familiar with every one of the languages used... and this is the English Wikipedia. It is not practical because Wikipedia cannot and does not work as a translation service, and is just not setup to deal with it. The fact that it is also, essentially, a near-limitless list is also a problem. From reading the "keep" comment on this page, I get the strong impression that none of them have them have even considered the practicalities of the matter... but such is the nature of AFD. - Motor (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and for the same logic Zaian gives in regard to the similar list of African cities: "hundreds of cities, hundreds of languages"---how would one limit such a list? ---Charles 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most cities have the same name in all other languages (except for transliteration to other writing systems). Why do some cities have different names? Because they are both old and notable, and because they were notable they were spoken of in other languages before there was a notion of "official" names, and the names used became entrenched of old in those other languages. These entrenched names for venerable cities are the exception, not the rule, and the list is really finite. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor and Charles. Here, all the translations seem to be uninteresting, except as a word in another language. Mango juice^talk 17:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Keep. I find it useful and informative. Wikipedia is full of a mess of trash (especially from North American user) that deserve deletion, I can't understand why attention switched on this entry. --Attilios 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Motor. -Dawson 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, informative, useful, and assists in English users to cross-reference non-English sources and Non-English as a first language users to find relevant references. And if the list is incomplete, perhaps the nominator can contribute by moving it towards completion than in destroying that which he does not understand. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor & Charles.--Isotope23 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguments about incompleteness and verifiability can be levelled at absolutely every article on Wikipedia. This particular article may be seen as an appendix to many articles about the individual towns and cities, and is interesting supplementary reading for anyone studying language, movement of peoples, political history... etc. etc. See Historical linguistics to explore this point. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this information was deleted from several articles about cities, based on the fact that they are available in this list anyway. If we delete this list, the information should be moved piecemeal into the individual articles for fairness but I hardly think it's worth the effort; we'd rather keep this list. Also, names of cities say a lot about the history of the counties that speak those languages (eg Hungarian names often reflect German influence, due to historical reasons), they are not just a random collection of data. Moreover, most names are, in fact, verifiable from the interwiki links of the specific cities. Adam78 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This information is much more likely to be useful divided up into the respective articles. I don't think we need articles of List of stuff in different languages. Wickethewok 19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reason why this isn't in the respective articles is because some places have too many alternate names—I found these pages to be very useful. —Khoikhoi 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete (vote changed, see below - comment still kinda stands) This sort of case... I can see how it's useful, and agree with most of the comments to keep, but even so, it just doesn't feel like encyclopedic material to me, not even as a list. In reply to a few above comment, I don't think it is "arrogant" (And would warn against personal attacks) to want an English encyclopedia to be in English - there are other language ones for just that reason. That being said, it is perfectly reasonable to, on an article, name it both in English and its native language(s). Naming it in every language one can think of, though, seems too broad. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, so, here's a fun story. I just went back to look at this article, and it was a totally different page than came up last time I went to see it before my first comment. I have no idea what I was looking at before, but it seemed to make sense for what I thought I was looking at, only it was much, much shorter. Having looked again, this looks much more decent a list than I thought before, and so now say keep. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To claim unverifiability when this is about the most verifiable article seems odd. And naming an article with only its native language(s) leads to a POV debate in nearly every article Gdańsk vs. Danzig, Kosova vs. Kosovo, Ephesus vs. Efes, etc., etc. In order not to burden each article with every (minority and/or historical) language associated with each city, it seems appropriate to collect them centrally. It tends to avoid the fights, so we can know that what the Polish call Gdańsk the Germans call Danzig, and if the user is burdened by accidentally being bombarded by what the French (who invaded and occupied the city) or Russians (ditto) or Swedes (ditto) and Chinese (who did none of the above) call the city, where's the harm? Carlossuarez46 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary or an orthographic listing. —Centrx→talk 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Let me explain. Suppose you wanted to know the etymology of the English word algebra. What would you do? You would of course look it up in an etymological dictionary. That is precisely what an etymological dictionary is for: to answer that kind of question. You would find that it is a word of Arabic origin. However, suppose your question was not "What is the etymology of algebra?", but rather "What words are there in English that have an Arabic origin?", a very different question. At this point, an etymological dictionary would be of little use. What you need is a list. Sure enough, the Wikipedia does have precisely such a list: the List of English words of Arabic origin. (There are also a List of English words of Sanskrit origin, a List of English words of Portuguese origin, and possibly others.) Why is it useful to have such lists as Names of European cities in different languages, List of European rivers with alternative names, List of European