This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Indiana is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for, and sustain comprehensive coverage of the
U.S. state of
Indiana and related subjects on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana Historical Society, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Indiana Historical Society-related articles and topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indiana Historical SocietyWikipedia:GLAM/Indiana Historical SocietyTemplate:WikiProject Indiana Historical SocietyIndiana Historical Society articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Indiana has some of the highest infant mortality rates in the country.
Indiana has some of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation.
Indiana does not offer paid family leave.
Indiana’s firearm mortality rate is almost double the rate of California according to the CDC.
SoCalGoetz (
talk) 19:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Per the Governor of California, although this would probably qualify more as "health and welfare" than culture
SoCalGoetz (
talk) 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see how the Governor of California's comments on Indiana are relevant. Can you imagine if the
California or
Texas articles were full of the things people say about them?
Canute (
talk) 15:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Lol. Yes; one must be careful here. But when their politicians claim that Indiana is "among the most pro-life States in the Nation," when given NEARLY EVERY QUANTIFIABLE METRIC that is most clearly NOT the case
SoCalGoetz (
talk) 02:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)reply
However the avenue for addressing that may be different than doing so on here
SoCalGoetz (
talk) 02:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Link
Is
this link ok? I am trying to add it to reference Indiana's size based off other countries. Thanks,
47.227.95.73 (
talk) 11:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Having said that, in my opinion you don't need to directly source the "about the same size as Portugal" text. We already have an article about Portugal which has sourced information about its area, so I think we could just link to that; "similar in area to
Portugal."
Some might argue that this would be a violation of
WP:SYNTH but I would suggest that it is de minimis, in line with
WP:CALC, and anyway SYNTH says "SYNTH is not a rigid rule."
The edit is subjective and unencyclopedic.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes. It is also meaningless trivia. Few readers of
Indiana will know or care how big
Portugal is, and none will gain any useful insight from this addition. General IzationTalk 21:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oh well, I'll stop adding it now that I've actually gotten a response to this, the only reason I re-added it earlier was because I hadn't gotten one.
47.227.95.73 (
talk) 22:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Osomite Sorry, I didn't see this post before I made a change. The regular use is Etymology. See
MOS:ALTNAME. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your comment. I carefully read ALTNAME.; however, I don't see how you indicating that "The regular use is Etymology. See MOS:ALTNAME." addresses my concerns about the use Etymology rather than Toponymy? "ALTNAME" rule/guidance is about the title of an article. ALTNAME is not provide guidance applicable to the naming of an article's section. Reading it correctly it does not mention "an article's section naming".
Etymologically, toponymy's meaning is "place name". . ."Toponymy, toponymics, or toponomastics is the study of toponyms (proper names of places, also known as place names and geographic names), including their origins, meanings, usage and types. Toponym is the general term for a proper name of any geographical feature. A reference for this article is entitled "Place Name Etymology: Common Elements in Danish Place Names".
Seems that using just "etymology" as a section title is not correct when the section is about discussing and identifying "place names". Perhaps the correct title for such a section would be "Toponymy -Place Name Etymology".
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"toponymy is a taxonomic study of place-names, based on etymological, historical, and geographical information. A place-name is a word or words used to indicate, denote, or identify a geographic locality such as a town, river, or mountain."
Toponymy uses Etymology. I don't see how Etymology is an equivalent "replacement" for Toponymy.
So my cognitive dissonance about this issue remains.
Osomite 🐻
(hablemos) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Etymology? or Toponymy? Isn't the use of the term Etymology incorrect for this section?
There is a section entitled "
Etymology" on the
Indiana page which discusses where the name for the state originated. The title of this section is incorrect.
The term for the study of place names (like the name for a state) is "
Toponymy". By definition, toponymy involves the study of place names.
Whereas, etymology is the study of the origin and evolution of a word's semantic meaning across time. It is the science involved in studying the history of a word or phrase shown by tracing its development and relationships. To claim that etymology involves the naming of a place is not correct.
Toponymy and etymology are related. Toponymy is the study of place names, their origins, meanings, usage, and types. Etymology is the study of the origin and history of words. Toponymy is a branch of onomastics, the study of proper names of all kinds. Etymology is one of the aspects of toponymy, as it deals with the linguistic evolution of place names.
Clearly "toponymy" is the appropriate word for the section.
I make this statement as @
Reywas92: reverted my edit that changed the section title from "Toponymy" to "Etymology". Reywas92's edit summary cites as the reason: "Wait until you find out about
List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States and that practically every state/city/other place articles on Wikipedia uses "Etymology" for this section! It's not inaccurate at all, they're related."
