text:
Wiktionary:Unresolved issues/Place names

Previous Discussions: Beer parlour archive/April 06

Introduction
The issue of place names is partly resolved following changes made to the Criteria for Inclusion in 2017 which added a policy on place names to CFI. The policy does not address every question that could arise.

Proper nouns/place names
I've been adding some capital cities lately, and I was wondering to what extent we're going with place names. We've got most countries and capitals now, and a couple of other cities and towns, but are all place names on Earth considered to be the part of the all words of all languages statement? I think they are, but I'm not certain everyone agrees on this.

If they are, then, how are we going about categorizing them? I now see that the Category:Capital cities may not have been an excellent choice, for I think it may involve politically loaded inclusions/exclusions and therefrom resulting discussions/edit wars etc. that are better left in Wikipedia. Any thoughts? — Vildricianus 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm curious too, what would ideally go in such an entry? Just a short one-line listing, "a village / town / city in XXX country", with a "See also" pointing to Wikipedia?  I think I'll go look at a couple Wiktionary entries and see if I can answer my own question.  :)  Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I see no good reason for deleting any place name that is entered, even ones as small as, say, Butetown or Denigomodu. Otherwise we'd have to draft some kind of policy saying "only towns with x number of people in are allowed for inclusion", and nobody likes making policies, do they ;). As far as adding them goes, it should be very low down on our "priority list". Category:Capital cities is a good enough category in my eyes. When, in 5 years or so down the line, we've run out of non-proper nouns to add, we'll end up creating them anyway, lol. --Dangherous 21:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if Dunabökény can stay in here, then anything will. Take that entry as a test to the system...whatever system it may be. --Dangherous 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We might want to consider (though not necessarily right away) whether we want a single all-inclusive Catgeory:Capital cities, or some kind of regional breakdown. I can think of several ways to do this, but then the category isn't overly large right now. --EncycloPetey 05:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymologies and translations are two good reasons to have them, though I confess I still feel in two minds about it myself. Widsith 07:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought as well, but there's not much to say in either section for less notable places, like, for instance, Big Lake, Texas. — Vildricianus 10:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Does anyone have a sense for what criteria are used for determining inclusions in published geographical dictionaries like Webster's? --EncycloPetey 09:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is that they have an idea of how big the book should be, and what price they can sell it for (and to whom) and include places in reverse order of size and importance until the book is "full". They probably include smaller places in the USA than in China if that is where they plan on marketting it. But our Wiki can be as big as it likes, is free, and we market to the world! SemperBlotto 10:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

These must be treated in a dual nature, just like given and family names. I really don't care which historical figures had the name David, and I don't really care which states in the U.S. have cities named Athens. The first is a common given name and the second is a place name. However, the Biblical figure and the city in Greece each deserve an entry. By what criteria though? The CFI currently says that names must be attributive. I've suggested before not including a place name (as a specific city or what have you) unless it has a common or non-literal translation on the other side of the world, which would indicate its importance. I'm sure "Big Lake" has a translation into Chinese, but would any Chinese person know anything about the city aside from the presumed big lake nearby? Taipei, on the other hand, isn't the most well received transliteration of the Chinese word, but it is the universally standard one. Davilla 13:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My view is that place names should only be included if:- Mostly that then limits us to having entries for significant places.
 * they have a different name in a diffrent language. We need the name in order to show the translation.
 * they are necessarily referenced from another entry :Athenian => Athens.
 * Though I worry about Leodensian => Leeds. But, i suppose if Leodensian was written in a novel I'd want to know what that meant.

But WT:CFI already says something - A name should be included if  it is used attributively, with a widely-understood meaning.. Perhaps it could do with a bit of updating to reflect the above though. --Richardb 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes/pl-2007-02/Placenames - Vote to clarify placename policy. Was suspended pending discussion.

Votes/pl-2007-05/Placenames 2 - 2nd vote, was withdrawn by its author to craft a more narrowly drawn set of criteria.

Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A -3rd vote, was never begun.

Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A

Beer parlour archive/2007/August

Place-names: Édition française
I'd like to bypass some recent IMHO-overly-specific language and propose that the following text be added to the CFI:

 * Place-names in clearly widespread use should be included. This includes, for example, the ordinary English names of many or most or all of the world's countries; the ordinary English names of a number of major bodies in our Solar System (as well as the widely recognized names of some not-so-major bodies, such as Halley's comet); the names of major natural features on Earth, such as the Himalayas and the Amazon; the ordinary English names of a number of major world cities (especially major Anglophone cities); and so on. It also includes many historical and fictional place-names. It also includes many foreign-language terms, with foreign-language terms being considered separately from their English counterparts. Borderline cases should be discussed, with accepted names being recorded at Accepted place-names and rejected names being recorded at Rejected place-names (to help us keep our standards consistent from one discussion to the next).

Before I do so, I'd like to make sure firstly that no one would be offended by my doing so, secondly that other editors agree with me that it's better for the CFI to consist of this sort of general criterion than for them to be filled with details and minutiae, and thirdly that this seems like a good general criterion.

—Ruakh TALK 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC) and edited 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Could we specify "place names in clearly widespread non-localized use"? Even the name of the smallest of towns is probably in widespread use in that town, and its neighbors. bd2412 T 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, strange. To me "widespread" implies "used over a large area". I'm O.K. with making it more explicit, though; how does "Place-names should be included if they are clearly in widespread use over a large area" sound? (And, thanks for your input.) —Ruakh TALK 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Cross out "a number of" x2 since major implies inclusion. "Most or all" countries rather than "many.
 * While the goal, ideally, is to have objective criteria that we don't have to argue over, it's better to have in place, while we hammer out those criteria, some informative wording that reflects the decisions that are being made. Do we all agree that place names should have "literary use" or something, without specifying what that means, exactly? DAVilla 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * O.K., I've made some changes, some of them based on your input; please take a look. I don't feel comfortable with the term "literary use" without some sort of explanation of what that might mean. Which of the following (in any) would you say constitute literary use? :
 * Use in a news story to indicate where an event took place.
 * Use in a news story to give an impression of a person by describing where they live or have lived.
 * Rhyming use in a poem, where seemingly any rhyming place-name might have done as well.
 * Use in a fiction work to indicate the setting.
 * Use in a fiction work to provide information about a character.
 * Use in a non-fiction narrative memoir to give flavor to an anecdote.
 * —Ruakh TALK 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would actually be inclined to combine this with A-Cai's proposal above to include place names mentioned in a classic work of fiction (sort of a 'single famous use is enough' standard) for places like Verona as used in "Two Gentlemen of Verona" or Norwood in "The Adventure of the Norwood Builder", although I would not extend it to fictional places. bd2412 T 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "countries" is the best term to use, but don't have an alternative. Please take a look at our definitions #1 & 2 for that word, and see if that's what you intended. On the one hand, it permits Sparta and other ancient city-states, but on the other hand it permits all the little splinter city-states of Medieval Europe. That may be either a good or bad thing, but I'd like to know up front how people understand this phrasing. I would also like to see language explicitly allowing for major natural features: such as mountains, forests, deserts, rivers and bodies of water (those likely to appear on a globe). However, that means that some features (such as the Thames and Mount Sinai) would be excluded as they are too small to appear on a globe. Can someone suggest better language? I discarded the idea of "likelty to appear on a national map" because that covers a very wide range of scales between Russia and Vatican City. --EncycloPetey 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The point of this proposal is specifically not to get into fine details — those can be hashed out organically over time — but rather to convey the general essence of our criteria. (I'm not opposed to there being a finely-worked-out parallel proposal, but don't expect one to get consensus.) And yes, I did mean pretty much what it says at country, which is why I originally said "many or most countries"; that's since been changed to "most or all countries", but I think both "most or all" and "country" are vague enough to prevent wikilawyering and force people to recognize the essence of the proposal (which would probably admit of Sparta, but not of Galicia, though I'm not sure). —Ruakh TALK 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm envisioning a double set of criteria - one standard for place names for which there is clearly widespread use, including prominent use in a famous work of fiction; and another more exacting set of standards for various types of place names based on verifiable use out of context. bd2412 T 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Why was this section restarted again? The question in the above section was, is this ready to be voted on?  Wording changes can be suggested there.  Restarting the conversation for the 50th time really isn't helpful, particularly when again commingling separate issues (each which have their own discussion points.)  The numerous attempts at combining the various types die when the pros and cons of each specific type overwhelm the discussion, again killing the entire initiative off.  --Connel MacKenzie 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think I made my reasons quite clear, but if you'd like me to repeat them: This is a single, fairly simple proposal to outline our general criterion for including place-names; my intent is to bypass all the detailed discussions, which can make changes simultaneously or subsequently. I'm not "commingling separate issues"; I'm cutting to (what I think is) the heart of the topic, which is a single issue that applies differently to different kinds of place-names, making previous discussions overly complex and unable to gain consensus. Now, there are some differences of opinion even over the general criterion, but I think (?) that most editors have roughly the same view of it, the one I've described above, and I'm hoping that the editors on either side of that stance (those who want much stricter criteria, believing that only the most major place-names warrant inclusion, if even that, and those who want much laxer criteria, believing that place-names can have linguistic or literary importance without being in clearly widespread use) can at least accept this is a working compromise. (Personally, I'm actually O.K. with pretty much anything on the continuum — I don't think it's essential to our purpose that we include place-names, but I also don't think it's detrimental to our purpose if we include even the names of fairly unimportant towns, provided that names shared among many places don't get a separate sense for each one — but I'm not O.K. with the current CFI, as attributive use is a poorly-thought-out and ultimately unworkable criterion, and I'm also not O.K. with having a detailed specification without specifying the overarching thought process. This proposal, in other words, is for an overarching thought process that reflects what most editors seem to me to be thinking — and you'll note that while there have been some changes to the description of the criterion, the criterion itself, "Place-names in clearly widespread use should be included" has not seen any criticism (yet), though a few users have expressed desires for additional alternative criteria as well.) —Ruakh TALK 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't see the utility of rewording the general (not-so-bad, working-version) CFI while the finer points are actively being hammered out. It can only stymie the detail effort by giving misleading generalizations, while actually avoiding none of the sub-topics, many of which haven't been mentioned here yet.  --Connel MacKenzie 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Would anyone object if I move both sections to a separate subpage dedicated to this topic? I think it's going to grow to be quite a discussion. bd2412 T 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that moving these discussions about place names to separate subpages, one per type of place name being discussed, will make things a lot easier to manage. Thryduulf 07:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think any place-name that presents a problem for translators should be okay to include. For foreign place-names, I would only make it a requirement that the article exist also (or in many cases, only) in the script and spelling used locally for that place. For example, anyone translating an article about Whalen would never guess how to write it in Russian, not even a native Russian-speaker. (It’s in Russia.) —Stephen 12:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, BD2412, I agree the discussions are becoming absurdly fragmented. While I dislike subpage discussions for genuine beer parlour conversations, I can't see this becoming comprehensible without some significant consolidation.  Perhaps Beer parlour/Proper nouns & Wiktionary talk:Beer parlour/Proper nouns, with softlinks from each section here?  That would allow for "sensible" refactoring on the subpage by section, (perhaps with a summarized ====Pros==== and ====Cons==== for each) while retaining the conversations intact on the talk page?  --Connel MacKenzie 14:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Retained intact on this talk page? Or on the one to be created? I think I get what you mean, I just want to be sure. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, due to the size of this page, retained only as section soft-links here. I hate that method, but this has spiraled out of control.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Thryduulf 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Connel's suggestion. I was going to suggest almost exactly this (same sub-page name; but hadn't thought of the Pros/Cons). Thryduulf 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Beer parlour archive/2007/September

Place names: toward a functional compromise?
OK, so I'm sorting out the March 2007 RFDs, and I come to this pocket of place name articles. These are reasonably well-formatted entries which have gotten a lot of attention from various editors; it would be a shame to delete them outright. On the other hand, the current wording of WT:CFI unambiguously bars the vast majority of place names, and the only acknowledged exceptions to that wording involve "too-prominent-to-exclude" cases like France. Support for loosening these criteria is far from unanimous, and no actual revision to the CFI is currently in prospect. To complicate the situation, Appendix:Place names is quixotically structured to simply link to entries in the mainspace, meaning that it will always be either perversely incomplete or perversely filled with redlinks to entries that can never be created.

For today, I've been moving the entries in question to Appendix:Gazetteer, because of the structural incompatibility, but I think there is a better solution:  Restructure Appendix:Place names and sub-appendices to point to subpages of Appendix:Place names as a matter of course. When an otherwise adequate placename entry is found to fail CFI, move it to Appendix:Place names/Foo and link appropriately. (So for example the entry for Abakan would be at Appendix:Place names/Abakan and linked from Appendix:Place names in Russia.) For placenames which currently meet CFI, create Appendix:Place names/Foo as a redirect. (That way, editors can be sure that if a place name has an entry somewhere, it can be reached through the appendix).