regions with alternative names, and others? Precisely because it is extremely unusual, in the universe of all city names, river names, region names, etc., in the entire world, for these to have such multiple names (exactly in the same way as it is unusual for English words to be of Arabic origin). Consider the map of any country, Britain, for example. While London has a variety of names in foreign languages, there are thousands of place names such as Acton, Brixton, Croydon, Kilburn, Luton, Paddington, Tottenham, and so on, that don't. While Cornwall has a variety of interesting names in foreign languages, most English counties don't, e.g. Essex, Middlesex, Sussex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and so on. Ditto for river names. And it would be exactly the same if you considered the map of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, etc. In order to use a dictionary (such as the Wiktionary) to find the foreign-language forms, you would have to know a priori which forms to look for, i.e., you would have to know already which place names have foreign-language forms. But how can you know that in advance? In other words, the purpose of these lists is to answer questions such as: "What European cities have alternate forms in foreign languages?", "What European rivers have alternate forms in foreign languages?", "What European regions have alternate forms in foreign languages?", etc. These are all very different questions than "What names does Paddington have in foreign languages, if any?" (which you can look up in the Wiktionary), but those are precisely the questions that linguists, historians, toponymists ask. Why? Because the fact that a city has a multiplicity of foreign-language forms has great historical and linguistic implications, and it is the responsibility of the linguist, the historian, and the toponymist to study the reasons why that happened. To repeat, these lists answer a completely different type of questions than the ones that are answered by dictionaries, such as the Wiktionary. Pasquale 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep if this is unencyclopedic, I don't know what an encyclopedia is. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) repeted "vote" from above[reply]
Strong Keep apart from the obvious practical uses and the simple demand for it, there's a good (rather bad) number of disputes and even edit wars concerning the mention-or-not of names in other languages (often fueled by prejudices against specific languages, historical rivalies etc.) in main articles, for which in several cases a referal to this page has proven the only realistic modus vivendi. Another aspects is that de facto the English language Wikipedia had a unique function going with the language's status as lingua franca: other languages mainly refer to the English version, but cannot do so (and often then provide access to informatio worth using in the Engkish wikipedia)) when they don't find the equivalent in their own languages Fastifex 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pasquale. Aguerriero (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm persuaded by the argument of Pasquale above, but I would strongly argue for splitting the list by country and distinguishing them as local name, alternate local or historical names, and foreign translations. -- Slowmover 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and not hurtful. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedykeep. --Irpen 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a translating dictionary (or gazetteer). If you want to know the foreign name for something, or the etymology as above, an encyclopedia is not the place to look. What could be less encyclopedic than something that you wouldn't look in an encyclopedia for ? Usefulness is neither necessary nor sufficient for keeping articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-fulfilling philosophy. If the deletionists get their way all the way, no-one will use Wikipedia to look up anything, because you know you won't find what you're looking for. Then, by definition, all topics will have become unwikipedic. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Usefulness is neither necessary nor sufficient" - oh yes it is! Otherwise what is the purpose of Wiki? And it's better than being useless! Folks at 137 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as unwikipedic, just encyclopedic or not. The Yellow Pages are useful, but not encyclopedic; a book of logs and trig functions might be useful, but not encyclopedic; the instructions that come with a washing machine are useful, but not encyclopedic; and so on. Dicdefs are useful, and they get deleted every day because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pasquale and Fastifex. Olessi 00:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Masterhatch 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please. Tychocat 07:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This page is extremly useful when doing research and using non-English and/or older literature. Unfortunately the interwiki linkage doesn't always work, especially for smaller languages. Travelbird 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. —Agathoclea 08:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I've found it very helpful when sub editing articles translated into English. Some alternatives are radically different (eg, Reval/ Tallinn or Dun Laoghaire/ Queenstown) and can reflect political or population changes. Others are more subtle (eg, Arkhangelsk/ Archangelsk or Nizhny Novgorod/ Nijni-Novgorod) resulting from varied conversions to Roman alphabet from Cyrillic or Greek. The page has value and is a central reference point that avoids cultural and national quarrels. Folks at 137 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -lethe ^{talk +} 18:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kieran T and Pasquale. --Qviri (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pasquale Riadlem 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Folks at 137 above; the fact is that those "cultural and national quarrels" often make this information remarkably difficult to come by, especially for the cities where the other names are vital -- some variants are often edited out of controversial articles. It is an extremely useful list. If someone comes across an article on someone born in __, at Wikipedia or elsewhere, they may not find out where that is without this entry. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Pasquale; moreover, I only fouind the article because of my need for it. Please Keep!Reimelt 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Nick C 17:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.