User:OttomanJackson/Use Anglicizations
I believe that since this is an English-lanugage website, Anglicized names should be used.
Examples
Peking, not Beijing
Sinkiang, not Xinjiang
Sian, not Xi'an
Nanking, not Nanjing
Moscow, not Moskva
Lisbon, not Lisboa
Calcutta, not Kolkata,
Bombay, not Mumbai
etc...
Please, leave comments, what do you think of this?
Discussions of Proposed Name Changes[edit]
These are obsolete. This will never happen. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Seconded. In addition to being inaccurate, they are no longer commonly used. siafu (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed per Schmucky and Siafu. GotR Talk 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Use old names before name changes, just as Christiania for events or anything before the 20th century instead of Oslo, or Danzig before the First World War instead of Gdańsk. The same rule applies to Salisbury, Batavia, Chungking, Hankow, Leopoldville, Soochow, Gyeongseong, Godthåb, Madras, Calcutta, etc. 210.5.184.178 (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- In many cases, this proposal conflicts with Wikipedia's policies on WP:COMMONNAME, that the article title should be the term that is used the most by reliable English-language sources. Several users have made this very clear on your move proposal on Talk:Beijing#Renaming article to Peking (discussion). The guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) also repeats the rule to "generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources." (emphasis added) A massive move to automatically use the anglicized name will make this harder if we do not follow what the reliable English-language sources also do. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bad idea. We should use WP:COMMONNAME. If the most common name conflicts with an older attempt at anglicising a name, meh, the distorted version could perhaps be mentioned in the lede but it certainly shouldn't be the title. Stop this campaign of moving geographical articles against consensus and against policy. bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, OttomanJackson. Thanks for the helpful links on my talk page. KaiserWilly (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)