Basically, I'm not proposing any changes in what we currently exclude and include, just grasping for a solution that all parties can live with. -- Visviva 06:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 * No objection from me. I've said before that appendices are a fine place for placenames, and others have argued for that as well. We can make them searchable, and prominently link them, and so on. The problem with that solution at the moment though, is that while it is already perfectly within policy and acceptable, the ambiguity caused by people that support no restrictions on placenames, or something similar, means that such within-policy actions like moving a placename to an appendix is bound to be controversial; as RfD nominations simply following our CFI have been in the past. Of course, I might be wrong, and if so, I'll be the first to help with the appendicizing of appropriate articles. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree 110% with Dmcdevit's comment. I do not, however, agree with the proposal that "For placenames which currently meet CFI, [we] create Appendix:Place names/Foo as a redirect"; for Appendix:Place names/Foo to be useful, it would need to be able to include non-CFI-meeting senses of CFI-meeting placenames. —Ruakh TALK 12:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 * That's a good point... I guess a soft redirect of some kind would be the best solution (not sure exactly how to format it, though). -- Visviva 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sure. I think all that was meant by that comment was that we wouldn't omit CFI-meeting placenames from the Appendix articles, since then it might lead to them actually becoming less visible due to inconsistency in finding them. If redirects are conflicting with the non-CFI placenames, then we'd simply replace the redirect int he Appendix namespace with an article with all placenames. But if there are only CFI-meeting placenames, then the redirect might be the simple solution, or we could duplicate the content. But that's probably not the most crucial part of the proposal. Dmcdevit·t 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Beer parlour archive/2009/March

Place names
I've tried to summarize various proposed criteria for toponym inclusion at Place names. I believe each of those has been proposed by at least one editor at some point. Please edit and expand, as appropriate; please also feel free to go into content issues such as definitions and translations, which I didn't feel quite up to dealing with on the first pass. Incidentally, looking at the list, I find that I personally would be happy with all of the three "strong" criteria, even in combination -- inclusion in a dictionary or primary division of a country or used metaphorically -- but the moderate and weak options give me serious qualms. -- Visviva 06:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia articles routinely contain pronunciation and etymological info? Well, this information is absent for most place names (especially small ones), and belongs to Wiktionary more than to Wikipedia (it's about words). How do you find it for very local place names, not always deserving a Wikipedia article, but which are words nonetheless? About translations: how to you find the translation of India into Bavarian, if it is not here (note that you can find it in the Inde page, on fr.wiktionary)? How do you find all translations when several translations are possible (e.g. for Serbian cyrillic and latin alphabets)? But my main argument is that (most) place names are words, and that we should include all words. In my opinion, encyclopedic criteria, such as primary division of a country, are relevant to WIkipedia, but not here. Lmaltier 08:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, yes, many WP articles don't have that information (just as many Wiktionary entries don't), but the information is welcome there and its addition encouraged. So we would only be providing unique value, in this respect, if we choose to be more inclusive of place names than Wikipedia.  This would be a sensible resolution of the problem, but it is more or less the opposite of current policy; the entire section of CFI would need to be stricken (which might not be a bad thing).
 * In terms of Place names, am I correct in thinking that you would accept nothing stricter than a combination of the three weak criteria (attested + verifiable + present in an official list of toponyms)? This would position us to add unique value, so I would be hard-pressed to oppose it if it comes to a vote; but I have to admit that the thought of an entry for something like Indian Hills Mobile Home Park (which meets all three criteria, probably for more than one location) is somewhat disturbing.  -- Visviva 09:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Of course, I don't propose to include Indian Hills Mobile Home Park, because it's not a word! When something is a word, it should be included. When it's difficult to consider it a word, but we think that we can bring linguistic value nonetheless, then it might be accepted too (but clear CFI would be needed). Actually, current CFIs might be appropriate, provided that, in addition, any name which is clearly a word is also includable, including smallest villages... Information about the place, but not about the word, such as country flags, population, etc. should be strictly forbidden (the only information about the place should be the definition and a location map, to be able to understand the word). Lmaltier 10:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * How would your criteria treat Indian Hills and North Carolina? They, too, are not words. I look forward to seeing the maps for London (and Springfield. Is search-and-delete patrol for non-approved types of graphics botable? DCDuring TALK 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I consider North Carolina, New York, Le Havre or past perfect as words. But not Phoenix, AZ, nor Indian Hills Mobile Home Park''. The difference seems rather clear to me, but clarifying it might help. I'm sure you can see it. For maps, I was meaning a map showing where the place is located, because it may be useful to understand the word, not a map with London streets, of course. Lmaltier 17:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * It makes sense to me that "Phoenix, AZ" is sum of parts, while "North Carolina" isn't. On the other hand, "Indian Hills Mobile Home Park" isn't really sum of parts -- at least, none of the places by this name that I looked at were part of any larger "Indian Hills" community; it seems that the respective developers just chose this name from The Big Book of Trailer Park Names (or wherever). So is it rather the qualifier "Mobile Home Park" that makes this not a word?  I guess that makes sense; similarly we wouldn't want "State of North Carolina" or "City of Chicago".  Would this also apply to more conventional geographic labels, such as "River" or "Lake" or "Island"?  Given that many of these are often referred to without their label (e.g. "the Chicago flows slowly"), that also makes a good deal of sense.  This would argue for deletion in the case of WT:RFV, if I understand correctly.  (Do I?) -- Visviva 07:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, you understand me well. For rivers (e.g. Seine), the important word is Seine, and one page may be sufficient (except when this name is always followed by River, which may make River a part of the word, just as in Mexico City). For Aleutian Islands, I would keep Aleutian (I assume it's an adjective), but I would also keep Aleutian Islands, because it's the normal name for the place, and it is as much a word as Ireland, I think). Lmaltier 14:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Your criterion as applied to river names bothers me. When one says Miami River, "River" is a part of the name.  It is not truly a separate word, but part of a compound proper noun.   Yes, one could say "the Miami", but it wouldn't be clear whether you meant the river or the Native American people by the name (or actually meant the city of Miami and simply made an error in speech).  This is a regular problem in US English, where both a river and/or another geographic entity were both named after the same Native American tribe.  "Mississippi" is both a US state and a major US river, so the river is often called Mississippi River as a set phrase name to distinguish it from the state.  The same applies to Missouri, which is a river, a state, a culture, and even a historical territory.  It is more often called the Missouri River to clarify meaning.  So, a criterion that says it's always followed by "River" doesn't work for river names.  The issue is fuzzier than that. --EncycloPetey 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * You must be right, about rivers. In French, it's rather unusual to add fleuve before a river name, but the English usage is different.
 * Another thing to be pondered: odonyms. Some of them could be accepted, when they are actual words (e.g. interesting linguistic information can be provided for Canebière or Champs-Élysées) but obviously not all of them. This restriction can be justified by the fact that almost all street names can be analysed as the sum of two (or 3...) words rather than a single word and, therefore, their presence would not bring linguistic value. This is different from city names, which are single words in most cases, which justifies the inclusion of names such as New York. But in languages such as German, does this analysis also apply or not (e.g. in Seestrasse)? Lmaltier 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Some compound street names in English are probably worth entries as well, especially those in New York and London. Consider High Street (which is idiomatic) versus Fleet Street (which isn't, but carries connotations).  Never having lived in London, but often comming across names of London streets in television and reading, I am often bewildered trying to understand what connotations may (or may not) be implied in the mention of a particular London street.  For the US, Pennsylvania Avenue is worth an entry, certainly. --EncycloPetey 17:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, they are includable for a different reason (Fleet Street has a special meaning, too, I think = London newspapers). Lmaltier 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The Thames, the Thames River and River Thames are just alternate forms of the same noun. Presumably the first would be listed as an abbreviated form, and the last chosen as the main entry (is it technically a “lemma?”).  It's not just indigenous American names which suffer from multiple meanings.  I live close to the Red River, which locals often refer to as the Red.  It flows from the US into Canada.  Usonians call it the Red River of the North, to differentiate it from the bigger one in Texas.  This is just a matter of context and usage. —Michael Z. 2009-03-15 20:02 z

How about prohibiting the addition of toponym entries merely for the sake of inclusion, and requiring some lexicographical function? Toponyms could be required to have at least one of an etymology, a non-obvious pronunciation, a usage note, or a list of derived non-toponyms.

And what do you think of the specialized subheading “Toponym”, to denote a particular type of proper noun? —Michael Z. 2009-03-15 20:02 z

 * No pronunciation is obvious. And a definition is something lexicographically useful, too. Also note that different places with the same name may have different etymologies and/or different pronunciations and/or different demonyms, etc. Therefore, each place should get its own definition. Lmaltier 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Indeed, different places with same spelling may have different pronunciations, even when one is derived from the other. Cairo and Vienna in Georgia (US) are pronounced very differently from their source cities in Egypt and Austria. Carolina wren 18:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The pronunciation of Red + River is obvious from its components to anyone who reads English – for this reason many dictionaries omit pronunciation of such compounds. The geographic description “a river flowing north through North Dakota, Minnesota, and Manitoba, into Lake Winnipeg” is not a lexicographical definition.  An entry with only this information is purely encyclopedic, and doesn't belong in the dictionary.
 * On the other hand, if you add an etymology explaining that Red comes from Ojibwe, or a label about the regional usage of Red River and Red River of the North, then it would have lexicographical value. Whatever guideline we come up with should reflect this. —Michael Z. 2009-03-19 20:07 z

 * I prefer lexical criteria, and not the weak lexical criterion which almost matches the moderate factual criterion. Factual information would be wonderful, but it diverts our attention in a very noticeable way, primarily that the context information (such as US/UK) would be confused with factual information of where that place is located. For instance, "Fredericksburg" is understood very differently in Central Texas, which would warrant a more local context, {Texas}. Something similar could be said of a number of cities named Jacksonville. However, Jacksonville in Florida does not warrant a local context because it is understood across the country to be the city in Florida. The problem is that the temptation to label the Jacksonville in Florida as {Florida} is just too great.
 * If we are both to indicate regional context labels and to include obscure place names in definitions, our focus should be on a lexical criterion, since only lexical critera focus our attention on how the term is used, rather than if it is correct. Information on other places would have to be left to Wikipedia. And yes, that's regardless of whether the pronunciation is unusual or the term has etymological information. The strongest reason to include place names is for translations purposes, but we have never included any term on the sole basis that it has non-trivial translations, and that even applies to terms like older brother where the grooves run deep and long. The only on-goal method is lexical, and the primary means citation. Any secondary means are going to need to be much more indirect than addressed, such as differing pronunciation depending on location, e.g. Houston, or being the etymology of another term like New York strip, but not just on the basis of having pronunciation or etymology sections.
 * My proposal above to use genericization or metaphor is along the lines of a strong-medium lexical criterion, being more inclusive by allowing citation but also addressing the problem of identifying legitimate quotations without the entire out-of-context hassle. At the same time it is not so weak that citation gathering amounts to fact checking, although a stricter clause could be based on that, or on authority, used to avoid having to cite so many place names and to eliminate some of the holes that make results seem arbitrary. 63.95.64.254 02:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree with Mzajac about the fact that a geographical description is purely encyclopedic: the definition must be present to explain what the word means, and understanding where a place is located is necessary to understand what the place name means. But adding the population, or the length of a river, would be purely encyclopedic. Why do you consider that mentioning that Miami is the name of a town in Florida is more encyclopedic that mentioning that cat is the name of an animal? It's normal that a Wikipedia page and a Wiktionary page have something in common: the definition. Lmaltier 20:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Of course the object of an included place name must be identified. But I don't think identifying a place qualifies its name for inclusion in the dictionary, any more than “An actor (1915–85) who played the lead in Citizen Kane” qualifies Orson Welles for inclusion.
 * Dictionary entries represent terms, that is, words and, in some cases, names (while encyclopedia articles represent things, including people, and places). It should be some quality or aspect of the name which qualifies it for inclusion, not merely the existence of a corresponding place. —Michael Z. 2009-03-20 22:11 z

 * I don't think anyone objects to defining some terms as just place names, much as we define family names and male and female given names. If you think that's the most that should be defined then that's a legitimate viewpoint, though not one with general agreement. This entire argument is centered around the question of whether to define specific entities, such as Lincoln which in nearly any context refers to the former president, or Athens which in nearly any context refers to a city in Greece. While there is willingness to include some of these entries, there is also opposition to including every place name (although opposite to your views some would just as well do so). The question is where to draw the line. 63.95.64.254 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread your response. To say that the name itself must qualify the entry, rather than an understanding of its meaning (e.g. Berlin to stand for the seat of the German government) is a fairly strict lexical criterion. 63.95.64.254 01:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "Encyclopedic" can refer to a couple of things: the length or content of the article, or the entry title or topic. What is considered encyclopedic in either case is an open question. Although other ideas have been floated, in my opinion there should always be a definition line. At the same time, I have had reservation with including e.g. the exact weight of deuterium or a measurement of the length of a year in place of the existing definitions. The definition is the fundamental explanation in those cases. For people and place names, the definition should answer the question of why the term is worth including. We don't need the history any more than the scientific details. If they're well-known, what are they known for? 63.95.64.254 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 * By encyclopedic, I mean information about the thing, like a city's population, etc., as opposed to information about the name of the thing. No, a definition does not need to explain why a term is included.  Wikipedia has notability guidelines and usually explains the significance of the things in an introductory paragraph.  Wiktionary has attestation requirements, which may or may not be documented by quotations.
 * We haven't really established how to “define” a place name. If you ask me, London is well defined as “The capital city of the United Kingdom and of England.”  Arguably, most places will have to be geographically identified by something like “situated near the mouth of the River Thames in southeast England”.  But “with a metropolitan population of more than 12,000,000” is strictly encyclopedic, and is out of place in the dictionary –  a better alternative would be a specific Wikipedia link at the end of the definition line, where you can learn a thousand such facts about London if you choose to. —Michael Z. 2009-03-21 20:55 z

 * There is also the issue of commonly used place names like Springfield and Boone County - if a place name is used in multiple places, it is worth an entry stating that this is a place name used in multiple places. In the case of London, Paris, etc., there should be one definition line for the primary use, and one indicating that there are multiple other places named for the primary. bd2412 T 02:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 * If being the capital is the reason for inclusion, then name it as the capital. If one would be expected to know that it's situated near the Thames, then say so. If the population qualifies it, then list the population. And frankly I don't think something as fickle as the population is a good criterion. In some cases we might have to say "once had a population of..." because once qualified as a term, always qualified. DAVilla 08:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Place names

Wiktionary talk:Place names

Beer parlour archive/2009/July

Place names
[continued from immediately preceding]

 * Lmatier, I don't think we should use a criteria such as "I have heard of <towns/countries/etc> referred to as a words" as a basis for inclusion ("New York" yes, but "Socrates" no?). For one, your understanding of this bit of "common knowledge" doesn't seem to equate with mine or some others', and I'd find it hard to believe a consensus could be reached with this approach. It is not a very solid foundation for our mission of all words in all languages. Whatever the approach is, it should be more well defined (possibly along the lines DCDuring mentioned). I still hope that something akin to the recent vote could be reworked to garner more support. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Can we define the rule a significance of a place, rather than how many parts it consists of? I don't deny New York the right to be included, if there is a space in it. neither should be Rostov-na-Donu/Rostov-on-Don. It's a million-city, a large administrative centre and an important historical and cultural city in Russia, mentioned far too often in the Russian literature and translated into other languages. It's also a major part of East Slavic culture, History of Don cossacks and has a popular slang name - Rostov-papa (Ростов-папа), due to its criminal history.
 * No need to include small villages and squares, nor anyone is trying to do so. Let's talk about how big and important is enough to be included, it would be more constructive. By any criteria discussed earlier in previous discussions, Rostov-na-Donu and Rostov-on-Don should be restored.
 * I would also leave people's names out of this discussion, let's have another if anyone is interested.
 * If Wiktionary only allows cities originating in English speaking countries, that's arrogant and not helpful. Who wins if we remove an important place name from the dictionary? A bit more complicated names like Rostov-na-Donu/Rostov-on-Don also deserve to be included, simply because their translations are not so straightforward in most languages, it's not a simple transliteration based on the sound and I find information on how this is done in a particular language interesting and useful.
 * Most good dictionaries include major proper geographical names, why should we be different. Let's just talk about what is significant to be included. Anatoli 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * No. As I've explained repeatedly, I'm opposed to including any term based on the encyclopedic notability of its referent.  The dictionary is only about words, not about the things they represent.  “Encyclopedic” dictionaries throw in gazetteer entries, often completely devoid of lexicographical information, purely for marketing reasons.  Since our partner encyclopedia is free and only a link away, there is no reason to water down the dictionary with lame excerpts from it.

