Former countries: Ottoman Empire Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Military history: Ottoman Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm wondering what is Wikipedia's policy for the naming of cities. Seeing Nedim Ardoğa's last editing, I can't help noticing that we don't agree... Anyway, I won't modify it myself because of Nedim Ardoğa's numerous and worthy contributions. So here is the problem: should cities be named according to their name at the time of the capture, or according to their modern name, or according to their most widely-known name? Logically speaking, for instance, it's a nonsense to speak about the capture of New York during the Second Dutch War. That's why it's known as the capture of New Amsterdam, even though less people know about the name New Amsterdam. It's the same with Lutetia/Paris - the Romans didn't fight near Paris, did they? Lutetia is the Gaul town, Paris is the French capital city.
So, I agree that "Bursa" is a name that everbody knows, and "Prusa" isn't. But speaking about an Ottoman "capture of Bursa" is a nonsense: Bursa is a Turkish town; Prusa is the Byzantine town that the Ottomans conquered.
For Nicomedia/İzmit, and Nicaea/İznik, I don't know whether those ancient names are known or not. I guess they are.
And about Constantinople/İstanbul, I don't get it... Everybody knows about both those names. The logic should prevail, definitely.
What's your opinion? I know that this problem must have been raised billions of times, that's why I count on you old wikipedians to teach me how to proceed.
Falep ( talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Former countries: Ottoman Empire Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Military history: Ottoman Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm wondering what is Wikipedia's policy for the naming of cities. Seeing Nedim Ardoğa's last editing, I can't help noticing that we don't agree... Anyway, I won't modify it myself because of Nedim Ardoğa's numerous and worthy contributions. So here is the problem: should cities be named according to their name at the time of the capture, or according to their modern name, or according to their most widely-known name? Logically speaking, for instance, it's a nonsense to speak about the capture of New York during the Second Dutch War. That's why it's known as the capture of New Amsterdam, even though less people know about the name New Amsterdam. It's the same with Lutetia/Paris - the Romans didn't fight near Paris, did they? Lutetia is the Gaul town, Paris is the French capital city.
So, I agree that "Bursa" is a name that everbody knows, and "Prusa" isn't. But speaking about an Ottoman "capture of Bursa" is a nonsense: Bursa is a Turkish town; Prusa is the Byzantine town that the Ottomans conquered.
For Nicomedia/İzmit, and Nicaea/İznik, I don't know whether those ancient names are known or not. I guess they are.
And about Constantinople/İstanbul, I don't get it... Everybody knows about both those names. The logic should prevail, definitely.
What's your opinion? I know that this problem must have been raised billions of times, that's why I count on you old wikipedians to teach me how to proceed.
Falep ( talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)