Well, "I found out about the Wikipedia page
List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States is not a convincing argument for changing "Toponymy" to "Etymology". I believe the use of the word "Etymology" in that instance is also incorrect. And the argument that "Practically every state/city/other place articles on Wikipedia uses Etymology" is highly doubtful and provides no support for making the edit.
Reywas92 also edited the
Tonopah, Nevada page changing a long-standing section name of "Toponymy and Pronunciation" to "Etymology and Pronunciation" with the edit summary of "the unnecessary pedantry, etymology is still perfectly accurate". I believe this change to also be incorrect.
Reywas92 cites "Pedantry"? Really. Pedantry is excessive concern with minor details. So Reywas92 being pedantic is a reason to pedantically make an edit that is a mistake.
If Reywas92 is unable to provide a more cogent reason for making this "etymology" edit, I will be reverting it to the more correct "toponymy".
A careful reading of the section currently entitled "
Etymology" reveals that the entire section except for the last paragraph strictly concerns how the state obtained the name "Indiana". This process is called "
Toponymy".
The title "Etymology" is not correct and needs to be revised to "Toponymy" which reflects the content of the section except for the last paragraph.
The last paragraph, which uses the word "etymology" concerns the "Etymology" of "
Hoosier" which is the official demonym for the people of the U.S. state of Indiana. This information should be in its own section entitled "Etymology of Hoosier".
The following provides additional information which supports the renaming of the section from "Etymology" to "Toponymy"
Toponymy and etymology are related but not identical fields of study.
Toponymy focuses on the names of places and their meanings, origins, and uses in different contexts. It examines other aspects of place names, such as their cultural, political, social, and geographical significance, their variations and adaptations in different languages and dialects, their usage in literature and media, their relation to other place names, etc.
Etymology is the study of the origin and evolution of a word's semantic meaning across time. It focuses on an analysis of words involving the origin and the history of a word's changes over time. It involves the use of semantics and the word's variations and adaptations in different languages and dialects have evolved over time.
Sometimes toponymy can use etymology to explain how a place name came to be or how it changed over time. For example, the name London may have originated from a pre-Celtic word meaning ‘place at the navigable or unfordable river’, but it was later Latinised as Londinium by the Romans, then Anglicised as Lunden by the Anglo-Saxons, then influenced by French as Londres by the Normans, and so on. Etymology can help trace these changes and influences and show how the word evolved over time.
Although toponymy and etymology have some relationship. Toponymy can be done in its entirety without the need for the use of etymology. In this section that is the case, its content is purely a study involving toponymy without any support from the study of etymology.
In conclusion, this discussion supports the contention that the section currently labeled "Etymology" is mislabeled and should be renamed to "Toponymy". Additionally, the last paragraph which is an etymology of the word "Hoosier", should be removed from the toponymy section and created as a new section "Etymology of Hoosier"
@
Osomite: You're
tilting at windmills here , and your argument is largely pedantic. Are you right? Probably. Does anyone care? Absolutely not. Most readers of Wikipedia will understand the heading "Etymology" to mean "where did this place name come from?" Most readers of Wikipedia seeing a heading called "Toponymy" will scratch their head and say "huh?" Heck, my browser doesn't even recognize the word and marks it as a spelling error. I seriously doubt you're going to find a lot of support for this proposal.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Your reply doesn't add any substance to the discussion concerning Toponymy, toponymics, or toponomastics is the study of toponyms (proper names of places, also known as place names and geographic names), including their origins, meanings, usage and types.
Would you please stay on subject rather than making a sarcastic commment.
Osomite 🐻
(hablemos) 19:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I think the section at
Saint Petersburg you had changed is reasonable because it discussed the history of the place's changing names. In this case it discusses the origin of the name, which is still in fact etymology. I especially oppose your making of a separate one-paragraph section for "Hoosier". If this is your crusade, don't try to wage it one page at at time because most major cities and states do have such a section that may inlude both the name derivation and a description of its usage.
Reywas92Talk 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Given the broad use of "
etymology" across geographic entries, isn't there a better place to discuss this? I think I understand the point that @
Osomite is making. I also appreciate @
Reyswas92's practicality--"etymology" is commonly used, even if it's less precise. It may be worth noting that the The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford UP) refers regularly to a toponym's etymology ... not a toponym's toponymology. On the other hand, etymology is described as the leading method for toponymy by
Tent and
Rose-Redwood, et al. make a pretty good case that the study of place names should involve a variety of other methods as well. I still prefer the common use or perhaps even something less technical for these headers--like "Origin of name." --
Jaireeodell (
talk) 15:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
You accuse: "If this is your crusade, don't try to wage it one page at at time"? "Crusade"? Seriously. Are you trying to frame my efforts about helping make Wikipedia correct and accurate with some allegorical characterization or do you, in your view, mean it literally? A crusade is a vigorous campaign for political, social, or religious change. Seriously?