 * OED's practices look like a good start, and maybe we can derive a few guidelines from them. They define Moscow strictly as an analogy: as the government and ideology of the USSR, or of Russia; also as used in combination for Moscow centre and Moscow mule.  Not defined as a city at all.  Its inclusion in the OED is strictly based on its use as a word, and has nothing to do with how many people live there or what they speak. There's a lot more to be gleaned from the OED's definitions—they include Churchillian and Churchilliana, but not Churchill (we already go beyond the OED by including surnames for their own sake).  They include Ford for its figurative use, London and New York for attributive use and for many combinations such as London blue and New York slice (the OED includes such entries as a home for the run-in combination words—since we have combinations as independent entries, the root entries may not be required).

 * Energy is better expended coming up with some lexicographical or onomastic basis for inclusion of terms, and not repeating population statistics which belong in Wikipedia. Quite frankly, a straight transliteration like Rostov-na-donu, or a direct translation like Rostov-on-Don may not warrant inclusion in any case. —Michael Z. 2009-07-28 02:34 z

 * Ростов-папа probably belongs in the dictionary, but I'm skeptical that Rostov-papa is anything but a transliteration of the Russian. —Michael Z. 2009-07-28 02:40 z

 * I am not requesting this addition (Ростов-папа), simply stating that the city name is important in many aspects. If you don't like the encyclopaedic statistics, see how often word Rostov-on-Don is used on the web and in the dictionaries and it is a word. That's enough warrant for me to include - there are 325,000 English pages for "Rostov-on-Don" and 607,000 English pages for "Rostov-na-Donu" on the web. I understand your opinion very well but I don't agree, no need to give more details to explain your point. I think we should vote for a change in the CFI. I wasn't the one who restarted this discussion. I am not going to propose to include the encyclopedic or statistical information but: meaning (city and location), etymology, spelling, pronunciation, gender or other grammar info (if applicable) and translations. Anatoli 03:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Is there an English dictionary which includes serious lexicographical information about Rostov, Rostov-on-Don or Rostov-na-donu? (like etymology, year of attestation, etc.) I can't find anything but encyclopedic entries, with location, date of foundation, population. —Michael Z. 2009-07-28 05:19 z
 * You are right, language dictionaries about proper nouns are very rare. But there are some books dealing with the etymology of place names (I own a dictionary for world place name etymologies, and another book on this subject, limited to France (not a dictionary)). There are dictionaries dealing with the etymology of surnames, or first names, etc. But the fact that proper nouns dictionaries are almost always encyclopedic (unlike wiktionaries) makes the inclusion of these words here still more useful. The fact that a name is the same as the name in the original language, or just a transcription, is not a reason to omit it: it's just like interjection (from French) or kimono (from Japanese). It's important to include them, especially for pronunciation. Lmaltier 05:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * A few quick links from online dictionaries:, , , , (need to enter in the search box), , , . I skipped some which looked more encyclopaedic. Of course, I also have bilingual dictionaries, which have place names sections or contain place names in the main body. The first indication that these are word entries is the word "noun" or "n.". Anatoli 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Proper noun dictionaries are indeed rare, but those that exist are extermely valuable. I have a copy of Ekwall's Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th ed., and it's an incredibly valuable book for dated citations, historical spelling variation, and etymology.  All these things and pronunciation are well within the scope of what a dictionary should include.
 * Browsing on Amazon I see a bunch of dictionaries with titles such as A Dictionary of Iowa Place-Names, Colorado: Place Names, Indian Place Names in Alabama... there is even one "Toposaurus". The biggest Croatian one-volume dictionary Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik has out of 175k headwords some 45k which are onomastics, with details such as pronunciations (especially in local idiom), etymology, distribution and derived terms (demonyms and relative/possessive adjectives - often very counter-intuitive formations). There is no reason why Wiktionary cannot do the same. I for once would like to know how do you properly say "citizen of Rostov-na-Donu" and non-attributively "of or pertaining to Rostov-na-Donu" in English :) --Ivan Štambuk 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * In some languages, like Chinese, treatment of foreign names is now very serious. Just having a correct correspondence of names in different scripts with a minimum information of what the actual names is, can only be achieved with a dictionary. This is a picture of a Chinese dictionary of foreign names (世界人民翻译大辞典): . I bet Rostov-on-Don is there among much smaller place names. Sometimes Wikipedia can be used to get this information but it's not designed for it, doesn't have enough info (pronunciation, grammar, etymology) and article names don't have to match. Anatoli 06:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Lmaltier, you're right. My interest is in Asian languages and transliteration of foreign names is not a simple sound substitution in Chinese. You must KNOW what a city is called in Chinese. There is more flexibility with people's names but most place names are standardised and are stored in a dictionary. Anatoli 06:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * So I'll ask again: does a single English dictionary have an etymology of Rostov? Or any dictionary? The dictionaries linked by Anatoli are exactly the kind of gazetteer entries I'm talking about—bad examples for us.  I am interested in the kind of content Lmaltier's place-name dictionary has—can you quote an entry?

 * Elizabeth Mountbatten, HMCS Winnipeg, and Schwartz's Deli are nouns, so by Anatoli's argument they are “words” and belong in the dictionary. We're not making much headway here.... —Michael Z. 2009-07-28 13:46 z

 * No, we're not making much headway. That's why we should vote to allow what is de facto in Wiktionary - place name entries exist, even if they don't have attributive usage. We have expressed out points but you keep using references to house, club or shop names, although I explained clearly we are talking of significant place names, leaving the discussion about significance open. You yourself, Michael boasted the Ukrainian major administrative cities in Wiktionary in your user page, which is good, good effort! Why do you have to discriminate against entries not from your background? I don't understand why you have to twist my words when I say let's include large cities, you give these funny examples again (Schwartz's Deli). If McDonald's should be included, it's irrelevant to this discussion - we are talking about city names. If you insist on calling these gazetteer entries, let it be so. I don't see any damage in having them, if they are correct. Rostov's etymology is not proven and has too many theories, so no need to add this particular etymology, only need to add if it's known, suffice to say that it's from Russian into English. Please don't give more "McLeod YMCA" type of examples. Anatoli 14:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have already had one topic change. The subject at hand is not "city names"; it is not "Rostov-na-Donu"; it is "place names".
 * A dictionary is not an encyclopedia and isn't necessarily a gazetteer.
 * If you are confident that you can draft a proposal that will win a Vote on whether Wiktionary should be a gazetteer, either:
 * do so or
 * consider that more effort might be needed to make sure there is some consensus.
 * Merely ratifying the status quo is not what a Vote is for. If the lack of conformity to stated policy offends you, by all means, insert RfD or RfV tags on any or all the existing entries that have not already survived a challenge. Policy and guidelines are supposed to provide a direction in which Wiktionary will be going and require some thought beyond individual entries. If you are solely interested in an entry for Rostov-on-Don, such a conversation might not be very interesting to you.
 * I, for one, am looking forward to a coherent and comprehensive proposal about toponymic entries. I can see that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for transcribing and translating place names as well as the expected hometown boosterism. This might be a great way to broaden participation in en.wikt worldwide. We could do worse than simply allowing every WP entry to be an en.wikt entry, but with a one-line definition, hypernyms, see also link to WP, no external links(?), and, especially, etymology and translations. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * If the lack of conformity to stated policy offends you, by all means, insert RfD or RfV tags on any or all the existing entries that have not already survived a challenge. - this would be destructive and unreasonable course of action from his perspective. I'm sure that none of those who think that the current CFI policy for place-names is too strict (if not simply broken) is intent on waste time chasing entries which somehow managed to escape RfV process, and which obviously do not satisfy "widely-understood attributive usage" criterion, as a form of "compensation" for their own entries being deleted, or simply being unable to add new place-name entries in the first place. --Ivan Štambuk 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern was that I was hearing many aspects of the issue being framed solely in terms of their consequences for inclusion of Rostov-na-Donu, Rostov-on-the-Don, and Cyrillic equivalents, as opposed to some thought about Wiktionary as a whole. This single focus had already diverted the topic of conversation once and was threatening to do so again. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I reply to Michael Z. The dictionary I mention is a Robert dictionary, published in 1994: Dictionnaire des noms de lieux (Louis Deroy, Marianne Mulon). It includes an entry for Rostov-sur-le-Don and this entry discusses its etymology. Toponymy is an important branch of linguistics (see w:Toponymy for more information). Lmaltier 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Replies to several comments above:

 * Rostov-on-Don serves as an example or stand-in for pure toponyms: place names which are not part of the English language in the same way as New York has given meaning to New York slice, New York deli, etc.  The dictionary is a technical document—I won't agree to sweeping policy changes based on anything de facto, and based the way we've been running the show lately I don't think the consensus would either.  I created entries for major Ukrainian and Canadian place names before I became familiar or concerned with these encyclopedic vs lexicographical issues and did some significant reading about them.  The current policy requiring attributive attestation is if not ideal, adequately inclusive for place names from a lexicographical standpoint, and not much different from the OED's.  To conform, there are many place names which could be RFV'd and RFD'd, including entries I added, and I'll be glad to help with that effort once we decide what to do (or not to do).  Even if we don't remove them, we should remove all encyclopedic information, like population, date of founding, significance, etc.

 * Where the policy is lacking is from the point of view of toponymy and its parent discipline, onomastics, in allowing a broader overview of names to be included. I believe we specifically allow given names and surnames, so why not toponyms?  We need a proposal.  Does the Dictionnaire des noms de lieux have an introduction explaining what was included and why?  I've also seen some Ukrainian etymological dictionaries which include place names.  How do we justify the inclusion of specific place names but not other specific entities?

 * Remember this is about the words, not the things. I don't care how big or important a thing is, that doesn't make its name belong in the dictionary, even if some popular dictionaries do include it for that reason.  It's only important how important its name is. —Michael Z. 2009-07-28 20:03 z

 * The issue is not about Rostov-on-Don/Rostov-na-Donu, these are the entries that were deleted and it's not my home town. Yes, I feel sorry about wasted time on adding translations and transliterations. I have created entries in Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and some other speaking countries, added translations for many others. Toponyms is not my main activity but I think they are important for Wiktionary. I honestly believe that Wiktionary should have toponyms - so that users could look up them in native and other scripts, find out about the pronunciation and other linguistic information, such as etymology, gender, declension, etc. I don't have a full confidence that the vote will succeed, neither have the experience in putting the proposal. When I find out more, I may do so. Agree that encyclopaedic information can be removed. Anatoli 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Mzajac: There has been a selection in the dictionary I mention, of course: it's impossible to cover all place names of the world in a single book. The criteria were 1. covering the whole world (trying not to favour European toponyms) and 2. giving priority to place names most likely to be searched: place names of French-speaking countries (the dictionary is in French), most notable places, and places with strange names (readers may be interested in them), e.g. Titicaca. But we are not a paper dictionary, we are not limited by space.
 * We should allow specific entities when they are words. Paris, Vespasian or Confucius are words, clearly, but not Excelsior Hotel, nor Adolphe Hitler (despite the translation table in Hitler). The key question is: what's a word? Lmaltier 20:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep using the word "clearly", but in fact, to at least one editor (me), Paris, Vespasian, and Confucius are not words. They're names. As are, presumably, Excelsior Hotel and Adolphe Hitler. I can easily accept that Paris, Vespasian, and Confucius may be worth including, while Excelsior Hotel and Adolphe Hitler are unlikely to be; but I can't accept that this is some sort of trivial consequence of "all 'words' in all languages". —Ruakh TALK 20:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some names are words, some names are not words, but combinations of words. I'm surprised that somebody feels that Paris is not a word... So, what's a word? Lmaltier 20:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The slogan "all words in all languages" has been put into policy as WT:CFI. "All words in all languages" are fine words, in the nature of "give me liberty or give me death" or "liberty, equality, fraternity". "Liberty" turns out to be quite circumscribed by constitution, law, regulation, and social expectations. Similarly with our slogan. When it gets down to specifics we get to decide what we include. We decide based on reasons like benefit to users non-contributing, or interest of occasional and major contributors. If we think it is a good idea, then we should devote technical resources to getting some basic starter entries bot-loaded from Wikipedia to here in some form so we can rapidly present adequate coverage of what we want to cover. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what a word is, I just know that for me, isn't one. However, the CFI are quite clear that we aren't restricted to just words — see especially Criteria for inclusion — and I have no objection to including certain types of names, as long as I know which types. —Ruakh TALK 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we are restricted to words (+ characters, suffixes...). But I consider that table cloth is a word, in the linguistic (not typographic) sense of word. Lmaltier 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I recently added Kashgar / Kashi, since they were in the news (because of the riots in Xinjiang) and are likely to be searched by users. Both names are used for the same place name, the latter is often preferred by Chinese media in English and some tourist agencies. Anatoli 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * DCDuring, specifically, I suggest to include:

 * 1) all countries (already there) in the shortest form (France, not the French Republic, Transnistria / Pridnestrovie, not "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic", other languages may require the prefix - in Japanese it's always "沿ドニエストル共和国" with the word Republic, not used without it)
 * 2) country capitals in their full but shortest acceptable form - Mexico City is OK along with Mexico (city), Santiago de Chile is a word, not the same meaning as Santiago.
 * 3) City names, administrative centres (provinces, prefectures, states, oblasts, not necessarily counties or districts, unless they meet other criteria for inclusion). Say, e.g. major cities - 0.5 mln and over population or historically/culturally/politically significant place, e.g. Ramalla may be very small but it's always in the news. It doesn't mean that all HAVE to be created but I don't see issue in allowing this. Do we have space issues? Maintenance is not a problem, since large city names can be verified easily. 0.5 mln and over is an example only, no need to quote me on this. Please suggest other criteria if you want.
 * 4) All based on common sense, no need to twist or exaggerate. Hong Kong's capital district doesn't count as a capital city but Taiwan's Jhongsing (village) is (中興新村 / 中兴新村 Zhōngxīng Xīncūn). Anatoli 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Also to DCDuring: all words, all languages is not only a slogan, it's a principle. Trying to stick to this principle, in a systematic way, would not save space, of source, but would save much (very, very much) time in RfV, RfD, Beer parlour, etc. discussions, and it would be much easier to understand and to accept (by editors and by readers) than making exceptions here and there (there will always be people disagreeing with exceptions). Lmaltier 17:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we don't have to worry about space and can choose not to worry about maintenance, I suppose that the time consideration could govern.
 * I guess then the slogan principle of "all word in all languages" applies not just to "words", but also to "languages". Or are both of these in fact terms circumscribed by those who assert the authority to do so?
 * I have added to hidden categories Category:English headwords containing toponyms and Category:English etymologies containing toponyms for purposes of collecting samples of the value to our existing entries of toponymic entries. I perhaps shouldn't have added English. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This kind of interwiki debate is as long as it should be synthesized on the Embassy. JackPotte 04:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Anatoli, the criteria you list are purely encyclopedic. It's Wikipedia's job to identify capitals and large or important cities, or the sites of events in the news.  Imagine if WT:CFI only allowed names held by a million people, or only by famous living people.  Why should criteria for place names welcome the inclusion of Jhongsing or Kashgar, but not Zion, Babylon, Babel, Cathay, Waterloo, Auschwitz, Vulcan (from Star Trek), Utopia, Scotland Yard, Camelot or 24 Sussex Drive? —Michael Z. 2009-07-30 04:33 z

 * Michael, because these rules are created by the people and for the people and we can decide the significance of the entries here as we go along or right now. I don't see any issue with having these entries. Also, as I said, let's leave people's names and street addresses out of these discussions. The toponyms from fiction, not sure about these and I think it's not so relevant to this discussion either. Of course, the final rule may stipulate whether they need to be included. I don't think the number of real cities over 0.5 million is huge and can't be handled, even if we talk about other languages and different spellings. They are not going to appear from nowhere. I already stated my point of view that the criteria are not encyclopedic, except, perhaps the location and the fact that it's a capital or an administrative centre but it belongs to the meaning of the word, e.g. Ottawa means nothing if you don't say that it's the capital of Canada. I explained the criteria for the inclusion, not the entries themselves. The entries may stay linguistic as they are now. See Belgorod and please say what's wrong with the entry. This is the city I lived in the last few years before leaving Russia (not my home town) but there's no boosterism I was accused of - only dry dictionary info and the link to Wikipedia. Anatoli 05:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mzajac. Criteria you propose are encyclopedic. In a paper dictionary (even a pure language dictionary), such criteria are required, because space is limited. Here, they are not needed. The origin of the name of a small village may be much more interesting than the etymology of a capital. Yes, very few readers will be interested. But not fewer, probably, than for some obscure obsolete nouns or verbs. Lmaltier 05:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * What kind of criteria would you suggest, Lmaltier? Anatoli 06:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None. Accepting all toponyms when they can be understood as words, which is the case for most toponyms (but not for odonyms, which should be accepted only when they are words, e.g. Champs-Élysées or Canebière). But I think that place names which are not really considered as words (e.g. Excelsior Hotel, World Trade Center, etc.) should not be accepted, except when including their definition would be useful for good linguistic reasons (I don't like the "attributive use" criterion, because it seems to me to be specific to English, but criteria of this kind could be used in such cases). Lmaltier 07:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my idea as well and I certainly wouldn't oppose it but I am trying to find a middle ground or a compromise, since the number of large and known places, therefore more likely to be sought is smaller than small villages, exceptions, like Jhongsing village (seat of Taiwan't parliament) I mentioned above, could be made for small places, which have an important political, historical or cultural value, again if people agree. Michael disagrees with me for a different reason, you want to increase the criteria, he doesn't want proper names allowed without attributive usage. Anatoli 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * That is not what I don't want. —Michael Z. 2009-07-31 05:40 z

 * I may have missed something but to put it simply, you don't want to allow place names to be included if they don't meet the current CFI, that is attributive usage, not used in English expressions, right? Or this rule only applies to place names, which are made of more than one word, or rather have spaces/dashes between them? Didn't you say you don't want Wiktionary to become a gazetteer? Or was it that the information in the entries that you were worried about. If you don't mind, please explain your position again on place names in simple terms. Please restrict to real place names. Anatoli 06:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * A assumed that until we decided to change the CFI, then we are trying to conform to the CFI. What I want is a different issue.  I want to include more place names, once we've figured out an acceptable way to do that and agreed to update the CFI. —Michael Z. 2009-07-31 16:10 z

 * “Please restrict to real place names”—sorry, but I won't. We're talking about the definitions of real words here.  I assume Wikipedia already categorizes real places separately from fictional or mythical places, and it's pointless for us to go down the same road.  This discussion may be more productive if you stop couching your arguments in encyclopedic terms, and insisting that others do the same. —Michael Z. 2009-07-31 16:26 z

 * And its reality aside, significant use of a name doesn't require any measurable quality of its referent, like a million residents, viz. Jericho, Chernobyl, Greenwich, Alexandria, Olympus, Oxbridge and the already-mentioned Babylon, Auschwitz, and Waterloo. —Michael Z. 2009-08-01 05:52 z

 * You win, I lose. I am leaving the discussion and wiktionary. If my suggestions sounded imposing, I apologise. Anatoli 04:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Place names — AEL
Well, I'm coming rather late to this discussion, and must admit I haven't read the entirety off the discussion above. But would something like Votes/2007-08/Brand names of products 2 (=Criteria for inclusion/Brand names) work for place names? In fact, though, I like to think of two possible types of definition lines for place names. The one is "A place name". This, I think, is good for any non-SoP place name (so not, e.g., New York) and is useful for the etymology, pronunciation, and other info. The other is the one that identifies a particular place, and that's the one that we need good CFI for (and that I suggested something similar to our brand-name criteria for). Do others disagree? — msh210  ℠  20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A town and a different town with the same name, that makes two different senses. The definitions have to be different. And the general case is that there is at least some other information specific to the sense, even when the etymology is the same, e.g. the demonym, or a translation. See fr:Beaulieu for a typical (but rather extreme) example. Lmaltier 20:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I have a problem with that. In terms of inclusion, I'm starting to think that “every village” might work, just like “every surname” hasn't presented us with any problems.

 * But in terms of defining, I have a problem with each list of senses becoming a geographical catalogue, with items differentiated by nothing but their location. Imagine how many towns, villages, suburbs, and developers' tracts would be listed under Lakeview, Elmwood, Bridgeport, St. Paul, or Garden City. (These entries would become needless duplicates of Wikipedia's respective disambiguation pages: Lakeview, Elmwood, Bridgeport (disambiguation), Saint Paul (disambiguation), or Garden City)  Perhaps hundreds in some cases, adding zero lexicographical value. —Michael Z. 2009-07-31 16:10 z
 * I have proposed before, and will again, that any name in common use as a geographic identifier (e.g. Springfield) should be defined as pretty much exactly that: "a common name" for whatever type of thing it's a common name for. And put a link to the Wikipedia disambig page in case anyone wants to see all the specific instances. bd2412 T 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I like that. —Michael Z. 2009-08-01 05:25 z
 * Please see Votes/pl-2009-08/Common placenames get entries. —  msh210  ℠  11:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To Ruakh: From the definition in w:Word, it's clear that Paris and Confucius are words. This page also states In English orthography, words may contain spaces if they are compounds or proper nouns such as ice cream or air raid shelter.. According to this sentences, ice cream and air raid shelter are words, and words may be proper nouns including spaces (my example: w:Le Mans). This pages provides criteria from different authors for defining what a word is, but also insists on the fact that the definition of word is very elusive. Nonetheless, I propose to use this page as a basis for improving CFI. Lmaltier 08:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I note as well that the definition of "word" in Wikipedia also makes no reference to attestation. Clearly we have blundered. Our policy violates our slogan or principle or whatever it is. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know that this is not what I mean. Only existing words should be included. Lmaltier 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But you seem to be writing as if outside sources have some implications for our choices. We clearly make our decision on what we include within the broad definitions of "word". In the broadest sense, almost anything used in an intelligible sentence is a word. Fine.
 * Beyond that, I think we, as an entity with limited resources, especially technical ones, we need to couch the discussion in terms of costs and benefits to types of users for including specific classes of "words". For example: "We should have entries for all place names which are of encyclopedic import at any Wikipedia in any language (subject to some test of the adequacy of their inclusion criteria?) because they need to be translated for the benefit of those projects their wiktionaries and others." "We should include all proper nouns that are used to define terms in en.wikt or in etymologies so that we can give users a quick link (using popups) instead of making them wait for a WP page download. "We should have our own encyclopedic criteria because it would be a way of involving new users in educational discussion with senior Wiktionarians on why those criteria are justified in excluding their neighborhood, village, or favorite natural wonder."
 * I don't know whether I agree with any of the statements above, but I could imagine having a discussion about such matters that seemed relevant to Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * What we are considering here goes beyond “every word” in the conventional dictionary sense. We are considering going beyond non-encyclopedic entries in normal dictionaries, and beyond the OED.  We are considering moving beyond lexicography into onomastics by adding names.  I don't have a problem with this, but let's please understand the slogan for what it really means without exaggerating. —Michael Z. 2009-08-01 03:48 z
 * Toponymy belongs to lexicography: toponyms belong to the vocabulary of a language. Onomastics too, but it's normal to exclude full names such as ''Winston Churchill' from a language dictionary, because they are considered as two words rather than a single word. They are included only in encyclopedic dictionaries, because the only interesting data to be provided are encyclopedic, not linguistic. Lmaltier 06:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Practically no non-specialized dictionary has toponymic entries about place names at all, but many, especially American ones, have encyclopedic entries about places added, for marketing purposes. Although they throw in the pronunciation, they almost universally include specific references and statistics like population, history, etc., while ignoring etymology.  This is not lexicography or onomastics, this is pure encyclopedic supplement.

 * The OED is an exception, it only includes place-name entries for three reasons, as far as I can tell. 1—if a place name has become a word on its own, e.g., Moscow, which the OED doesn't define as a city at all (although of course this is mentioned in the etymology and an etymological note).  2—if a place name is widely used attributively, with a meaning beyond designating location, e.g., New York's meaning restricted specifically as “Only in attr. use [...] Designating things originating in, characteristic of, or associated with the city [...]” with the example New York dressed (of poultry).  3.—since, as in most print dictionaries, the OED includes compound words as run-in entries under a main headword, it includes place names in main headings as a place to house collocations, for example London: “the name of the capital of England, used attrib. in various special collocations:” followed by about two-dozen collocations including London broil, London fog, London paste.  This is a purely lexicographical approach, omitting encyclopedic and onomastic information as much as possible.

 * We aren't an encyclopedic dictionary—or at least we shouldn't be diluting our work with a half-assed copy of Wikipedia material.

 * Sorry I'm repeating this like a broken record. The distinction of encyclopedic material seems to be unclear to some editors.  There are lots of explanations in lexicography books, e.g. Oxford Guide, p 186–89, Manual of Lexicograpy, p 198–99. —Michael Z. 2009-08-01 16:13 z

 * I agree on your analysis of what paper dictionaries usually do. Yes, OED, and Webster's, and almost all other paper language dictionaries include toponyms only in some specific cases, because they choose not to include proper nouns, and toponyms are proper nouns. It's easy to find dictionaries which include proper nouns but, as a rule, they are encyclopedic dictionaries: only specialized paper dictionaries provide linguistic info about toponyms. But this is a good reason to try to study all toponyms, with an exclusively linguistic point of view: if somebody wants to find the pronunciation or the etymology of the name of a small Albanian town, he won't be able to find it anywhere, but here. Lmaltier 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm starting to come around to your view. I can't think of a valid reason to disqualify any village at all, if we decide to allow place names. I don't see major problems with the place name entries already present.

 * But how would we discourage the growth of encyclopedic entries? I'd like to limit the definitions of place names to the bare minimum information required to identify them.  Certainly I'd ban statistics like population figures, areas, geographic coördinates, and so on.  I'd also like to discourage statements of notability, like “biggest city in Ohio,” unless the quality contributes to the meaning or connotation of the name.

 * And how do we check the proliferation of lists of places? Everyone will want to add their home town.

 * Finally, how would we address prescriptivism? Many countries have official lists of place names and their spellings.  Obviously we would include anything that is attributed by our rules, but should we also note such official status? —Michael Z. 2009-08-03 02:25 z

 * Geographic coordinates should be included for cities and smaller population centers. They are the one aspect of a place that does not change.  The name and its spelling change; the population and relative size change; even the parent country can change as national borders move.  However, it is very rare for the geographic coordinates of a city, town, or village to change.  The coordinates therefore become the most reliable and consistent means of identifying a particular population center. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm skeptical. Geographical centres wander, cities grow, boundaries change both organically and by decree, districts are annexed and merged. The boundaries and even meanings of various bodies of water, regions, and neighbourhoods are undefined, or variously defined.  And as we know, names and their meanings change.

 * And in practical terms, we're talking about eventually cataloguing a (theoretically) measurable property about tens of thousands of things (not terms). Sounds encyclopedic to me, and duplicates Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 17:22 z

 * I agree. Some amount of encyclopedic information may be inevitable — I think it would be perverse to include, for example, without mentioning that it's presumed mythical, or without mentioning that it's historical — but geographic coordinates seems a bit extreme. (And "presumed mythical"– and "historical"-type things might best be covered by sense labels, anyway, rather than going into the definitions proper.) —Ruakh TALK 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I feel that a map showing where the place is located is clearer, and more appropriate in a language dictionary than precise geographic coordinates, which are appropriate in an encyclopedia. As for encyclopedic information, it should be limited to the definition, i.e. what is necessary to understand the word. This is true for all words, including common nouns (e.g. cat cannot be defined as Animal. or square as Polygon.). Actually, the definition is the only part which should be present both in an ancyclopedia and a language dictionary (and might be common to both in most cases). Lmaltier 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * A map is still specific to a place, not to a word or name. If we start adding geolocations or maps, then someone will make it their weekend hobby to take a definition like Alexandria (2. “A number of cities bearing the same name, including Alexandria, Virginia, USA”), and turn it into an array of map graphics.  This does not serve lexicography.

 * All we should do is link to Wikipedia, and let it be dealt with over there (which already is, with a link to Alexandria (disambiguation) listing 49 places. Forty-nine!). —Michael Z. 2009-08-05 06:42 z

 * I don't think size / population of a place / fame should be the key criteria for inclusion of a place. We include very rarely narrowly used words an specialized words.  Paper dictionaries don't have many place names in but I think that is partly because they have to be printed and this limits total content.  We need not observe the limitations of printed dictionaries.

John Cross 07:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes/pl-2009-08/Common placenames get entries Beer parlour archive/2009/September

A new place names proposal
Straw poll: Would you support an addition to WT:CFI along the lines of:
 *  Place names
 * A place name should be included if it is attested with three durably archived citations spanning at least 150 years. Listings on maps, in gazetteers, or in geographic dictionaries may not count toward the required three citations, although such listings may be used to provide additional information.

I'm interested in providing some sort of place name criterion, and a longer span for supporting quotations seems a suitable way to do this objectively. I hesitate to extend the date span further, since there are major modern cities and nations that have been in existence for only a century or two. Nairobi was founded in 1899, for example. --EncycloPetey 16:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What’s the rationale behind 150 years? Why not include new cities? --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many editors here complain about the inclusion of "small" or "unimportant" places, but we have repeatedly rejected "importance" criteria as encyclopedic. So, I figure that 150 years of citations establishes the durability of the word, which is more a lexical criterion.  The choice of number is a bit arbitrary, but covers well more than a single century.  It is also designed to push the upper limit of what might be usable, in order to (hopefully) appease the crowd that normally opposes the inclusion of place names.  Note that the criterion only states what is to be allowed; an entry failing this criterion is not necessarily therefore excluded.  Other considerations may permit its inclusion even when this criterion does not permit it.  I would, for example, argue (in some other thread) that capital cities of nations should always be included.  However, that is beyond the scope of this proposal.  The goal of this proposal is not to exclude new cities, but to find an acceptable criterion for objectively including at least some of the place names we continually wrangle over.  We can always debate additional place name criteria at a later date.  --EncycloPetey 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I’m for including all place names without additional preconditions, but if 150 years is the only way to appease placename-haters, I would vote for such a proposal. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I am of the same opinion. Good place names entries have linguistically interesting and important information. Can we, at least include large place names, no matter how old they are and famous place names (often used in news, literature, etc.)? Those are more likely to be sought by users. The "statistical" information about the size and the presence of universities, job opportunities, etc. matters here as these places are more likely to be used in the written form, therefore users will only welcome them. Anatoli 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it would be absurd not to have London and Chicago, if only for the etymological value, and to note translations. bd2412 T 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Proving the existence of a word should be the only criterion. I already object to the "3 years" mentioned in CFI: paper dictionaries have good reasons for such criteria, but not a wiki. Words may really exist and really be used a few days after their creation. Why not really adopting, once and for all, the principle "all words, all languages" and focusing only on "what's a word?", "what's a language?", "when does a word begin to exist in a language?" Lmaltier 17:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I fail to see why the "three independent durably archived citations" rule cannot apply to cities as well. That rule just by itself filters out all small villages which will never be mentioned in any books. -- Prince Kassad 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Support, but just as long as we keep in mind that this is a dictionary, which serves to explain words and their origins and usage, not the concepts themselvse. As long as we're just describing the name of any place and where it came from and what it describes (and not providing any information that really belongs in Wikipedia), then this is fine.  And it really shouldn't matter whether the name is 150 years old or not, 'cuz of course, like Lmaltier said above, a word can gain usage really quickly.  So if the name is widespread and has sufficient citations . . . sure, we can have 'em . . . :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I support this, as I definitely want to see more placenames here, but mirror the concerns of Logomaniac, and still think we need to better define how we define placenames. I think we're still confusing different referents with different definitions.  Truth be told, I still don't have a strong mental grasp on it myself.  This is still a problem with other types of proper nouns.  If two guys are named John, the word "John" does not have different meanings for the two of them.  Likewise, there are multiple Bloomingtons, and yet I think the word "Bloomington" does not have a different sense for the different cities, simply different referents.  Again, this is all pretty hazy in my own mind, but I think we need to sit down and have a good discussion about what defining a proper noun really means.  If we figure this out, I think it will help us avoid the encyclopedic info problem we've got.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * If you don't mind, Atelaes (and everyone else), I could do a little explaining right now, at least of my take on the situation. There's a difference between "word" and "concept" - a concept is any tangible (or intangible) thing, while a word is just a term used to refer to that concept.  That's also some of the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia - a dictionary explains the origins etc. of words themselves and defines which concepts they refer to, while an encyclopedia defines the concepts and lists the different words used to refer to that concept.  So in your example, two guys named John, the two different guys are two different concepts but they are both referred to with the same word.  Ditto with "Bloomington" - the different cities are different concepts but they are both referred to with the same word.  As long as we as a dictionary stick to describing the words it'll be good.  So with St. Cloud, an entry I created semi-recently, even though the word generally refers to the city in central Minnesota (a concept), there are other cities referred to with that word so I had to let the definition somewhere like "any of several cities in the U.S.".  I think one of the problems we get into sometimes is that we tend to drift toward explaining the concepts themselves and not just the words.  That's where it gets tricky.  But for placenames, as long as we just explain the words themselves (and point people to Wikipedia), it should be fine.  Wow that got long . . . But anyway, you now know my opinion on the subject :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the important criterion, besides proven to exist, is that a place name in a non-Engish land should first be given in the original spelling in the language of that place. I don’t think it is useful to have an English transcription of an Oriya village when we don’t have the name in Oriya. In patroling the language-cleanup category, probably the most common entry I encounter is that of an obscure village somewhere in India, written only in English and no hint of the native spelling or even the language of the village. I delete them out of hand if I can’t get the native name first. —Stephen 00:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * IMO we definitely should not list every use of a city name. (To take London as an example, there are tons of them with nothing in common beyond the name.) That's about as bad as listing under Smith all of the millions of individual people who happen to have that name. OTOH, saying that something is a place name, and giving its ety, might be okay (though to be honest I don't like the sound of it, because there are simply so many, including the tiniest of villages, and it seems like clutter). Equinox ◑ 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Exactly. That is definitely not what we as a dictionary are supposed to do.  Listing every use of a city name (or listing every person with the surname Smith) is purely and wholly encyclopedic, and will never belong in a dictionary.  It just shouldn't happen here.  So yes, we definitely should not do that.  And we wouldn't have reasons to include the names of the tiniest of villages, because such would probably not have 3 independent durably archived citations and would therefore not meet CFI (o whatever EP is proposing to set up.), as Prince Kassad noted above.  L☺g☺maniac chat? 01:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * @Atelaes: I think that there is, for each person named John, a separate sense of the proper noun . (However, all of them are covered by a single sense of the common noun, found in sentences like “There seem to be a lot of Johns in this town.”) We certainly don't want to include each such sense — instead, we give a non-gloss definition for a sort of meta-sense that covers them all — but the reasons for that don't necessarily apply to all place-names. If a name is only used for a tiny number of places, I don't see much need for that sort of artificially-vague meta-sense (except perhaps to avoid a "slippery slope"?). —Ruakh TALK 02:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are infinitely different senses of the one proper noun, but a dictionary would never think of adding a list of such senses - i.e. 1) my brother's best friend, 2) my brother's other friend, 3) my uncle, etc... But they are all covered by a broader sense, still of the proper noun, referring to the name itself and then a common noun referring to anyone under this name. But even if a term (like a placename) is only used to refer to a small number of specific concepts (like towns/cities), we still shouldn't be listing those places as that is encyclopedic.  We are just supposed to say that, hey, it is a placename (no matter how many cities it refers to) and point the user to Wikipedia if they want to find the specific places.  Remember, this is a dictionary! (I like to say that) and a dictionary just gives the meaning of the word, not the different specific concepts that word refers to.  It is almost as absurd as listing all the different types of televisions under the entry television.  It just doesn't happen in a dictionary.  L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The meaning of John in John Smith and John Kennedy is the same, the meaning of Kennedy in John Kennedy and Edward Kennedy is the same. But the meaning of Paris (in France) and Paris (in Texas) is not the same, and this fact has linguistic consequences (e.g. possibly, pronunciation, etymology, or gentilic words). All senses should be listed, whether the word is a toponym or not. Lmaltier 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean we're supposed to add a sense for every single city named "Rochester"?! Or "Paris"?! There are like, 10 different Rochesters in the U.S. and probably a lot elsewhere. Even if there's only 3 or 4 occurrences of a name, I would still prefer if we left it to "A placename common in the ".  Of course if everyone else decides other wise, well, I guess I could just stay out of it.  L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean exactly that. If you don't think it's necessary, have a look at fr:Beaulieu. You'll see that this page doesn't mention any encyclopedic info such as population, but it mentions linguistic information specific to each sense. Lmaltier 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a Beaulieu in Hampshire, in case you want to add that one too! Equinox ◑ 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But the Paris in Texas (and presumably almost every other Paris) is named for the one in France; so we have only two senses - the first for the original in France, and a second for "any of a number of other cities and towns named after the city in France". bd2412 T 21:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be only two different etymologies, but not only two senses. Are inhabitants of Paris (Texas) called Parisians? Maybe, but I'm not sure at all... This information should be mentioned, it's linguistic information. Lmaltier 21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't oppose. I would really prefer that we stuck to the policy that proper names in mainspace have to be used to indicate something other than the literal referent. On the other hand, we should have a policy that people will actually follow consistently.  This seems like such a policy.  Also, an advantage to the 150-year (or similar) criterion is that it rules out ephemeral region names (metropolitan statistical areas, forest districts, etc.)  These are completely encyclopedic, and would be a serious concern if had only the 1-year criterion.  (If a particular sewage district has been around for 150 years, I suppose it's earned some kind of distinction.)  There are going to be some new and messy corner cases, but I guess we'll deal with them when they arise.
 * It would be ideal if these were consistently tagged in some way, so that any future reuser who might want to use Wiktionary as a dictionary could filter this junk bright shiny loveliness -- oh, I'll just stick with "junk" -- out. -- Visviva 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

weneedAL ev'm-itsaMASIV PROJECT,wt,so nobigdeal.
 * [eg acurious girl intheTINIEST OFPLACES needs2beABL2GO2WT'n'FINDOUTwot herhamlet's nameACTUALY MEANS[=etyl!!
 * mymyself imstilnot sur'bout the engl name4ppl fromthe south ofbelgium[VLOMS-wAAL]--itsNEVA i/thoseOFENSIVLY B-A-D PRINT DICT uguyz solike[n i/encyclop. itgoes byREGION, n even ifu STUMBLE UPONit,itsNOT THEIR JOB,so info INcomplete etc--n let alone FINDIN'THE CHIN.TR-L so idont need2hum-haw here i/tw--iREALY-REALYwish uguyz'dc FURTHER THAN UR NOSES RLONGnDISCOVER [N ACOMODATE!]USERS'NEEDS!!!!![w/o say telin'sumST.SHITbout unprof.tr-lators getin aboost fromaUSERFRIENDLYwt,imeanJEESUS,wotr wedoin here???--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A problem with 150 years is demonstrated by that the name of Brasília wouldn't qualify for inclusion under this guideline.

Should prescriptive government documents be added to the list of maps & references? On the other hand, we already accept many technical terms with prescribed definitions, and typically put a restrictive label on them like chemistry, medicine, etc. (Or don't label them: look at the for-physicists-only definition of metre!). —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 16:19 z
 * I can't think of a good way to objectively define a "prescriptive government document". Do treaties and constitutions count as such?  Why or why not? --EncycloPetey 05:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm just thinking of official lists of place names and their spellings, electoral districts, etc., whose names may not be in general use, or may change or be renamed periodically as governments re-stack the voters' lists. We should go by attested use instead. —Michael Z. 2009-09-09 05:28 z

 * The proposal doesn't say what it means by "citations". Any use at all? I suspect half the tiny hamlets in Great Britain will meet that criterion (and many elsewhere, such as |in|to+colonie+new+york%22&as_drrb_is=b&as_maxy_is=1860 Colonie (w:)), not that that's necessarily a bad thing. —  msh210  ℠  17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One linguistic criterion in a multilingual dictionary such as ours might be that the place name has attestably a different name in at least two languages, or alternatively in at least one language that is not widely used by nationals of that place. This would automatically exclude "hamlets" as they are most likely known in only one language (and pretty unknown in that one, too!), but include important places like London (see Lontoo, Londres, Lundúnir). A foreign spelling is typically something that one would want to look up in a dictionary. This might be combined with other criteria such as "national capital cities always included". --Hekaheka 21:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 * We don't have such criteria for any other kinds of words. This would just favour place names in colonies and along popular invasion routes. —Michael Z. 2009-09-10 02:00 z

 * How do we handle the fact that the identity (which is close to being the definition) of the referent changes. In the first instance, let's ignore formal names of the sovereign states and just focus on an area place name, say, Germany. Writings in different periods would necessarily be referring to the Germany as then or previously constituted. A translation of a Latin work that translated "Germania" as "Germany" is referring to something different from later definitions of Germany. Many of the referents do correspond to specific borders, but many don't. Are all the Germanies in the set of entities called Germany 1866-1870, 1871-1914, 1918-1938, 1945-reunification, and post unification the same? Note that even this omits the fluidity of the concept during wars and in the years before Bismarck. The referent, that is, seems to be very fluid, which fluidity is usually reflected in the history of the place or the ethnic or national identity involved. Our existing entry for Germany has three definitions and omits many periods. Inevitably, someone will attempt to insert a complete set of definitions of Germany and attempt to cite each one. Because we emphasize attestation from the written record and historians write copiously I don't doubt that many senses will turn out to be citable. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * We're talking about criteria for the inclusion of words here, not of the places they represent, and not even of their definitions or senses, so don't steer this conversation too far into the realm of defining.

 * But to address your concerns, the word Germany refers to the land of the Germans, and not to a particular set of surveyor's measurements or constitutional documents. —Michael Z. 2009-09-10 02:00 z

 * That just pushes the problem elsewhere. What is a "German"? Someone who lives in Germany? Well that's no use. Equinox ◑ 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Maybe not. Germans in this sense are members of an ethnic group, with a shared language. They originally came from elsewhere, but the region they settled in is named after them.  Germans in the civic sense, in turn, are people with certain legal rights in Germany.

 * But I admit, some dictionaries define these differently. The OED arguably cops out by not defining Germany, even though it says of German (adj) “The precise signification depends on the varying extension given to the name Germany”. —Michael Z. 2009-09-10 02:28 z

 * Well, it seems circular, but they are basically the same because they have the same name. (Contrast a country that changes its name without changing any geographical borders.) Otherwise couldn't we argue for prime minister: having a different, separate referent each time a new one was elected, or cat: when a new cross-breed was created? Equinox ◑ 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, which two of the three current definitions of Germany do we strike or how do we rewrite the definition? Do we forbid other definitions?
 * I would really like to see examples of some model entries for
 * a current place that corresponds to a sovereign jurisdiction, say, Germany
 * a current place that corresponds to a non-sovereign jurisdiction, say, Nice
 * other inhabited places, say, Cote d'Azur and Hell's Kitchen
 * other named geographic features (if they are to be included)
 * An ocean
 * A marsh
 * A valley
 * A glacier
 * A plains
 * Are there any features of these entries as they are that would be excluded? How many senses are to be permitted? How attested? What about maps? Pictures? External links (Official websites, Tourist Bureau, Chamber of Commerce)? Hypernyms; hyponyms; coordinate terms? DCDuring TALK 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * This proposal is about inclusion of terms, and not about styles of defining (although we could certainly use some of the latter). —Michael Z. 2009-09-10 02:00 z
 * Oppose. If I cannot know the consequences, then it is a pig in a poke. To the extent that I can foresee the consequences, it appears likely to lead to further dilution of effort to improve quality of existing entries of other types. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Must-reads, for those who want to bring in proper names:

 * Salikoko S. Mufwene (1988) “Dictionaries and Proper Names”
 * Laurence Urdang (1996) “The Uncommon Use of Proper Names”

Both argue that there is no logical reason to omit proper names, but the former also says “since proper names function prototypically as referential indices, denotative descriptions beyond, e.g., 'personal name' or 'name of a city in GL' (where GL stands for geographic location) should be omitted.” —Michael Z. 2009-09-24 05:06 z

Beer parlour archive/2009/December

Another place name deleted
Another place name has been deleted - Chiayi - a city in Taiwan, an administrative centre. It was rfv'ed, not rfd'ed. What has been achieved? How does it improve the Wiktionary? Does anybody care? I do and I am very upset. Anatoli 02:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused. This entry was RFV'd and no one was able to provide citations for it which means the city must not exist, right? --Yair rand 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I am confused about the request for citation - why an what. Chiayi (Jiayi) 嘉義/嘉义 does exist, of course, not just in the reality but in the dictionaries, Wikipedia, etc. The RFV serves as a signal to delete for some, which is a big worry. --Anatoli 03:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the entry may be recreated once someone finds a citation that the city exists, right? --Yair rand 03:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I am not sure what drives place name haters here. Will the citations be satisfactory? Will the sources be considered "reliable"? Are these the real reason for the deletion? As if a city will stop exist, if there are no satisfactory English citations. In my opinion, it's a misuse of authorities given. The place names from the English speaking world are also welcome, not from other places. I feel sorry for my time spent on the entry - finding translations and transliterations in other languages. The English only entry itself has little value and would not take a long time to recreate. --Anatoli 03:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Wow, straw man much? We've had this argument enough times, I'd think you'd at least have a vague notion of what people have been telling you. Are you intentionally misrepresenting them, or were you just ignoring their explanations to begin with? —Ruakh TALK 03:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Not quite. According to our criteria for inclusion (CFI), the question isn't whether the city exists, but whether the English name is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning. (One can argue that the CFI allow it to be listed just as a name, like we do with given names and surnames; but first of all, I'm not clear on exactly how that would work, and secondly, that wouldn't satisfy Anatoli.) Personally, I don't RFV real place-names, given that the "attributive use" criterion doesn't really seem to have consensus, but if someone lists them at RFV, and no one provides citations, I'm not sure what Anatoli wants me to do. We've had many discussions and votes towards addressing the issue, and none of them has accomplished anything. —Ruakh TALK 03:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Where was the vote to change CFI? I am not ignoring what I am being told, I disagree with what they say - I can only remember maximum about 5 users who would agree with you. People with this opinion (CFI based on attributive usage) are not in majority here but are the administrators with the right to delete. Yes, there were a lot of discussions and I could tell that the majority was for the increase of CFI, not for the decrease. The rule to base CFI on attributive usage is not followed, will only allow place names known to English speakers. If you want to be nice and don't know what to do when someone RFV's, place "missing citations" or other flags, add to discussion but why delete? Deletion is not productive, it's destructive, in any case. Do you personally doubt that the place exists and will have entries in dictionaries and pretending to be innocent? Anatoli 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The simple logic is that it is not necessary that any place names be in a dictionary. It had been decided before I arrived here that they were to be excluded, except for those names that meant something beyond their literal meaning. "Golden Gate Bridge" is meaningful because its use as a jumping point for suicides appears in publications in ways beyond simple reporting of the fact of a suicide. This kind of usage is not very common, but some famous places have that kind of associated meaning. There have been various proposals to allow some kinds of places. The proposals always end up with some kind of non-lexicographic criteria that amount to to notability.
 * But, frankly, there seems to be no one willing to assume responsibility for making an intelligent proposal, let alone implementing it. Until there are at least two or three people who seem willing to put in the work required and start to do so, I doubt that a vote to change policy will succeed. Right now, if people are even unwilling to take the trouble to find out what geography entries might be included under current and proposed standards and do the work to cite a few entries, I think there is no basis for expecting anyone to do the sustained work required. At this point many of the geographic entries that have been made do not even meet our formatting standards. If they do not, they show up on cleanup lists. When they do, I often tag them if they do not seem likely to meet our current standards.
 * There seem to be quite a few people here who are already favorably disposed to place-name entries. It probably would only take a core group to make a good effort to understand the issues and make a proposal to get things changed. Perhaps someone could take a stab at something at Editable CFI. DCDuring TALK 04:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well suppose it doesn't? Suppose someone, as a joke, makes up a realistic sounding place name - let's say, Fjeurnsalooften, and claims it is a town in Norway. How can we protect the integrity of the dictionary from false entries without requesting proof? bd2412 T 04:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Use an atlas/Google/Google Earth!!! That's how lol...50 Xylophone Players talk 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that atlases, Google, and Google Earth constitute "proof", but do think that we should base our CFI on them? Sorry, but I don't think that makes sense. (And anyway, decent atlases don't include such place-names as, which surely merits an entry more than does.) —Ruakh TALK 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WTH? I never said I didn't think atlases etc. constituted proof. o.O Where are you getting that from?? As for Valhalla, while it is a "place name", whether it merits inclusion or should, IMO, be judged along with the likes of entries for Greek, Norse, etc. gods. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The place names situation is very similar to the given names and surnames, which also don't have an official policy. What we need here is for someone to start up a proposed policy page on place names, given names, and surnames, for everyone to work on, so we can have a vote and finally settle matters. --Yair rand 04:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We've had 4 vote attempts on this issue so far, it's not such a simple matter. See Votes/pl-2009-08/Common placenames get entries, Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A, Votes/pl-2007-05/Placenames 2, Votes/pl-2007-02/Placenames. If you want to create such a page do it, nothing on Wiktionary ever happens if the task is assigned to "someone". Conrad.Irwin 14:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * We also had this vote, Votes/pl-2009-05/Names of specific entities, which I still believe to be the most sensible answer. Maybe it didn't pass as an overall solution to the proper names issue, yet it could pass in a narrower scope. I've never heard and would hardly believe analogy such as "the Chiayi of..." so I'm fairly confident the term in question wouldn't pass in English. In Chinese it's probably a different story though. And if not for Chiayi, maybe for the Chinese spelling of Taoyuan. And if not for Taoyuan, then for a bigger city like Taichung. And if not for Taichung, then most certainly for Kaoshung, depending on how inclusive or exclusive the criteria. Apart from where the line is drawn for any single language, the question becomes, would we allow translations of place names that can be cited only in a different language? If we use citation to back entries, inevitably there will be some that are highly recognized abroad and all but unknown to English speakers.

 * I personally think that a vote on expansion of exclusions to include "Wiktionary is not a gazetteer" (in the sense of a geographic dictionary) could culminate in a decision to or not to include placenames that are only placenames and do not have additional meanings. That might be too simplistic an idea, though. --Ceyockey 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to include any place names that have no further meaning, including New York, Africa, and Jupiter? --Yair rand 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a suitable enough criterion is whether a translations section is possible, i.e. whether knowledge of the place name is well-known enough for translations to have developed. --Yair rand 05:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wiktionary is not a gazetteer" would not be an absolute blockade on inclusion of standalone placenames, just as "Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia" does not dictate definition content. Rather, it would set a high bar for inclusion, albeit a bar which would be open to interpretation (for better or for worse). --Ceyockey 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The most important sentence in our CFI is the first one "As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”". Perhaps some people would like to change that to "most words in most languages" - but I would prefer it to stay as it is. SemperBlotto 11:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is not the entire purpose of the CFI to qualify the aspiration of "all words in all languages"? --Ceyockey 23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC}
 * Indeed. Not a single constituent of our slogan is without qualification, including "in". Much of it is necessary so we have the time to upgrade the quality of our content so it approaches that of our competitors. In the long run, we may have enough contributors to be able to successfully include more. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what is a word? Is a place name a word if it's proven to be in use? Is it a word if it's part of one language, meaning that other languages have their own versions? Is it a word if it has been mentioned in published works, or if has been displayed in a map or an atlas? Are all place names assumed to be words, or just those that are integrated into a language as much as any regular word? --Yair rand 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, all toponyms in all languages are words. --Ivan Štambuk 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying placename issues
To try and get some structure going here, let's assume we want "all words in all languages" and we have workable definitions for "all", "in", "language", just wishing to clarify "word" as it relates to placenames. After a few days/replies/when this whole structure disintegrates, hopefully we'll be able to see why we have disagreement; then we could try to solve it. Does anyone have short(ish) answers to the following questions, you don't have to answer them all, but try to avoid replying to answers (at least initially) any comments can probably go positively under the opposite section. Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Why is a placename not a word?
 * because it's a placename. Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, word is phonetically or orthographically separable sequence of sounds (in most languages, in some due to extreme sandhi or agglutination only grammatically separable). Whether something is a placename or not has to do only with semantics. All placenames in all languages are words on their own. The whole "problem" of placenames as "non-words" was raised only to somehow degrade their status, as if they have nothing to do in a dictionary, which is in fact wrong as all modern dictionaries of all languages include at least some placenames. --Ivan Štambuk 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * re "because it's a placename": this is an empty reason, isn't it? It does not state any property of placenames from which their wordness or non-wordness could be inferred. --Dan Polansky 09:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A placename, like a personal name, may be arbitrary and of no practical use to a dictionary. It seems obvious that if I decide to name my house Beedeevaynia, that would not merit an entry here (even though it is clearly a word that I have coined. On the other hand, it seems equally obvious (to me, at least, and to most of us, I think) that we ought to have entries for Chicago, Connecticut, Andorra, Gulf of Mexico, Mount Everest, and Ganymede, for example. The trick is explaining why we want the latter and pinning down the dividing line, a function I find to be fairly well served by the existing CFI. bd2412 T 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A placename, like a personal name, may be arbitrary - Excuse me, but what exactly is this suppose to mean? How are toponyms "arbitrary" ?
 * ...and of no practical use to a dictionary. How can you say something like that after everything what was written in this discussion. Entries or toponyms are exactly like the "normal" entries minus the definition lines. They have their own pronunciations (often extremely unpredictable), etymologies, translations, obsolete spellings, archaic varieties, slang synonyms, their own derived forms (demonyms, relative adjectives, even verbs in some cases). They are also extremely important source of etymological information (because they're usually attested before most of the languages were ever written. There are even some languages entirely reconstructed from toponyms). --Ivan Štambuk 13:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * If a placename is not a word, should Wiktionary include it anyway?
 * useful to readers. Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * many of the same reasons as regular words: provide translations, pronunciation, etymology etc. --Yair rand 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * seconding input from Yair rand --Ceyockey 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * An entry without at least translations may be of little value but translations can't be added if the entry doesn't exist. A purpose of any dictionary for a place names is to look up its name in another language in a convenient way. The (previously) deleted Chiayi entry contained this useful information. An example, how do you find out how to pronounce 嘉義 in Russian or Korean? What do the characters 嘉 and 義 mean?--Anatoli 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Contributors can also contribute to the wikipedia Chiayi page. We aren't the only place people can add info to. And those pages probably have easier formatting details (though you'd have to write a few more words to make stub entries for those not already created). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot add translations to foreign languages to that page. In fact, you cannot add foreign-language entry info at all to Wikipedia because it's monolingual project and not multilingual like Wiktionary. We also have languages many of which don't even have an associated Wikipedia project. The type of content we're primarily interested in as a dictionary is of little or no value to encyclopedia and vice versa. The most logical conclusion is that they should complement each other. --Ivan Štambuk 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Translations are done via the iwikis (works only for languages that have a wikipedia project). This does raise the bar for editing since to add a new a translation someone has to create at a least a stub article in the foreign language wikipedia before adding the iwiki. Admittedly, no perfect. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interwikis function very poorly as translations:
 * For once, they're not translations at all. They're articles on FL wikipedias on the same topic or related topic. An article on English Wikipedia on some English village might interiwiki to an article on FL wikipedia on the entire county. An article on a certain mountain peak on English Wikipedia might intrwiki to an article on FL wikipedia on the mountain itself.
 * Often interwikied articles are not in lemma forms. We deal with this all the time because users copy/paste interwikis from Wikipedia translations that happen to be in plural, in definite form, or similarly grammatically marked "title" form.
 * Interwikis are bound to only one script, which is a major drawback in languages written in several scripts (like Mandarin - the most spoken language in the word). They also don't provide other additional information that our translations do: transliteration, gender and alternative display (with marked accents - often of utmost importance for proper pronunciation).
 * In general Wikipedia interwiki serves as a very bad source for the translations of toponyms. We could include all that I listed above plus more: historical and regional forms that will never have their own Wikipedia articles. Interwikies are opaque and decoding them requires intuition and lots of unnecessary assumption. Reading checked Wiktionary translations OTOH provides information user can firmly rely on. --Ivan Štambuk 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Why is a placename a word?
 * clearly a "distinct unit of language" (cf. word). Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * it is a proper noun or noun phrase with a distinct though historically mutable meaning. --Ceyockey 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * gets pronounced, written, typed, sometimes contains no spaces, is a proper noun and proper nouns are words; in other words, looks like a word or a multi-word term, is non-SOP (the location of "New York" cannot be determined from the location of "York" and the meaning of the common noun "new"). --Dan Polansky 09:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, but not all proper nouns are words (e.g. Winston Churchill is not a word, but two words). But most placenames are words, including New York. Lmaltier 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but where do you get these rules from? You've provided no evidence that the "wordness" of one is different than the other. I think it's far more "fuzzy" than you assert what a word is. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * If a placename is a word, why should Wiktionary not include it?
 * waste of time, it's in Wikipedia. Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * dog is in Wikipedia, too. But information included is not the same. Here, it should be linguistic info, just like all paper language dictionaries dedicated to placenames (they mainly deal with etymologies). Lmaltier 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially since the default search here no searches Sister projects like Wikipedia. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * a distraction from core task of being as good a dictionary as our competitors. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We are competing with someone ? --Ivan Štambuk 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like all living things in this universe. DCDuring TALK 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In order words: we are not competing with anyone, and you're simply using a blank and invalid argument. --Ivan Štambuk 02:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded in kind to your vacuous question. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My question was hardly "vacuous". You gave a serious answer - that apparently inclusion of toponyms somehow "degrades" long-term goals of Wiktionary, as if we're effectively competing with commercial dictionaries. That is hardly the case. Wiktionary and all of the other Wikimedia projects are based on free, volunteering effort, and even tho certain goals may be more "desirable" from someone's perspective than some others based on the utility for the end-users (e.g. coverage of "big" and "important" languages as opposed to smaller and "less significant" ones), forcing contributors not to contribute valuable content is principally against Wiki principles of collaboration and self-managed creation of content. --Ivan Štambuk 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is gratifying to see you lay out this set of principles. My and your attempts to persuade are part of the "managed" part of self-managed creation of content. Collaboration among ourselves to compete with others is something I hardly can object to. I can think of at least a small number of "smallish" languages whose contributors I have tried to encourage. To prevent further OT divergence from I have opened a heading for . DCDuring TALK 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the sense that we aim to provide useful information to users and there are other sites that offer similar content, yes we are competing. If we don't try and address the needs of the user, and DCDuring thinks there are more important way we can do this than working on toponyms, then all of this is intellectual masturbation. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This a volunteering project, no one is getting paid to do anything, and contributors are free to contribute in any domains then like to. It's preposterous to think of us "competing" with somebody. In this tempo Wiktionary won't reach the quality and coverage level of comprehensive English dictionaries in at least 5 years. I'm sure that DCDuring would like it to be sooner, but this kind of exclusivity fascism will not "force" anyone to contribute in the direction they don't feel like contributing, and DCDuring and his English-focused friends would. Toponyms are hardly an "intellectual masturbation" - their study is a well-established discipline in lexicography and historical linguistics. There is absolutely no reason why Wiktionary couldn't function as a dictionary of toponyms. --Ivan Štambuk 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To prevent further departure of this discussion from its original susubject I have started a new header . DCDuring TALK 15:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: You're basically saying:
 * If we allow toponyms as entries we'd enter "a new arena of competition" that would somehow degrade the quality of "normal" (non-toponymic) entries?
 * It is desirable to explicitly forbid creation of certain type of content if that measure would "force" contributors to focus on domains that are from someone's perspective more "important" as long-term goals ? --Ivan Štambuk 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of achieving pre-eminence in one field, which is very possible, we will remain the fifth best free online English dictionary. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. We'll get to the quality of commercial dictionaries sooner or later (much sooner than Wikipedia will reach the quality of commercial encyclopedias). This is a free dictionary and explicitly forbidding certain type of content is against the tenets of free knowledge that the Wikimedia Foundations cherishes. It's all about choice. --Ivan Štambuk 16:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * their definitions are quite difficult to nail down with much accuracy without resorting to inclusion of encyclopedic content --Ceyockey 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give an a few example toponyms whose definitions are "difficult to nail down"? --Ivan Štambuk 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be addressed adequately below without my providing redundant input. --Ceyockey 03:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where below? Can you list a few such examples here? --Ivan Štambuk 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * How do you say "of or pertaining to Moscow" in Russian? Or "woman citizen of Moscow" ? How do you pronounce it? What is the etymology of that word? How does it inflect? What is the translation of that word in languages that don't have Wikipedia articles on Moscow (or worse, don't even have Wikipedias at all)? Countless lexicographically relevant information can and should be be included. The problem is not whether allow toponyms or not, but to set the lowest bar of criteria for their inclusion. --Ivan Štambuk 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary cannot do justice the special needs of placenames: special data structures, special data, maps, photos, without doing great violence to its existing content and seriously challenging its technical resources. DCDuring TALK 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Not a good excuse, DCDuring, Wikipedia can do these things much better. Place names dictionaries don't have to do this. The linguistic information is all that's required - meaning (minimal info), spelling, grammar (gender, declensions, etc), pronunciation, etymology, translations, alternative names/spellings if I haven't missed anything. Anatoli 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What special data structures? Photos would be nice (at most 1), maps are of no use (though linking to google maps or similar external resources in ====External links==== should be allowed). Absolutely everything else would simply follow the normal layout of WT:ELE. --Ivan Štambuk 02:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coordinates, borders, overlapping borders, changing borders. Without some geographic information this is of minimal value, especially to users in the host language. With geographic information, it will start and remain far behind WP, Google Earth, etc. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coordinates can be trivially linked to in ====External links==== (they're static). Borders and order geographic information that you mention are completely irrelevant for our cause: this is a dictionary and we only focus on lexicographically relevant content. Users who want to find out how do you pronounce, inflect, translate X, what is the demonym or relative adjective of X, or the etymology of it, would look it up in a dictionary. If they're interested in X's climate, population and industry - they'd look it up in encyclopedia. You're really exaggerating when you claim that this is "of minimal value" - this type of information we could provide Wikipedia normally does not provide at all, and neither to Google Earth and others. We are not interested in providing the type of content they provide at all. --Ivan Štambuk 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in my opinion, Google Maps could be used to confirm the existence of the toponym. I don't see any difference in checking out the existence of place names from other words. Like with any word human errors are possible but a simple check is easy for people worrying about the integrity of entries. Real and significant names are easy to check, especially in English. Anatoli 02:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Services such as Google Maps aren't "published" in the traditional sense. They can and do change the info in their mapping database. How then could we properly cite & reference this changing medium? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coordinates are static aren't they? We could possibly embed them in some kind of template that will generate link to several online Maps services (Google Maps, Bing Maps etc.) This is really something completely optional. --Ivan Štambuk 15:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying placename issues — AEL

 * (a) they are traditionally excluded from dictionaries; only few place names are included by them if any;
 * (b) there are overwhelmingly many place names; (bi) they overflood the random-page function, and (bii) they overflood the next-page and previous-page functions, analogous to browsing a printed dictionary page by page;
 * (c) place names are not really a part of the vocabulary of a language; their knowledge is not needed for understanding of texts. I am not sure how valid these reasons are, though. --Dan Polansky 09:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though there are many advocates-in-principle of WikiGazetteer entries there seem to be no advocates-in-action. IOW, lots of talk, no work. If no one can be found to even put forth a proposal that anticipates and answers practical objections, why should we expect this project to be anything other than a waste of time on a scale vastly larger than these tedious discussions? DCDuring TALK 12:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked by this comment DCDuring. This whole discussion started after one of our editors did actual work, and complained after the entry was mercilessly deleted by one of the admins strictly abiding by the defective policy that basically prohibits 99.999% of world's toponyms. It's important to settle down disputed points (which apparently range from "placenames are not words" to "placenames are worthless from lexicographical viewpoint) first before making any kind of formal proposal. The purpose of policy pages is not to settle objections but to codify established consensus. --Ivan Štambuk 15:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a never-ending stream of vandals who do that kind of "work": adding entries or other material that doesn't meet CFI. The true work that has to be done is to make a proposal that defines the change to be made and anticipates and addresses the issues that will be faced once CFI is relaxed to include the entries that ought to be in a Wikigazetteer project. What you define as "work" seems to be whatever someone wants to enter as long as it is properly formatted, without regard to any policy, guidelines or practices concerning inclusion. The intent of the existing rules is to exclude most toponyms. It is not accidental.
 * The resort to pejorative labels makes this discussion more like some kind of public demonstration rather than something practical. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said more than once that I'd personally lock this project to registered users only. 99% of IP-generated content is either vandalism or so badly-formatted that it needs someone's attention to the point that the entry was better created from scratch. And the vandalism argument is not particularly strong IMHO: very rarely are the IP-generated entries toponyms. It is highly unlikely that there is a stream of some vandals out there that is eager to create thousands of low-quality toponym entries that would cause havoc on RfV. It's is much more likely that it would stay confined to a group of dedicated regulars who are primarily interested in that type of content. Like we have Makaokalani and Alasdair for personal names.
 * Anyway, as I said, the only thing that I see that needs to be done, judging from this discussion, is raising the bar a bit higher, so that we evade mass creation of stubbish entries. --Ivan Štambuk 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As we have no intention at present of locking the project to non-registered users, I suppose that the WikiGazetteer proposal could wait until that time.
 * It is specious to use the behavior of users now to suggest their behavior in the future in such a way. If users find that we have place names, they will be more likely to look up their own favorite places and, finding them missing, add them. These are just the kind of entries and users that we need, I suppose, to successfully achieve high coverage of place names.
 * I eagerly await the arrival of the users interested in that kind of content. Do we have three from existing active contributors? Are they willing to do the real work of making a credible proposal that anticipates and addresses problems and objections. Or is there just going to be more whining, blathering, and fencing. Fencing can be a fun diversion, but it doesn't accomplish much. Why doesn't someone who wants this start a project page and get this show on the road? DCDuring TALK 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is specious to use the behavior of users now to suggest their behavior in the future in such a way - no, it's prefectly reasonable and common-sense. My prediction is based on the observation of empirical data, yours on some irrational apocalyptic scenario that has no foundation in the actual history of IP edits.
 * As I said below, we could explicitly request that all toponym entries be created with citations or some kind of additional value. That would significantly throttle "creation only for the purpose of creation". No we're not interested in coverage of world's toponyms at all - we're interested in the coverage of lexicographically relevant data. Entry such as <tt> ==English== ===Noun=== # City in Southern Arizona </tt> is basically worthless. But, if it includes some kind of information that a dictionary is interested in - that's entirely different thing. Once again, we are not interested in defining toponyms (as you cannot "define" onomastics): we're interested in including absolutely everything else.
 * We already have at least 1 user that happens to be quite interested in placenames: Anatoli who initiated this discussion in the first place. How many are there is irrelevant to this discussion. Feedback is still being actively gathered and discussed. There is absolutely no hurry as we have 117 billion years ahead of us (that's how long universe is going to last). --Ivan Štambuk 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems (and I hope I'm not over simplifying too much) that those for toponyms are arguing that the only real criteria that should be used for inclusion is whether or not it (a toponym in this case) is a word. Taking that argument ad absurdum, would they be for the inclusion of any person's name (eg Ben Affleck) as well? People's anmes seem to share all the same dictionary needs as toponyms: they have translations (some are transliterated, some go to the nearest cognate, and some are reproduced exactly in the original script), etymologies ("we named him after ..."), inflections (in some languages), they are proper nouns, and there are mononymous and polynymous members. I'm definitely against including non-attributive senses of people's names, so I'm suspicious of the "for toponym" arguments. If some people are for toponyms but against individual names, how then should the criteria for inclusion be expanded beyond the the simple "is it an (unidiomatic & attested) word/term" test? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Translations, pronunciations and inflections of personal names are almost always equal to translations, pronunciations and inflections of individual component parts combined, which we do allow as entries. I wouldn't really consider a factoid after whom sb was named that name's "etymology" - it's a result of non-linguistic, external sources that are not the topic of a dictionary. Except if that is somehow connected with the word's meaning (which usually is not in case of personal names, except in nicknames). Our inclusion criteria for toponoyms (and all of onomastics in general) should be expanded to allow all toponyms in all languages, every village, hill, river, lake, mountain peak on Earth and elsewhere: every Martian canyon and Moon valley, asteroid or galaxy. We only need to agree what is the lower limit of quality for their creation, in order to only have quality content and not thousands of bot-generated stubs that are worthless (like Wikipedia does). Something like "at least one translation, link to Wikipedia, and coordinates linked to in Google Maps". --Ivan Štambuk 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While this has its ground, Ivan, please take into account the demand for 3 durably archived quotations, which the entry should provide, if demanded. If I create entries for hills and rocks in the vicinity of the village of my grandparents, e. g. Голо бърдо (not that from the western part of the Macedonia region) or Черната скала, they most certainly would fail such a procedure, even under Bulgarian headers (not to speak about English). In my opinion, it would be accepatable to allow such entries, if they are attestable by three quotations (though I am not favourable of them being prædicative), thus making no præcedent in current policies. Why not set a limit of, say, 10 000 inhabitants? Or even 10 inhabitants, if you will, some threshold is indispensable. There is no use in accepting defunct small settlements (I am not talking about Pompeii, but about El'ginski for example). I personally like your point of view, I myself am an ardent supporter of Aut Caesar, aut nihl, but let this comply with the extant policies. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mandatory requirement of 3 citations when creating an entry could also serve as a reasonable alternative to prevent automatic creation of stubbish entries with little or no lexicographical value. Population as a parameter is a very bad choice, because there are some villages that are depopulated or barely populated today but have centuries or even millennia old history. In what external way (e.g. population, economy, historical significance etc.) is a certain toponym "important" shouldn't be a argument: that's the prominence type of inclusion criteria used for an encyclopedia. We don't care of the properties of real-word objects that the toponyms refer to, simply because we're not interesting in defining them at all (it is arguable whether onomastics terms can be defined at all, in the sense of normal gloss-definitions that we usually provide). In that respect, all toponyms are equally important. The more "important" and "less important" toponyms could have equally thorough entries and equally minimal definitions. The "important" toponyms are likely to get more attention and eventually rise in quality, and we should simply allow that process to occur spontaneously. --Ivan Štambuk 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But Ivan, you're reasoning just separates multi-word proper nouns from single-word proper nouns. You're comment amounts to saying that usually peoples name are polynymous, and the constituent words are usually already in the dictionary. But, by applying that rule to places as well, you'd include "Moscow" one word, but not "New York". I don't think that's the inclusion criterion you're looking for. Why should toponyms as a class of words be treated differently that people's names?--Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's impossible to e.g. translate "New York" to FL by translating "New" + "York". In most languages it's actually some kind of counter-intuitive phonetically adapted form that regularly needs to be learned. Or perhaps it is some kind of a calque, or possible even some completely indigenous term (although that it very unlikely in case of New York. Perhaps in some Indian language or sth). In case of "John Doe" translation would literary amount to "John" + "Doe".
 * Also, I don't really see the point of drawing comparisons with polynymous personal names. We are not discussing their inclusion at all (and nobody wants them included anyway). Place names are special and distinct category and we should focus only on them. --Ivan Štambuk 20:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so say I'm reading a historical fiction book and come across a placename, say Ouagadougou. I get interested in the name and want to find information on a) how to say it, b) where it derived from, c) what it is, anyway, and d) how to say it in Spanish, the language that I'm learning at the moment. I don't want the Wikipedia article about the city itself, I want a dictionary entry which includes etymology, pronunciation, definition, translations, perhaps a map and a link to Wikipedia for information on the city itself. I look it up in Webster's Third, which gives pronunciation but really no other helpful information. Then I turn to Wiktionary, and find Ouagadougou with pronunciation, a definition and translations. Not perfect, but it does contain the information I was looking for and not much extra. OK so that didn't really happen, but it could, and that would be why we would include such information. Right? Or did I misunderstand this whole discussion? L☺g☺maniac ☃ 16:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. For translations to be useful, it's not enough to include place-names; we have to include actual places, indexed by name, like a Wikipedia disambiguation page. For example, consider the place-name. I imagine that most modern languages have a name for the capital of France; but do they all use that name when referring to Paris, Texas? Now, there's no intrinsic reason that we can't include places — that's what Anatoli has been pushing for — but before we make that leap, I think we should pause to consider whether we really want to do that. That's a lot further than we go with given names and surnames. (At least, it's further than we're supposed to go, according to the CFI. In practice, we do currently include a lot of specific people, just as we do currently include a lot of specific places.) —Ruakh TALK 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Sure. (And don't forget Paris, Missouri! And probably a boatload of others) Maybe then the definition would read "A placename used most commonly to refer to the capital city of France but also to several places in the US and elsewhere" and, if the languages have different words for different places, use maybe two trans-tables: one for Paris, France and one for others with explanations in the table as to which city each term refers to?  L☺g☺maniac ☃ 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Different toponyms that happen to have the same form in English must be separated. In FL they might have different forms: e.g. French Paris being borrowed from French and American from English. Some languages might have some "native" term, others might not and use some international that happens to coincide with some other placename. There are countless possibilities. To me the best would seem not to separate them in the definition lines, but in different subsections altogether. --Ivan Štambuk 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about "different toponyms that happen to have the same form in English"? Plenty of American cities are named after European cities — same toponym, no "happen"-ing at all. —Ruakh TALK 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, toponyms may have several senses, derived from each other, just like other words. And linguistic info about these senses (pronunciation, demonyms, etc.) may be the same or different. Lmaltier 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, we agree. —Ruakh TALK 04:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, Ruakh, that including placenames as names are including placenames as referring to specific places are two wholly different things. That was the idea behind the vote I proposed in August: I thought that names as names, at least, could be agreed on. (I was wrong, apparently, as the vote stalled due to opposition.) But the difference between names as bare names and names as referring to specific places is one that's not always made, leading to discussion at cross purposes. Specifically, I don't think everyone taking part in this discussion is talking about the same thing. — msh210 ℠ 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Just to qualify an "afore-made" comment, whereby someone said at least 1 person (Anatoli) was interested in this matter. There are at least two others, making for a total of three.

