Category talk:Bridge near Limyra

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Category redirect[edit]

According to English Wikipedia, the name of this bridge is en:Limya Bridge. In Commons, we don't make discussions on naming. If you think the naming in English Wikipedia should be not appropriate, please go to talk page of related article in English Wikipedia, and request renaming. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Both of these two bridges are not located in Limyra respectively Kemer but rather several kilometers outside of these sites. That's the reason why they are called in specialist literature Bridge near Limyra and Bridge near Kemer. The titles in the English WP are an imprecise simplification. The German scholarly source these articles are based on, Eine Brücke bei Limyra in Lykien, refers to both structures as bridges "near" Limyra resp. Kemer. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you to request naming in English Wikipedia. You explained Limya Bridge is the simplified name of the bridge. If English Wikipedia prefers simplification, Commons also prefers simplification. Because Commons is not place for discussion on this issue. When you can change title in English Wikipedia, I'll support Category:Bridge near Limyra. Cheers. Takabeg (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule which makes the naming scheme of the English Wikipedia mandatory for Commons. But whatever it is worth, I moved the articles in the English WP to Bridge near Limyra resp. Bridge near Kemer. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
You are aware that you have started edit-warring about it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't continue edit wars. Commons is not a place of discussion on Commons is not battle field. You don't have any intention to apply to en:Wikipedia:Requested moves ? If so I'll never support such original titles. For example, I couldn't find "Bridge near Kemer" in reliable sources (0 hit in google books) but I could find "Kemer Bridge". Takabeg (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
As you say, Commons is not place for edit-wars, so your edit-warring against the main author of the articles on these two bridges was hardly constructive. There is only a single scholarly source, Wurster and Ganzert 1978, about the bridge in the entire Wikipedia, if not the entire internet, and its title on p. 304 goes "Remains of a bridge upstream of Kemer" (Reste einer Brücke oberhalb von Kemer). On p. 305, fig. 19 the bridge is called Brücke bei Kemer = "Bridge near Kemer" or "Bridge at Kemer".
Nowhere does the article use a term equivalent to "Kemer Bridge"—for the simple reason that the bridge is not located in Kemer but 4 km upstream in the open country. What you have found in the internet are merely mirror pages of the article in the English WP. These self-references are irrelevant as Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia (en:WP:CIRCULAR). Hope this settles our dispute. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks as if there is no widespread English name and I did not find a "translatable" formal Turkish name. Sorry, but both options are bad names; it looks as if there is only one bridge in Kemer or Limyra, which should be most surprising; remember that Commons tries to categorise all bridges (rivers, roads, trains, ...). The "bridge near xxx" construct is not good, we will never use the names "bridge near Rome", "Bridge near Istanbul" neither, especially when we are talking about a few kilometres (between what and what ?). So Category:Roman bridge, Kemer and Category:Roman bridge, Limyra seem to be the most generic names and long terms solutions; lets stop fabricating proper names that are not proper. --Foroa (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, let us stick to the names as used in the scholarly literature. This rules out the OR names Roman bridge, Limyra and Roman bridge, Kemer which are, moreover, problematic insofar as the dating of the Limyra bridge is uncertain. The bridge may have well been constructed in the Byzantine era which would make Byzantine bridge, Limyra more appropiate, but we just don't know for sure.
However, on second thought it occurred to me that Brücke bei Kemer and Brücke bei Limyra can be perfectly correctly translated as Bridge at Kemer and Bridge at Limyra. I think this is a good compromise because "at"+place in English can mean both "in" and "near". What do you think? If we agree on this, I would be willing to move the English article to these titles as well. But I request that moving the Commons categories is done by an admin. I would also volunteer to do the renaming of the bridge names in the pictures description, but the pictures themselves should retain their name. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
PS: For this naming scheme there are precedences on WP.en, e.g.: en:Bridge at Nimreh and en:Bridge at Oinoanda. Both of these bridges are, too, located near ancient sites. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't answer my major complaint: there are probably several bridges in the Limyra and Kemer environment, so only a qualifier such as "Ancient bridge", "Roman bridge", "Arch bridge" can provide a long term solution. Whether one uses "at, in, by, near, .." is nor really relevant; if we use a simple comma, it becomes language independent. --Foroa (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
A long-term solution for what? Ambiguity plays no role, otherwise we would have to rename London Bridge to something unambiguous as there are hundreds of bridges in London. The basis of any naming scheme which aspires to be NPOV and not-OR are the names as used in the scholarly literature, that is Brücke bei Kemer and Brücke bei Limyra which can be translated as Bridge at Kemer and Bridge at Limyra respectively. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Now it's very clear that en:Kemer Bridge is common name. I don't understand why some users push their own POV, why some administrators permit their POV and apply a double standard on categorizations. Takabeg (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you are moving back and forward the names on en:wiki proves nothing. Would you explain some administrators permit their POV and apply a double standard on categorization ? --Foroa (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You are now overdoing things, Takabeg, and, honestly, starting to get counterproductive, if not disruptive. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)