A "crusade"? Merde, I am editing Wikipedia "one page at a time" (How else do you do it?). What do you call what you do, "A crusade"? Maybe so. . .
Visa via the definition of "crusade", it becomes quite apparent that Wikipedia has become it own societal religion. It manifests itself in the need for the editor society to control content that is disagreeable and demand that heretics are punished.
It amazes me that the first "tool" the editor society uses is to attack what they disagree with and/or what is not well understood. Where is the Wikipedia tenant of collegiality? Collegiality, "cooperation between colleagues who share responsibility." It's working together to find a solution rather than to attack mainly based upon opinion and few facts or logical discourse.
And about "don't try to wage it one page at at time".
Oh? Exactly what are you proposing? Don't do it at all? Stop?
I also support "Etymology" as the heading. By comparison, on
James (given name) the section is Etymology and not Anthroponymy. Etymology is a word we can assume readers will know, and toponymy is not such a word. Also, as Jaireeodell points out, it is grammatical to refer to a toponym's etymology ... not a toponym's toponymologyWalt Yoder (
talk) 15:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Seriously Walt, that is not a logical argument. It is laughable.
You think it is not appropriate to use words that people are unfamiliar with in Wikipedia articles. I think you miss the point of the purpose of Wikipedia and what you are supposed to be facilitating.
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us,
To not use "toponym" because it is unfamiliar, that is defeating the purpose of the the Wikipedia encyclopedia.
What do you think your efforts as an editor is supposed to achieve? Limiting the acceptable vocabulary words in Wikipedia? Gate Keeping to prevent words that you don't understand from being used?
I would really like to know.
PS I have tried hard not to use any words in my post that would be unfamiliar to you.
Osomite 🐻
(hablemos) 20:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:ALTNAME, If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names" or "Etymology". I have to add that I saw this discussion today, after making a change in the relevant section in a previous day. Apologies. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Indiana is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for, and sustain comprehensive coverage of the
U.S. state of
Indiana and related subjects on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana Historical Society, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Indiana Historical Society-related articles and topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indiana Historical SocietyWikipedia:GLAM/Indiana Historical SocietyTemplate:WikiProject Indiana Historical SocietyIndiana Historical Society articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Indiana has some of the highest infant mortality rates in the country.
Indiana has some of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation.
Indiana does not offer paid family leave.
Indiana’s firearm mortality rate is almost double the rate of California according to the CDC.
SoCalGoetz (
talk) 19:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Per the Governor of California, although this would probably qualify more as "health and welfare" than culture
SoCalGoetz (
talk) 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see how the Governor of California's comments on Indiana are relevant. Can you imagine if the
California or
Texas articles were full of the things people say about them?
Canute (
talk) 15:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Lol. Yes; one must be careful here. But when their politicians claim that Indiana is "among the most pro-life States in the Nation," when given NEARLY EVERY QUANTIFIABLE METRIC that is most clearly NOT the case
SoCalGoetz (
talk) 02:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)reply
However the avenue for addressing that may be different than doing so on here
SoCalGoetz (
talk) 02:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Link
Is
this link ok? I am trying to add it to reference Indiana's size based off other countries. Thanks,
47.227.95.73 (
talk) 11:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Having said that, in my opinion you don't need to directly source the "about the same size as Portugal" text. We already have an article about Portugal which has sourced information about its area, so I think we could just link to that; "similar in area to
Portugal."
Some might argue that this would be a violation of
WP:SYNTH but I would suggest that it is de minimis, in line with
WP:CALC, and anyway SYNTH says "SYNTH is not a rigid rule."
The edit is subjective and unencyclopedic.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes. It is also meaningless trivia. Few readers of
Indiana will know or care how big
Portugal is, and none will gain any useful insight from this addition. General IzationTalk 21:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oh well, I'll stop adding it now that I've actually gotten a response to this, the only reason I re-added it earlier was because I hadn't gotten one.
