![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a global map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Is Manila considered an exonym? The Tagalog name of the place is Maynila.
Shall we add a section on Israel? It may get too long, as there are hundreds of English biblical exonyms... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicky Ng ( talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Where do we added exonym names? Especially medieval kings have different names in different languages. For instance Karl=Chales, Knud=Canute, Svend=Sweyn
Are English names for places in England, Wales and Ireland really exonyms given the fact that the majority population of the three countries speak English as a native language ? Travelbird 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
...? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)NOTE: English is the most frequently spoken language in some of the locations listed below.
Ukrainian names, originally spelled the Russian way (e.g. Kharkov, Russian: Харьков) undergo renaming in English ( Kharkiv, Ukrainian: Харкiв). Russian language is very popular in Ukraine but the official language is Ukrainian only (as of today). Please make suggestions whether there is a need for a list of Ukrainian cities renamed following derussification.-- Atitarev ( talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggesting rather something like:
e.g.:
As the English exonyms are likely to be the English WP page names, less likely to require fixing or redirecting, likely to be what an English WP user is searching for in the first place, etc. — RVJ ( talk) 10:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Several of the entries under Zhongguo/PRC are not strictly-speaking "English exonyms" so much as they are the Chinese names for the cities (etc) in a pre-pinyin romanization system. Since the romanization system was developed by non-Chinese (as opposed to currently-standard Hanyu Pinyin) I guess in one way they are "exonyms", but if we carry that logic to its extreme, then every name from a country where roman is not the standard script and the most common romanization standard was not developed by people of that country qualifies as an "exonym".
While I am sure the same is true of Iran, India, etc., an example from Japan would be appropriate:
(i)every city in Japan is conventionally referred to in English by a
romanized version of their Japanese name;
(ii)the system used was
not developed by the Japanese themselves;
(iii)the Japanese already have
their own romanization standard;
(iv)the indigenous Japanese spelling is effectively the same as the foreign one for most words;
(v)however, if the same standard that is applied to Japan as to China, numerous place-names used in English to describe Japan would have to be classified as exonyms;
(vi)these include "
Fukuoka" (Hukuoka), "
Shizuoka" (Sizuoka), "
Hiroshima" (Hirosima), "
Aichi" (Aiti) and "
Fukushima" (Hukusima).
(vii)The list, however, only gives ONE English place-name for Japan as an exonym -- "Japan" itself!
Of course, the above scenario is ridiculous, and the Japanese themselves in fact use both romanization systems in practice. However, it is all irrelevant, since both romanization systems are just ways of representing the native Japanese names in the roman alphabet. The same appears to be true for several items currently included in the list, including "Tientsin" and "Tsingtao". I don't know enough about Chinese romanization systems to be sure how many of them should be removed under my proposal, so I won't implement it myself, but it's something to think about.
elvenscout742 ( talk) 06:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Wiking removed "Herzegovina" from the list of exonyms. When I reinserted it, Wiking removed it again, with the explanation "because it is transliterated into English and a different name is not being used, see intro". However, it's not a simple transliteration. Most Bosnians use a Latin-derived alphabet, where "Hercegovina" is the native form. "Herzegovina" is a different form used in English, thus is an exonym. How is this different from "Ghent" vs. "Gent", or "Hanover" vs. "Hannover"? It's a different spelling. Please explain why "Herzegovina" should not be readded to the list. Dohn joe ( talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
If I might chip in:
In the first place, the logic of the
WP:BRD process is that when you (Wiking) make a bold edit that is reverted the next step is to discuss the matter until it's resolved, not make a statement of your position and replace the bold edit. So I think
this needs reverting; I suggest either you self-revert or a third party should do so.
On the substantive issue the definition in the introduction suggests only "a minimum degree of difference" is required, ie merely more than "a simple transliteration of a different script" and more than a simple "omission of diacritical marks" (though there are exceptions even to this). So I don't see how "Herzogovina" fails as an exonym; the Croatian letter "c" and the Cyrillic letter "
ц" (usually rendered "ts" or "c" in English) are rendered "z" here: more than a "simple transliteration", then. And there are plenty of other examples here of words using an alphabet with different values being exonyms in English (the Welsh section
here, for example).
