Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chilean regions

There seems to be some disagreement over the name used for Chile's regions in articles, templates and categories. The issue to be solved is if we can agreen when the regions long names and short names should be used respectively. Chile has currently 15 regions, of these 3 has both long and short versions of their name (versions that vary significantly) these are:

I do not see why a region should in every instance be named by its full name when its short name is equally acepted and easily understood. As far as to my understanding Chilean usage for refering to its regions is commonly the short name of regions, while official and legal documents may write the full name or even the regions number. I would like to argue that templates, categories and articles in general should use the short name while reserving the long name to illustrate points (Antarctic claim, Ibáñez colonization policy, O'Higgins legacy). Any thoughts? Chiton (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The article can illustrate these points in their bodies (Anctartic claim, etc, etc.). The point is that the long names are actually the names people uses the most. I live in Libertador O'Higgins Region, and every Friday I see tens of posters in the road which say, by example, "Super Pollo desde siempre apoyando al deporte de la región del Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins, Deportes Colchagua." We both know the names are fairly long (Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena is acceptable), but as I mentioned earlier, these are the names of the regions, and we should abide by that, not because there are some shorter versions of their names. I posted at your thread in ANI some links which prove these names are actually used in English, and as user Beyond My Ken pointed out, COMMONNAME does not apply here.

Diego Grez (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

as user Beyond My Ken pointed out, COMMONNAME does not apply here - Yes, I wrote that, but I think I badly expressed what I was getting at. I meant that WP:COMMONNAME does not apply with regard to determining whether there are English-language common names which should be used, but the intent of COMMONNAME still holds in regard to the Spanish-language names: if these regions are known by shortened everyday Spanish-language names, then those names should be used here, and not the much longer official names. The point made in the AN/I discussion about Rhode Island is an exact analogy. We don't go around saying "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations", we simply say "Rhode Island", so if there are common names for these Chilean regions (a question I know nothing about), they should be used. The simple existence of the usage of the longer name is not sufficient to establish common usage, one has to dig deeper than that, and your personal experiences, while useful as a guide, are original research and cannot be determinative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, are these regions covered at all on Spanish Wikipedia? If so, what do they use? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
At least for the categoies they use the short version for Aysén, O'Higgins and Magallanes regions (which is what Im arguing for) and no the mess Diego Grez has created here. Chiton (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's begin with Aisén (which is to me the most obvious case). The following links are proof of the acepted and generalized use of "Región de Aysén" or "Región de Aisén" to refer to the region. The usage by civilian authorities and in government websites and reports shows that it is totably acepted and common to refer to the region by such name.

  • 1, official regional government site refers to the region as "Región de Aysén".
  • 2, Chile's official meteorological agency refers to the region as "Región de Aisén".
  • 3 Chilean government official website refers of Pilar Cuevas Mardones as intendant of "Región de Aysén" .
  • 4 Chile's Ministry of Public Works calls the region "Región de Aysén" in the title of their 2011 report on that region.
  • 5, Corporación Nacional Forestal, a government agency refers to the region as "Región de Aysén" in their homepage.

Here is some evidence of the short name use in English:

What else could be said, the common name should be applied at least to the categories and navigation boxes containing the region names. User:Newyorkbrad has pointed out here that:

I know nothing about the names of the regions of Chile, but I can observe it's quite credible that in most contexts, a region might be referred to by a common shortening of its name rather than the full official name. After all, for example, the full name of Rhode Island in the United States is "the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," but we wouldn't write in an article "Jones was born in 1973 in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," or list Brown University in the category "colleges and universities in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." I suspect that this may be a similar situation, where common sense and common usage govern whether in a given context the longer-form or shorter-form name ought to be used.

I do fully agree with Newyorkbrad. I think the analogy made is good. Aysen region does for obvious reasons do not have and official English name but it has a most common English name and a most common Spanish name and both are the short versions without "del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo". Chiton (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy keeping the articles' names as they are now (with their full name versions, referenced in the respective articles), and reverting the categories to the shorter names. Is that something we can both agree? ('cos, as it seems, we are the only two WP Chile editors available). I think you pointed out the Spanish Wikipedia somewhere in this discussion as an example. I'll take Magallanes y de la Antártica Chilena for the point I want to make here: Spanish Wikipedia uses the full name version for the article name. es:Región de Magallanes y de la Antártica Chilena; which they also keep for the category of the respective region es:Categoría:Región de Magallanes y de la Antártica Chilena. However, they use (mostly) the shorter versions for, say, Museums of Magallanes Region. es:Categoría:Museos de la Región de Magallanes. Diego Grez (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree on reverting categories to Magallanes Region, Aysén Region, O'Higgins Region and Aruacanía Region on the basis that wikipedia needs to refer to its subjects by correct but also, when possible, by their common names and as such Chilean regions clearly have names more common than other while equally valid. I said this last thing to justify the names beyond any arbitrary "gentlemens agreement". Chiton (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is, in this case at least, clear on the naming policy. The shorter, more common, region names are the ones that should be used in the article tiles and category names. Spanish wikipedia is not a good point for comparisson as they are their own project, and they do several things differently from the English Wikipedia (including using the scientific names for all animals, plants, etc.; which the English WP:COMMONNAME clearly opposes).
Thereupon, I suggest that no compromise agreement is made and that WP:COMMONNAME be upheld in its entirety (i.e., Chiton's position). Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

USPLACE discussion

There is a deep, thought provoking discussion of the future of USPLACE at Talk:Nashville#Requested move for anyone to join. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --MelanieN (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternate names

The section Alternate names says “Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article;”, whereas MOS:LEADALT says “if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section”. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Official name as default name

So I've read this and some of the discussions, and just wanted to make sure I'm reading the Geographic naming guidelines in the collectively understood manner. Just asking for help applying this Thanks in advance.

Would this be the order of questions I should ask to make sure an existing place has the "best" name? 1. Does Place X have a widely accepted English name used in a modern context? If yes, use that. If no, move to question #2. 2. Does Place X have a single modern local name? If yes, use that. If no, move to question #3. 3. Does Place X have a single modern official name? If yes, use that. If no, editors should decide on means to figure it out.

Would this set of questions in this order be at least a first pass of the application of the Naming Guidelines? Thanks all.AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Another USPLACE discussion

Talk:Beverly Hills, California this time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)/Archives/2012/August&oldid=1137425716"