Disputatio:Kiovia

Deleting the English translation[fontem recensere]

What if a reader doesn't happen to read Cyrillic? I had a hell of a time figuring out that this was Kiev. I suggest that, for articles with different alphabets, OR for countries with more than one native language, we can bend the one-translation-only rule. GiovaneScuola2006 06:12, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English? But this is neither an English topic nor the English wikipedia. Now, I don't see that there should be an objection to a transliteration being added. But why English? —Myces Tiberinus 11:03, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are given more than 50 translations:

[[ar:كييف]] [[be:Кіеў]] [[bg:Киев]] [[bn:কিয়েভ]] [[ca:Kíev]] [[cs:Kyjev]] [[cu:Кыѥвъ]] [[cy:Kiev]] [[da:Kiev]] [[de:Kiew]] [[el:Κίεβο]] [[en:Kiev]] [[eo:Kievo]] [[es:Kiev]] [[et:Kiiev]] [[eu:Kiev]] [[fa:کیف]] [[fi:Kiova]] [[fr:Kiev]] [[he:קייב]] [[hi:कीव]] [[hr:Kijev]] [[hu:Kijev]] [[hy:Կիև]] [[id:Kiev]] [[it:Kiev]] [[ja:キエフ]] [[ka:კიევი]] [[ko:키예프]] [[lb:Kiew]] [[lt:Kijevas]] [[lv:Kijeva]] [[mo:Киев]] [[nl:Kiev]] [[nn:Kiev]] [[no:Kiev]] [[os:Киев]] [[pl:Kijów]] [[pms:Chijv]] [[pt:Kiev]] [[ro:Kiev]] [[ru:Киев]] [[scn:Kiev]] [[simple:Kiev]] [[sk:Kyjev]] [[sl:Kijev]] [[sr:Кијев]] [[sv:Kiev]] [[tg:Киев]] [[tr:Kiev]] [[uk:Київ]] [[vi:Kiev]] [[yi:קיעװ]] [[zh:基輔]]

I think the basic idea is, that interwiki links link to the translations, not these links behind the de:lemma. These translations in the content are an extra benefit and mostly redundant. I think the idea behind those links after the de:lemma is to provide just the translations which are especially important for that topic. If you cannot read Cyrillic or Korean (ko:키예프) you just have to click on it and mostly you'll find an interwiki link on thze linked page, providing a language you understand. If I want to write Chiova in Japanese, I can do that: キエフ. :-) Ok, I just did a copy/paste ... --Roland (disp.) 08:23, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about those people who do not understand English? We would have to add the translation into Spanish, Norwegian, Chinese and Hindi to the first sentence of every article we write! No: In my view, if you wish to know the name in another language, just hover your mouse over the "other languages" section in the left column, below the search box and the toolbox. Only the "official" name of the city (or, for persons, their name in their native language) should go in the article text.

Regarding countries with multiple official languages: In most cases, only one language is relevant. Antwerp being in the Flemish part of Belgium should in my view only have the Flemish name and not fr:Anvers as well, just like a city in the Wallon part should only get its French name and not the Flemish name as well. For cities where no language really dominates (such as possibly Bruxelles), of course we should add the two relevant languages to the article text. What's your view on this? Greetings, --UV 09:26, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious UV, what do you think about Panormus?Italian and Sicilian have pretty equal dominance there, Italian being the official language and Sicilian the parratu.--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:34, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include them both. Italian should be included since it is the only official language there (at least I think so), and Sicilian has my sympathies as a regional dialect/language that should be preserved since every regional language enriches our cultural heritage. --UV 16:30, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually tricky, and I'm playing advocatus Satanae because I'm Southern Italian. But to give each Sicilian city in Italian AND Italian (Palermo, Paliermu, Agrigento, Girgenti ... ), then you'd have to do the same for Campania (Napoli, Napule, Salerno, Salierno ... ) and then for every other region in Italy. Italy is a little peculiar in that way: the dialects are more a part of daily life than in Germany, say. And I would have no objection to someone starting a Neapolitan Wiki, Sicilian Wiki, etc. I think those would be utterly noble endeavors. In fact, I think I'd like to give it a shot. How does one start a new Wiki language? GiovaneScuola2006 18:59, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are too late ;-) http://nap.wikipedia.org and http://scn.wikipedia.org already exist. --Roland (disp.) 19:15, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I don't know a whole lot about Bruxelles, so I picked a city I knew about. The article already has both.--Ioshus ^(disp) 16:45, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with the above opposing statements. I think the best way, if you want to show how a title is pronounced, is to include some IPA. It is hard to provide a roman letter transliteration because not all letters were pronounced as they are in the english alphabet. Kiev for instance would sound properly like Kie_w with a roman pronunciation. As UV pointed out, what about the readers who don't know english? I don't think english should be the language that gets preference in the treatment of foreign titles, lingua franca though it might be. What do you think?--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:34, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Chiovia" to "Kiovia"?[fontem recensere]

Possibly, the article should be called "Kiovia", as this version is more widespread? (Google gives 2 380 for Kiovia and 3 390 for Kioviensis vs. 1050 for Chiovia and 9 for Chioviensis.) Moreover, "k" reflects the real pronuntiation of the initial consonant of the city's name much better than "ch". -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:40, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add 16 for Chiovensis. Google confused me by claiming 1,950,000 for this latter form, but then suddenly changed its mind ...

I think you are right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The /ki/ combination can be transcribed into Latin in four ways, none of which has more advantages or disadvantages than the other:

ci — good for the reconstructed pronunciation, bad everywhere else (e.g. Vicipaedia)
chi — good for the Italian pronunciation, bad for pronunciations where h is not silent (e.g. Slovachia)
ki — good for all pronunciations, bad for orthography (e.g. Kiovia)
qui — good for orthography, bad for non-Spanish pronunciations where u is not silent (not generally used, except for modern Arabic loans to reflect /q/, such as Iraquia)

Ergo in cases like that, we should just use what is most common, which I agree is Kiovia for the Ukrainian capital. --Gabriel Svoboda 14:41, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'll move the page. OK? -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:49, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. ¶ And what's the need for qui to represent the /ki/ sound in a Latin word for Iraq? After all, the spelling in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1911) is IRAK, and modern English gets along just fine by calling the people Iraqis. For that matter, did anyone suggest preserving the Arabic sound as just plain Q in the Latin spelling Iraqia? If an encyclopedia is going to flout classical orthography by freely using K (and it might as well, when it needs to), why not also flout the convention that Q must (must, must) be followed by U? IacobusAmor 17:17, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]