Allow me to explain separately:
 * First, there is myself; last year I created entries for two toponyms (each specifying a place in a different country) : Tarica: and Nkinora:. Sure, I did create them for the Christmas Competition, but there was also the underlying, ulterior motive of actually making a nice, little, new entry to add to Wiktionary's "menagerie". ;-) Sadly though, they were later obliterated after allegedly failing RFV, no doubt due to certain (IMO) half-assed parts of the deformed chimera that is CFI... N.B. these in anyone's eyes were surely not the worst thing to emerge in the name of someone who wanted to win the competition. I remember the undesirable and waaay too uncommon relatives of T. rex: and E. coli: all too well ;P
 * Secondly, there is SB. I cannot cite any specific place but I know that in the discussion of votes on matters like this and whatnot, he has called himself an inclusionist and thus pushed (if only slightly) for the inclusion of stuff like this. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment The "attributive use" condition strikes me as possibly causing some somewhat strange effects: say that "Venice" is verified as being used attributively, so that the page may exist (rather: the 'city' sense of that entry). But may we then add translations of that word (in particular the city definition) without first checking that the translation verifies the attribution test? Or should translations to language A (which never use its word for "Venice" in an attributive manner) be unlinked? Or perpetually red? Also, I can't say I ever understood the why attributive use would be relevant as a condition. CFI mentions "New York", and that it's included because of the existence of terms such as "New York delicatessen". Okay, I can see why that could motivate us to include the adjective. But why would the adjective motivate the proper noun? Why an all-or-nothing situation? Why either both adjective and proper noun, or none? Sorry, but I simply don't understand why the presence of an adjective is relevant to the presence of a proper noun. \Mike 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many dictionaries have similar restrictions on entries for people and places. The OED for instance on includes them if they are used attributively, possessively (eg Foucault's pendulum), figuratively, or allusively(to meet one's Waterloo). It's general practice to note the geographic/biographic referent and then explain the meanings that extend beyond that referent. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is because the EOD does not want to include all words, its option is the traditional one in language dictionaries: excluding proper nouns (except when there is a specific reason to include them). But other language dictionaries are specialized in first names, other ones in surnames, other ones in toponym etymologies. We have no reason to specifically exclude placenames (no space limit). Including all words including toponyms might seem an issue for the random page feature, but this feature is not for those looking for information. Lmaltier 07:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lmaltier is correct: comparisons with traditional monolingual dictionaries are pointless and misleading. We are multilingual multi-purpose dictionary, and there is no reason why we couldn't also function as a dictionary of onomastics (personal names, toponyms, *nyms of all kind). These themselves already have their own specialized dictionaries, and there is plethora od lexicographically relevant data that we can build on and integrate into "normal" entries. --Ivan Štambuk 13:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On self-management and self-allocation of contributors as resources: Like some other editors and contributors above, I think each contributor should manage himself as a human resource rather than being managed by the collective of editors. If a person wants to allocate his scarce resources including attention and time to contributing toponyms, he should have the option. The only question should be whether that person's lexicographical toponym-documentation activity should be channeled to Wiktionary or to a dedicated Wikigazetteer project. Either way, the person is going to be spending part of their time and attention outside of English definitions. --Dan Polansky 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To me the question is not simply about the time and enthusiasm of those who want toponyms, it is also with the loss of focus of the project as a whole. What technical resources we have will be spread yet thinner. Those who have the knowledge and experience to integrate a new class of entries into Wiktionary will find more and more demands on their time. There are likely to be a steady stream of compromises and confusions about the policies, guidelines and practices applicable to various classes of entries, as should already be evident in the discussion of attestation.
 * I think Wiktionary could play a role as an incubator for a portion of the content of Wikigazetteer. But for Wikigazetteer to be in any way limited by the structure, policies, guidelines, practices, habits, reputation, and volunteer base of Wiktionary or Wikipedia seems silly for an enterprise of such promise. Wiktionary is having difficulty in getting even Wikisaurus, a subproject close to the core of the function of project, to a level of coverage and use approaching that of the main dictionary. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To me the question is not simply about the time and enthusiasm of those who want toponyms  - the question should be only about that. Absolutely everything else is irrelevant.
 * it is also with the loss of focus of the project as a whole - Again, there is no such thing as "project focus" that you speak about. People are free to contribute whatever interest them, whenever they want. There is no pan-project management and strategy. Common interest groups ("wikiprojects") and "could you help me with this"-type of wiki-friendships arise completely spontaneously.
 * Those who have the knowledge and experience to integrate a new class of entries into Wiktionary will find more and more demands on their time. - that is their problem not yours. We already happen to have people creating valuable toponymic information that is being deleted under the absurd CFI policy. That is much more relevant problem than any of your could-be scenarios, which I personally find very far-fetched. Who are we to forbid them to contribute what they like in their free time?
 * There are likely to be a steady stream of compromises and confusions about the policies, guidelines and practices applicable to various classes of entries, as should already be evident in the discussion of attestation. - Nothing more problematic than what has be done with "normal" non-onomastics entries. Again you're making ominous predictions without empirical data to substantiate it.
 * Wiktionary is having difficulty in getting even Wikisaurus, a subproject close to the core of the function of project, to a level of coverage and use approaching that of the main dictionary.  - Wikisaurus receives as much attention as is statistical interest in it among Wiktionary contributors. Like every other part of this project. All of them are "having difficulties" as being undermanned and missing a bulk of essential information. But that is of absolutely no concern to the problem of forbidding toponymic entries on Wiktionary and I would be grateful if you finally stopped insinuating causal relationships between the two. --Ivan Štambuk 13:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Beer parlour

YAPNP
"Yet Another Place Name (Proper Noun) Proposal". I believe that many previous discussions on this topic have lead nowhere because the only mechanism debated was inclusion via the CFI. Borrowing a play from our more compromising view of constructed languages, I'd like to propose that place name entries be allowed in Wiktionary under an alternative namespace (possibly Placename:*). This project(?) would serve several purposes. Some issues to think about are linking and searching. Is this "compromise" agreeable enough to set up a vote? Should all proper nouns be include or just place names? --Bequw → τ 01:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would separate the debate about what to include from the debate about whether to include. Decisions could, for example, be made to include all toponymns, only common ones, or only linguistically interesting ones.
 * Free from the ELE, alternative formats could be explored.
 * It would ensure that we can keep to the current CFI without deleting linguistic information (non-attributive place names would just be moved).
 * It would allow place name entries to mature so that editors could get a better understanding of their utility and quality if discussions about their inclusion in the main namespace arise in the future.

 * Seems like a good start. I don't see why all the proper nouns should be included when it's just the place names that are disputable. Moving all the proper nouns in all languages to a separate namespace would be a major effort, and oftentimes, in languages written in non-Latins script where there is no orthographical difference between proper and "normal" nouns (i.e. no uppercase/lowercase distinction), proper nouns are often treated within the usual ===Noun=== section. --Ivan Štambuk 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not like this idea. Place names are words, they should be treated like words. If the standards need to be bent then we can modify ELE/CFI specifically regarding place names. Including them in a separate namespace makes them basically useless.  --Yair rand 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the already proposed amendments to CFI to handle placenames have failed gloriously, and the perennial discussions on the issue didn't seem to have yielded any constructive consensus, so this might be a good way to simply start adding entries at the moment. Some folks are adamantly opposed to adding placenames in the main namespace, whilst others are frustrated that their industrious work keeps getting deleted under the excuse of not passing CFI. If you think that you can make the difference in the right direction, feel free to start a vote/discussion...
 * I don't see how having them in the separate namespace makes them "useless" ? In case you're referring to the discoverability issue: we could leave redirects in the main namespace (or some kind of a top-page info when they collide with already-existing entries, or simply add them to ). --Ivan Štambuk 23:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:Votes/pl-2010-03/Placename namespace created to start in a week. Please review and edit as always. --Bequw → τ 04:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes/pl-2010-03/Placename namespace -begins 12 March 2010.

Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-03/Placename namespace

Beer parlour

CFI for place names based on the quality of the entry
Has this kind of criterion ever been discussed: "Place names are words, and subject to the same criteria for inclusion as any other words. However, unless the place name meets the attributive use criterion, every place name entry should include at least two of the following: an etymology, a pronunciation, a translation that is not identical with the English form, or an additional definition as something else besides a place name." This would prevent blind copying of place names from the Wikipedia or from an atlas. And if somebody makes an entry for his home town in Uzbekistan, isn't it welcome if the etymology and pronunciation are included? --Makaokalani 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, it is really the encyclopedic content that is the long-term problem. We could exclude "North Carolina", but include the toponym word "Carolina". That would address the lexicographic content aspect without us becoming a short-attention span gazetteer. One problem is that the logic would escape most would-be contributors. ("How come 'Georgia' and 'Virginia' have entries, but not 'North Carolina' and 'South Carolina'?") I think that we are likely to get a lot of badly formatted encyclopedic entries from folks contributing their home town, neighborhood, favorite park, or natural feature, etc. If we wanted to incubate a Wikigazetteer, we could try it out for a period of time (3, 6, 12 months ?) and then decide whether we could do it justice or whether it should be a separate project or the responsibility of WP. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well - speaking as the inclusionist who has deleted more words than probably anyone else - I would include brief entries on all major geographic entities, and even many smaller ones if they have some sort of dictionary-type interest. Do you think I could get away with Nempnett Thrubwell? (probably not) SemperBlotto 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of requiring an entry to have a certain amount of information to be added. I wouldn't mind having places like Nempnett Thrubwell, so long as the definition lines had a standard, unbendable format. (My preference would be something like "1. A place name." followed by a bunch of WikiMiniAtlas buttons/links and a bunch of linked WP icons, but I doubt anyone agrees with me on that.) --Yair rand 02:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to include "North Carolina" separately from "Carolina" because there are numerous places named "Carolina" (all of which have a "North" portion) but only one place properly denoted as "North Carolina". The same applies for most every state or country for which the name includes a term like "North", "South", "West", "Central", "Inner", "Outer", "New", and so forth. bd2412 T 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, we aspire that all of our entries should be of that quality. For place names, the cutoff should be in terms of geographic, social, and cultural importance. bd2412 T 02:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we include this in the current vote? Can we define geographic, social, and cultural importance? Note that Wikipedia or maps don't provide gender or transliteration for foreign scripts.--Anatoli 02:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposal sounds fine, and I've already mentioned something similar the last time this was discussed in the BP in order to address the concerns of including large number of (possibly bot-generated) toponyms not containing lexicographically relevant content (i.e. simply the definition lines). There's no point adding something that Wikipedia already covers (and which shows up in Wiktionary search results). OTOH, it's preposterous that quality entries are being deleted on the basis of CFI which hardly reflects community consensus of today. All *nyms should be allowed, especially their derivatives such as demonyms, and possesive/relative adjectives, which are often irregular or counter-intuitive formations. --Ivan Štambuk 03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Shall I create a vote? Every place name proposal creates opposition, but what's the harm in trying? Discussions about the relative importance of places seem to come to nothing. Of course all entries should eventually have etymology, pronunciation, etc, but unlike other words, place names are worthless without them. I don't believe we'd be flooded by erratic anon entries, but if we are, they can be deleted on sight. Nobody has the duty to patch them up. Most anons never read the CFI anyway. They are more likely to be intimidated by Anatoli's entries.

 * The definition "a place name" looks like deliberate teasing to me (We won't tell you where, ha ha). The reader needs to know if this is the word he meant. On the other hand, there's no need to list every single place. The current practice allows for the grouping of places, with separate definitions for words that have different translations, etymologies or pronunciations. This could be added to the CFI: "Only minimal information about the place is question should be given, with links to other Wikimedia projects. A definition for a common place name might be, for example: "Any of several places in the U.K., U.S.A., Canada and New Zealand." "

 * Nempnett Thrubwell looks like two words to me and, unlike New York and North Carolina, it might not pass the attributive use test.--Makaokalani 13:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * This is skirting dangerous ground. We certainly shouldn't include or omit terms based on the “geographic, social, and cultural importance” of their referents (Wikipedia has notability criteria for articles' subjects), and most likely not on these qualities of the terms themselves, either. Using “quality of the entry” sounds like the latter to me. A checklist of included sections is the opposite of quality; it's a meaningless measure of quantity.

 * Why “define” a term as “Any of several places in the U.K., U.S.A., Canada and New Zealand?” We don't define a surname as “any of several people residing in towns X, Y, and Z.” We're not a gazetteer nor a phone book. Define it as “a place name,” explain its origin and meaning, list its derivatives, and link directly to the Wikipedia disambiguation page which already lists precisely the 7 countries, 2 provinces, and 6 counties where these places lie, and will continue to do a better job at it than we ever could.

 * Let's add a CFI for non-sum-of-parts toponymic terms. They're probably already includable; we just have to provide some examples. Or I'll get around to it. —Michael Z. 2010-03-15 05:22 z

 * How about the following criteria:
 * At least 150 years old (exception should be made for country capitals or cities with over 1 mln population)
 * A Wikipedia article should exist (perhaps in the language of origin if not in English)
 * Searchable information on the location - e.g. Google Map

 * Makaokalani, why would anons be intimidated by my entries? The main purpose of a dictionary is definitions and translations. (Of course all entries should eventually have etymology, pronunciation, etc, but unlike other words, place names are worthless without them) It applies to place names. --Anatoli 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was meant as a compliment. I've seen from given name entries that anons stop adding careless information if there is an impressive Greek or Hebrew etymology. And like Ivan Štambuk says above, place name entries are worthless without linguistic information - you get the same info from Wikipedia through the search button. --Makaokalani 16:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the vandalism slows on pages with good etymology because people don't know what to make of the page, or, in particular, can't find where to add definition lines (for themselves or their friends) because they can't find the definitions. Feedback frequently complains about inability to find definitions. I think perhaps we should stop dividing up by etymology (combine all etymolgies into one Etymology section, with paragraphs for the different etymologies) and put the Etymology and other sections after the definition. — msh210 ℠ 16:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re, the criteria: Why?? We're not looking for notability of the place, we don't care about population of the place, or about a Wikipedia article on the place, we don't care about the place at all. What matters to the entry is the place name and only the name, as that's what the entry is about. --Yair rand 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to change place name definitions and categories into parts of speech, start another vote. It has nothing to do with the CFI. (I removed the definition example from the CFI.) Whatever you put on the definition line, it doesn't say how to pronounce the name, inflect or translate it, or where it comes from. Three years ago I was against place names but by now I'd be ready to vote for them, if only they are entered by people who actually know something about them as words. --Makaokalani 16:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes/pl-2010-03/Placenames with linguistic information are accepted

Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-03/Placenames with linguistic information are accepted