I'm also unclear about your argument that "Herzogovina" is just the English spelling for the place; surely that is part of
the definition of an exonym, isn't it? There's no stipulation there that they must be alternative names, or to exclude names that "could be spelled... the same way as locally, but... are not". I think if you wish to re-negotiate that definition, and therefore the parameters of this article, then I suggest opening a discussion on the matter.
As for "if we listed all toponyms in Polish, Czech, Slovak, etc" that qualify as exonyms "the list would be endless": this page states that it is is "a non-exhaustive summary list". We already have breakout pages on exonyms for German, French and Italian toponyms; if the list of exonyms from Polish, Czech or Slovak etc gets too long we can always do the same with them. But using the lack of entries as an argument against inclusion is disingenuous.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
21:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
where are these?-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 12:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Dohn joe I've reverted this series of edits as you simply appear to be removing statements from the article which are correct and helpful to readers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
These are the items I removed from the list as being unreferenced annotations; in other words, WP:Original research. If there are references for these statements, feel free to reinsert them into the article.
Dohn joe ( talk) 03:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.
I've reverted this, pushing through the same deletions a third time is edit warring. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. When you have at least 3 editors who have commented on your understanding of attributable content then maybe we can discuss additional sourcing. Right now you are just trashing useful and uncontroversial content. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the Austrian and German names in the list and most of them seem right, albeit currently unsourced. I think a "balance of probability" argument applies here, i.e. we should leave the original list in the article because the balance of probability is that they are correct. Even if there are incorrect entries, they will flushed out sooner by moving to my next proposed step than by engaging in an edit war. So, step 2 is to work together to provide authoritative references. To that end I propose Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English, 2004, as a starting point for the German names. This is the biggest and most comprehensive dictionary in this well-known publisher's range and has a list of the most common geographical exonyms, funnily enough, most of them coincide with the list. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
diff *Brugge/Bruges : Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area). Seems to be a particular urgency to delete this. Can I ask why a citation needed tag was not used instead? In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Brugge Walking Tour: Travel On The Dollar - 2011 "Part of Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern part of Belgium, Brugge is a postcard perfect ..."
Can I ask, have you deleted any content from the article which wasn't specifically approved, suggested or urged by a visiting editor from the various projects? In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
There are places in Canada and the United States that have names in English and various native languages. I have begun a section for the US with "Denali", the native name for Mount McKinley. Please feel free to add more. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I made some additions for Turkish place names. I also think that the explanation about the use of dotted İ in case of İstanbul is redundant. There are two versions of the same letter in Turkish. Dotted version is like i in tin and the undotted version is like e in open. İstanbul as well as İzmir, İznik and İzmit all have dotted versions. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Lonely Planet Turkey ed. Verity Campbell 2007 Page 233 "There are also flights between İzmir and Europe on various European airlines (see p672). With the launch of İzmir Airlines, direct flights to Europe will greatly increase, and İzmir is billed to become one of Turkey's biggest hubs." and Page 291 "Original İznik tiles are antiquities and cannot be exported from Turkey, but new tiles make great, if not particularly cheap, souvenirs."
Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names: Approaches towards the Resolution of an Apparent Contradiction Peter Jordan, Milan Orožen Adamič, Paul Woodman, Vienna 2007 Page 210 [lists Istanbul, as an English exonym of İstanbul. Istanbul appears to be the only English exonym listed for any Turkish city].
I'd like a discussion on the bracketed explanation of the usage of Calcutta. From my experience Calcutta is still widely used to refer to Kolkata, as most current English-speakers have grown up with the name Calcutta. I propose rendering a variation of 'declining in use' or 'going out of fashion' instead, to reflect the name change being fairly recent in the scheme of things. ( Cesdeva ( talk) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC))
At present I would apply the term to those too, they still seem to endure despite a noticeable decline. On an interesting side note, i notice the term 'Madras' certainly lives on in common usage within the name Madras curry sauce and 'Bombay' within Bombay Biryani. Not the only usage, i'm just in the mood for curry ( Cesdeva ( talk) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC))
I'm glad that people are expanding this list, but it's worrying that so many entries are unsourced. Without a source, how can we know that each item is a genuine exonym rather than just a name? bobrayner ( talk) 23:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The list contains the phrase "now historically" 36 times. What is this supposed to mean? On the face of it, it is a contradiction in terms. Does it mean that the name was once common but is now historical? But everything historical was once common; that's the definition of history! Whatever it means, it should be re-phrased to make the meaning clear. Scolaire ( talk) 11:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Annotating an exonym as "historical" also needs to be referenced as, in my experience, there is a tendency for this to be a matter of WP:POV. For example, Braunschweig is assumed by Wikipedia to be the modern English name rather than Brunswick, but Langenscheidt would seem to recognize the latter as still acceptable, suggesting at the very least that the jury should be out on that one. and I'm sure there are other, better, examples... -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Right so i'm proposing that methods be discussed regarding the tidying up of annotations on the list. The list is becoming rather cluttered with annotations and i feel a method should be employed to make it more organised. My proposal involves a coloured asterisk system, as shown below: ( Cesdeva ( talk) 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC))
China
Some of the apparent "exonyms" for China are the result of change in romanization of Chinese to modern pinyin, for example the change from "Tientsin" to "Tianjin". Other apparent exonyms are the result of the English name being based on one of the other varieties of Chinese besides Mandarin. Certain names which may now be considered exonyms actually preserve older Mandarin pronunciations which have changed in the intervening centuries.
• Used only in a historical context • Matches Portugese • The "k" preserves the Mandarin pronunciation prior to sound changes which began in the mid-17th century. • Used by geographers until 1945, from the Manchu language name. • The name Manchuria indicates exclusively a geographical area and not a political entity. Manchuria is not a word in Chinese or in Manchu ... The term refers to the area now covered by Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, and the northeastern part of Inner Mongolia. • From the Russian rendition of the Mongolian language name QalƔan. • From the Portuguese pronunciation of the name of the province Guangdong in which the city Guangzhou is located • From the local Min Nan pronunciation
Zhongguo/PRC
- Beijing : Peking; [1] [2] • •
- Guangzhou : Canton [3] * •
- Nanjing : Nanking •
- Xiamen : Amoy [4] • •
- Chongqing : Chungking •
- Shantou : Swatow •
- Fuzhou : Foochow •
- Shenyang : Mukden or Mookden [5] •
- Zhangjiakou : Kalgan [6] • •
- Lüshun : Port Arthur •
- Chang Jiang : Yangtze River
- Cantonese Hoeng gong : Hong Kong
- Cantonese Ou mun : Macau, also Macao • •
- Northeast China / Dongbei : Manchuria •
Zhōnghuá Mínguó/ROC
- Taiwan : Formosa • •
- Penghu islands : Pescadores
- Kinmen / Jinmen : Quemoy
( Cesdeva ( talk) 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC))
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Ok, i understand. I'd noticed the various Asterisks. Are there a variety of other symbols that could be implemented? ( Cesdeva ( talk) 22:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC))
Should Zara (for Zadar) and Ragusa (for Dubrovnik) be included? Both of these names show up in historical contexts don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.19 ( talk) 22:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This is incorrectly described both here and in the main article as the former, old-fashioned name of Vlissingen, but 'Netherlands' should of course be deleted. It's presumably only there because the main article is headed 'Flushing, Netherlands' to disambiguate it from other Flushings, particularly the one in New York. The former name is 'Flushing', full stop. But there's an unresolved debate on the 'Flushing, Netherlands' talk page about whether the whole article should be renamed, since most English-speakers nowadays know the place as Vlissingen and are unlikely to look it up under 'Flushing', or even see any connection between the two names. I see that one or two diehards on that talk page are trying to insist that 'this is the English Wikipedia, so we should stick to the proper English names'. They then make an irrelevant comparison to 'Munich' versus 'München' - but 'Munich' is still the only current English name, whereas 'Flushing' simply no longer is. 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 16:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't the town of Oświęcim now be referred to in English (and perhaps even in German) using its Polish endonym (perhaps minus diacritics) because its German exonym Auschwitz (even if normal English usage pre-WWII) is now associated so completely with the Nazi concentration camp?
And were other German exonyms (such as Posen for Poznań or Bromberg for Bydgoszcz) commonly used before the war, but fell into disuse afterwards? -- GCarty ( talk) 08:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this a typo? Should the exonym be "Ivory Coast"? Jnicho02 ( talk) 09:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a global map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Is Manila considered an exonym? The Tagalog name of the place is Maynila.
Shall we add a section on Israel? It may get too long, as there are hundreds of English biblical exonyms... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicky Ng ( talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Where do we added exonym names? Especially medieval kings have different names in different languages. For instance Karl=Chales, Knud=Canute, Svend=Sweyn
Are English names for places in England, Wales and Ireland really exonyms given the fact that the majority population of the three countries speak English as a native language ? Travelbird 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
...? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 14:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)NOTE: English is the most frequently spoken language in some of the locations listed below.
Ukrainian names, originally spelled the Russian way (e.g. Kharkov, Russian: Харьков) undergo renaming in English ( Kharkiv, Ukrainian: Харкiв). Russian language is very popular in Ukraine but the official language is Ukrainian only (as of today). Please make suggestions whether there is a need for a list of Ukrainian cities renamed following derussification.-- Atitarev ( talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggesting rather something like:
e.g.:
As the English exonyms are likely to be the English WP page names, less likely to require fixing or redirecting, likely to be what an English WP user is searching for in the first place, etc. — RVJ ( talk) 10:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Several of the entries under Zhongguo/PRC are not strictly-speaking "English exonyms" so much as they are the Chinese names for the cities (etc) in a pre-pinyin romanization system. Since the romanization system was developed by non-Chinese (as opposed to currently-standard Hanyu Pinyin) I guess in one way they are "exonyms", but if we carry that logic to its extreme, then every name from a country where roman is not the standard script and the most common romanization standard was not developed by people of that country qualifies as an "exonym".
While I am sure the same is true of Iran, India, etc., an example from Japan would be appropriate:
(i)every city in Japan is conventionally referred to in English by a
romanized version of their Japanese name;
(ii)the system used was
not developed by the Japanese themselves;
(iii)the Japanese already have
their own romanization standard;
(iv)the indigenous Japanese spelling is effectively the same as the foreign one for most words;
(v)however, if the same standard that is applied to Japan as to China, numerous place-names used in English to describe Japan would have to be classified as exonyms;
(vi)these include "
Fukuoka" (Hukuoka), "
Shizuoka" (Sizuoka), "
Hiroshima" (Hirosima), "
Aichi" (Aiti) and "
Fukushima" (Hukusima).
(vii)The list, however, only gives ONE English place-name for Japan as an exonym -- "Japan" itself!
Of course, the above scenario is ridiculous, and the Japanese themselves in fact use both romanization systems in practice. However, it is all irrelevant, since both romanization systems are just ways of representing the native Japanese names in the roman alphabet. The same appears to be true for several items currently included in the list, including "Tientsin" and "Tsingtao". I don't know enough about Chinese romanization systems to be sure how many of them should be removed under my proposal, so I won't implement it myself, but it's something to think about.
elvenscout742 ( talk) 06:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Wiking removed "Herzegovina" from the list of exonyms. When I reinserted it, Wiking removed it again, with the explanation "because it is transliterated into English and a different name is not being used, see intro". However, it's not a simple transliteration. Most Bosnians use a Latin-derived alphabet, where "Hercegovina" is the native form. "Herzegovina" is a different form used in English, thus is an exonym. How is this different from "Ghent" vs. "Gent", or "Hanover" vs. "Hannover"? It's a different spelling. Please explain why "Herzegovina" should not be readded to the list. Dohn joe ( talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
If I might chip in:
In the first place, the logic of the
WP:BRD process is that when you (Wiking) make a bold edit that is reverted the next step is to discuss the matter until it's resolved, not make a statement of your position and replace the bold edit. So I think
this needs reverting; I suggest either you self-revert or a third party should do so.
On the substantive issue the definition in the introduction suggests only "a minimum degree of difference" is required, ie merely more than "a simple transliteration of a different script" and more than a simple "omission of diacritical marks" (though there are exceptions even to this). So I don't see how "Herzogovina" fails as an exonym; the Croatian letter "c" and the Cyrillic letter "
ц" (usually rendered "ts" or "c" in English) are rendered "z" here: more than a "simple transliteration", then. And there are plenty of other examples here of words using an alphabet with different values being exonyms in English (the Welsh section
here, for example).
I'm also unclear about your argument that "Herzogovina" is just the English spelling for the place; surely that is part of
the definition of an exonym, isn't it? There's no stipulation there that they must be alternative names, or to exclude names that "could be spelled... the same way as locally, but... are not". I think if you wish to re-negotiate that definition, and therefore the parameters of this article, then I suggest opening a discussion on the matter.
As for "if we listed all toponyms in Polish, Czech, Slovak, etc" that qualify as exonyms "the list would be endless": this page states that it is is "a non-exhaustive summary list". We already have breakout pages on exonyms for German, French and Italian toponyms; if the list of exonyms from Polish, Czech or Slovak etc gets too long we can always do the same with them. But using the lack of entries as an argument against inclusion is disingenuous.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
21:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
where are these?-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 12:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Dohn joe I've reverted this series of edits as you simply appear to be removing statements from the article which are correct and helpful to readers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
These are the items I removed from the list as being unreferenced annotations; in other words, WP:Original research. If there are references for these statements, feel free to reinsert them into the article.
Dohn joe ( talk) 03:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.
I've reverted this, pushing through the same deletions a third time is edit warring. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. When you have at least 3 editors who have commented on your understanding of attributable content then maybe we can discuss additional sourcing. Right now you are just trashing useful and uncontroversial content. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the Austrian and German names in the list and most of them seem right, albeit currently unsourced. I think a "balance of probability" argument applies here, i.e. we should leave the original list in the article because the balance of probability is that they are correct. Even if there are incorrect entries, they will flushed out sooner by moving to my next proposed step than by engaging in an edit war. So, step 2 is to work together to provide authoritative references. To that end I propose Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English, 2004, as a starting point for the German names. This is the biggest and most comprehensive dictionary in this well-known publisher's range and has a list of the most common geographical exonyms, funnily enough, most of them coincide with the list. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
diff *Brugge/Bruges : Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area). Seems to be a particular urgency to delete this. Can I ask why a citation needed tag was not used instead? In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Brugge Walking Tour: Travel On The Dollar - 2011 "Part of Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern part of Belgium, Brugge is a postcard perfect ..."
Can I ask, have you deleted any content from the article which wasn't specifically approved, suggested or urged by a visiting editor from the various projects? In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
There are places in Canada and the United States that have names in English and various native languages. I have begun a section for the US with "Denali", the native name for Mount McKinley. Please feel free to add more. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I made some additions for Turkish place names. I also think that the explanation about the use of dotted İ in case of İstanbul is redundant. There are two versions of the same letter in Turkish. Dotted version is like i in tin and the undotted version is like e in open. İstanbul as well as İzmir, İznik and İzmit all have dotted versions. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Lonely Planet Turkey ed. Verity Campbell 2007 Page 233 "There are also flights between İzmir and Europe on various European airlines (see p672). With the launch of İzmir Airlines, direct flights to Europe will greatly increase, and İzmir is billed to become one of Turkey's biggest hubs." and Page 291 "Original İznik tiles are antiquities and cannot be exported from Turkey, but new tiles make great, if not particularly cheap, souvenirs."
Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names: Approaches towards the Resolution of an Apparent Contradiction Peter Jordan, Milan Orožen Adamič, Paul Woodman, Vienna 2007 Page 210 [lists Istanbul, as an English exonym of İstanbul. Istanbul appears to be the only English exonym listed for any Turkish city].
I'd like a discussion on the bracketed explanation of the usage of Calcutta. From my experience Calcutta is still widely used to refer to Kolkata, as most current English-speakers have grown up with the name Calcutta. I propose rendering a variation of 'declining in use' or 'going out of fashion' instead, to reflect the name change being fairly recent in the scheme of things. ( Cesdeva ( talk) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC))
At present I would apply the term to those too, they still seem to endure despite a noticeable decline. On an interesting side note, i notice the term 'Madras' certainly lives on in common usage within the name Madras curry sauce and 'Bombay' within Bombay Biryani. Not the only usage, i'm just in the mood for curry ( Cesdeva ( talk) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC))
I'm glad that people are expanding this list, but it's worrying that so many entries are unsourced. Without a source, how can we know that each item is a genuine exonym rather than just a name? bobrayner ( talk) 23:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The list contains the phrase "now historically" 36 times. What is this supposed to mean? On the face of it, it is a contradiction in terms. Does it mean that the name was once common but is now historical? But everything historical was once common; that's the definition of history! Whatever it means, it should be re-phrased to make the meaning clear. Scolaire ( talk) 11:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Annotating an exonym as "historical" also needs to be referenced as, in my experience, there is a tendency for this to be a matter of WP:POV. For example, Braunschweig is assumed by Wikipedia to be the modern English name rather than Brunswick, but Langenscheidt would seem to recognize the latter as still acceptable, suggesting at the very least that the jury should be out on that one. and I'm sure there are other, better, examples... -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Right so i'm proposing that methods be discussed regarding the tidying up of annotations on the list. The list is becoming rather cluttered with annotations and i feel a method should be employed to make it more organised. My proposal involves a coloured asterisk system, as shown below: ( Cesdeva ( talk) 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC))
China
Some of the apparent "exonyms" for China are the result of change in romanization of Chinese to modern pinyin, for example the change from "Tientsin" to "Tianjin". Other apparent exonyms are the result of the English name being based on one of the other varieties of Chinese besides Mandarin. Certain names which may now be considered exonyms actually preserve older Mandarin pronunciations which have changed in the intervening centuries.
• Used only in a historical context • Matches Portugese • The "k" preserves the Mandarin pronunciation prior to sound changes which began in the mid-17th century. • Used by geographers until 1945, from the Manchu language name. • The name Manchuria indicates exclusively a geographical area and not a political entity. Manchuria is not a word in Chinese or in Manchu ... The term refers to the area now covered by Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, and the northeastern part of Inner Mongolia. • From the Russian rendition of the Mongolian language name QalƔan. • From the Portuguese pronunciation of the name of the province Guangdong in which the city Guangzhou is located • From the local Min Nan pronunciation
Zhongguo/PRC
- Beijing : Peking; [1] [2] • •
- Guangzhou : Canton [3] * •
- Nanjing : Nanking •
- Xiamen : Amoy [4] • •
- Chongqing : Chungking •
- Shantou : Swatow •
- Fuzhou : Foochow •
- Shenyang : Mukden or Mookden [5] •
- Zhangjiakou : Kalgan [6] • •
- Lüshun : Port Arthur •
- Chang Jiang : Yangtze River
- Cantonese Hoeng gong : Hong Kong
- Cantonese Ou mun : Macau, also Macao • •
- Northeast China / Dongbei : Manchuria •
Zhōnghuá Mínguó/ROC
- Taiwan : Formosa • •
- Penghu islands : Pescadores
- Kinmen / Jinmen : Quemoy
( Cesdeva ( talk) 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC))
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Ok, i understand. I'd noticed the various Asterisks. Are there a variety of other symbols that could be implemented? ( Cesdeva ( talk) 22:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC))
Should Zara (for Zadar) and Ragusa (for Dubrovnik) be included? Both of these names show up in historical contexts don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.19 ( talk) 22:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This is incorrectly described both here and in the main article as the former, old-fashioned name of Vlissingen, but 'Netherlands' should of course be deleted. It's presumably only there because the main article is headed 'Flushing, Netherlands' to disambiguate it from other Flushings, particularly the one in New York. The former name is 'Flushing', full stop. But there's an unresolved debate on the 'Flushing, Netherlands' talk page about whether the whole article should be renamed, since most English-speakers nowadays know the place as Vlissingen and are unlikely to look it up under 'Flushing', or even see any connection between the two names. I see that one or two diehards on that talk page are trying to insist that 'this is the English Wikipedia, so we should stick to the proper English names'. They then make an irrelevant comparison to 'Munich' versus 'München' - but 'Munich' is still the only current English name, whereas 'Flushing' simply no longer is. 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 16:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't the town of Oświęcim now be referred to in English (and perhaps even in German) using its Polish endonym (perhaps minus diacritics) because its German exonym Auschwitz (even if normal English usage pre-WWII) is now associated so completely with the Nazi concentration camp?
And were other German exonyms (such as Posen for Poznań or Bromberg for Bydgoszcz) commonly used before the war, but fell into disuse afterwards? -- GCarty ( talk) 08:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this a typo? Should the exonym be "Ivory Coast"? Jnicho02 ( talk) 09:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)