47.227.95.73 (
talk) 22:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Osomite Sorry, I didn't see this post before I made a change. The regular use is Etymology. See
MOS:ALTNAME. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your comment. I carefully read ALTNAME.; however, I don't see how you indicating that "The regular use is Etymology. See MOS:ALTNAME." addresses my concerns about the use Etymology rather than Toponymy? "ALTNAME" rule/guidance is about the title of an article. ALTNAME is not provide guidance applicable to the naming of an article's section. Reading it correctly it does not mention "an article's section naming".
Etymologically, toponymy's meaning is "place name". . ."Toponymy, toponymics, or toponomastics is the study of toponyms (proper names of places, also known as place names and geographic names), including their origins, meanings, usage and types. Toponym is the general term for a proper name of any geographical feature. A reference for this article is entitled "Place Name Etymology: Common Elements in Danish Place Names".
Seems that using just "etymology" as a section title is not correct when the section is about discussing and identifying "place names". Perhaps the correct title for such a section would be "Toponymy -Place Name Etymology".
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"toponymy is a taxonomic study of place-names, based on etymological, historical, and geographical information. A place-name is a word or words used to indicate, denote, or identify a geographic locality such as a town, river, or mountain."
Toponymy uses Etymology. I don't see how Etymology is an equivalent "replacement" for Toponymy.
So my cognitive dissonance about this issue remains.
Osomite 🐻
(hablemos) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Etymology? or Toponymy? Isn't the use of the term Etymology incorrect for this section?
There is a section entitled "
Etymology" on the
Indiana page which discusses where the name for the state originated. The title of this section is incorrect.
The term for the study of place names (like the name for a state) is "
Toponymy". By definition, toponymy involves the study of place names.
Whereas, etymology is the study of the origin and evolution of a word's semantic meaning across time. It is the science involved in studying the history of a word or phrase shown by tracing its development and relationships. To claim that etymology involves the naming of a place is not correct.
Toponymy and etymology are related. Toponymy is the study of place names, their origins, meanings, usage, and types. Etymology is the study of the origin and history of words. Toponymy is a branch of onomastics, the study of proper names of all kinds. Etymology is one of the aspects of toponymy, as it deals with the linguistic evolution of place names.
Clearly "toponymy" is the appropriate word for the section.
I make this statement as @
Reywas92: reverted my edit that changed the section title from "Toponymy" to "Etymology". Reywas92's edit summary cites as the reason: "Wait until you find out about
List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States and that practically every state/city/other place articles on Wikipedia uses "Etymology" for this section! It's not inaccurate at all, they're related."
Well, "I found out about the Wikipedia page
List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States is not a convincing argument for changing "Toponymy" to "Etymology". I believe the use of the word "Etymology" in that instance is also incorrect. And the argument that "Practically every state/city/other place articles on Wikipedia uses Etymology" is highly doubtful and provides no support for making the edit.
Reywas92 also edited the
Tonopah, Nevada page changing a long-standing section name of "Toponymy and Pronunciation" to "Etymology and Pronunciation" with the edit summary of "the unnecessary pedantry, etymology is still perfectly accurate". I believe this change to also be incorrect.
Reywas92 cites "Pedantry"? Really. Pedantry is excessive concern with minor details. So Reywas92 being pedantic is a reason to pedantically make an edit that is a mistake.
If Reywas92 is unable to provide a more cogent reason for making this "etymology" edit, I will be reverting it to the more correct "toponymy".
A careful reading of the section currently entitled "
Etymology" reveals that the entire section except for the last paragraph strictly concerns how the state obtained the name "Indiana". This process is called "
Toponymy".
The title "Etymology" is not correct and needs to be revised to "Toponymy" which reflects the content of the section except for the last paragraph.
The last paragraph, which uses the word "etymology" concerns the "Etymology" of "
Hoosier" which is the official demonym for the people of the U.S. state of Indiana. This information should be in its own section entitled "Etymology of Hoosier".
The following provides additional information which supports the renaming of the section from "Etymology" to "Toponymy"
Toponymy and etymology are related but not identical fields of study.
Toponymy focuses on the names of places and their meanings, origins, and uses in different contexts. It examines other aspects of place names, such as their cultural, political, social, and geographical significance, their variations and adaptations in different languages and dialects, their usage in literature and media, their relation to other place names, etc.
Etymology is the study of the origin and evolution of a word's semantic meaning across time. It focuses on an analysis of words involving the origin and the history of a word's changes over time. It involves the use of semantics and the word's variations and adaptations in different languages and dialects have evolved over time.
Sometimes toponymy can use etymology to explain how a place name came to be or how it changed over time. For example, the name London may have originated from a pre-Celtic word meaning ‘place at the navigable or unfordable river’, but it was later Latinised as Londinium by the Romans, then Anglicised as Lunden by the Anglo-Saxons, then influenced by French as Londres by the Normans, and so on. Etymology can help trace these changes and influences and show how the word evolved over time.
Although toponymy and etymology have some relationship. Toponymy can be done in its entirety without the need for the use of etymology. In this section that is the case, its content is purely a study involving toponymy without any support from the study of etymology.
In conclusion, this discussion supports the contention that the section currently labeled "Etymology" is mislabeled and should be renamed to "Toponymy". Additionally, the last paragraph which is an etymology of the word "Hoosier", should be removed from the toponymy section and created as a new section "Etymology of Hoosier"
@
Osomite: You're
tilting at windmills here , and your argument is largely pedantic. Are you right? Probably. Does anyone care? Absolutely not. Most readers of Wikipedia will understand the heading "Etymology" to mean "where did this place name come from?" Most readers of Wikipedia seeing a heading called "Toponymy" will scratch their head and say "huh?" Heck, my browser doesn't even recognize the word and marks it as a spelling error. I seriously doubt you're going to find a lot of support for this proposal.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Your reply doesn't add any substance to the discussion concerning Toponymy, toponymics, or toponomastics is the study of toponyms (proper names of places, also known as place names and geographic names), including their origins, meanings, usage and types.
Would you please stay on subject rather than making a sarcastic commment.
Osomite 🐻
(hablemos) 19:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I think the section at
Saint Petersburg you had changed is reasonable because it discussed the history of the place's changing names. In this case it discusses the origin of the name, which is still in fact etymology. I especially oppose your making of a separate one-paragraph section for "Hoosier". If this is your crusade, don't try to wage it one page at at time because most major cities and states do have such a section that may inlude both the name derivation and a description of its usage.
Reywas92Talk 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Given the broad use of "
etymology" across geographic entries, isn't there a better place to discuss this? I think I understand the point that @
Osomite is making. I also appreciate @
Reyswas92's practicality--"etymology" is commonly used, even if it's less precise. It may be worth noting that the The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford UP) refers regularly to a toponym's etymology ... not a toponym's toponymology. On the other hand, etymology is described as the leading method for toponymy by
Tent and
Rose-Redwood, et al. make a pretty good case that the study of place names should involve a variety of other methods as well. I still prefer the common use or perhaps even something less technical for these headers--like "Origin of name." --
Jaireeodell (
talk) 15:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
You accuse: "If this is your crusade, don't try to wage it one page at at time"? "Crusade"? Seriously. Are you trying to frame my efforts about helping make Wikipedia correct and accurate with some allegorical characterization or do you, in your view, mean it literally? A crusade is a vigorous campaign for political, social, or religious change. Seriously?
A "crusade"? Merde, I am editing Wikipedia "one page at a time" (How else do you do it?). What do you call what you do, "A crusade"? Maybe so. . .
Visa via the definition of "crusade", it becomes quite apparent that Wikipedia has become it own societal religion. It manifests itself in the need for the editor society to control content that is disagreeable and demand that heretics are punished.
It amazes me that the first "tool" the editor society uses is to attack what they disagree with and/or what is not well understood. Where is the Wikipedia tenant of collegiality? Collegiality, "cooperation between colleagues who share responsibility." It's working together to find a solution rather than to attack mainly based upon opinion and few facts or logical discourse.
And about "don't try to wage it one page at at time".
Oh? Exactly what are you proposing? Don't do it at all? Stop?
I also support "Etymology" as the heading. By comparison, on
James (given name) the section is Etymology and not Anthroponymy. Etymology is a word we can assume readers will know, and toponymy is not such a word. Also, as Jaireeodell points out, it is grammatical to refer to a toponym's etymology ... not a toponym's toponymologyWalt Yoder (
talk) 15:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Seriously Walt, that is not a logical argument. It is laughable.
You think it is not appropriate to use words that people are unfamiliar with in Wikipedia articles. I think you miss the point of the purpose of Wikipedia and what you are supposed to be facilitating.
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us,
To not use "toponym" because it is unfamiliar, that is defeating the purpose of the the Wikipedia encyclopedia.
What do you think your efforts as an editor is supposed to achieve? Limiting the acceptable vocabulary words in Wikipedia? Gate Keeping to prevent words that you don't understand from being used?
I would really like to know.
PS I have tried hard not to use any words in my post that would be unfamiliar to you.
Osomite 🐻
(hablemos) 20:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:ALTNAME, If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names" or "Etymology". I have to add that I saw this discussion today, after making a change in the relevant section in a previous day. Apologies. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply