Category talk:Cathedral of the Divine Saviour, Ostrava

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

Přesun[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nelze provádět přesuny jen na základě návrhu politiky. --Ragimiri (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Categories#Category name: Category names should always be in English. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Nejedná se o oficiální politiku Commons. --Ragimiri (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Jaká je tedy oficiální politika Commons? --Podzemnik (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Omlouvám se, že se vměšuji do diskuse, ač nejsem tázán. Nicméně domnívám se, že ona zásada Category names should always be in English (podobně jako zásada, že názvy kategorií mají být v plurálu) je míněna především pro ty kategorie, které jsou vymezeny obecným tématem nebo nějakým územním vymezením: pro kategorie týkající se jednoho konkrétního objektu je použití anglického ad hoc překladu mnohdy diskutabilní. Název objektu tak, jak je uváděn v mapách atd. je ustáleným označením a často není vhodné jej překládat do angličtiny, stejně jako ani v českém textu nepřekládáme do češtiny anglické názvy českých budov nebo institucí (Charles Square Center, Novodvorská Plaza atd.). U kostelů bych váhal a skutečně bych očekával nejprve nějakou diskusi, protože jejich obvyklá označení jsou na pomezí obecného a vlastního jména. Obecně si myslím, že Commons jako z principu mezinárodní projekt (nikoliv projekt určený speciálně pro anglofonní uživatele) by měl v mezních a sporných případech inklinovat spíše k použití originálních místních názvů. --ŠJů (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ten argument o místních názvech beru, žádost na přejmenování jsem stáhl. U Category:Kostel svatého Václava (Ostrava) a Category:Kostel Neposkvrněného početí Panny Marie (Ostrava) si ale myslím, že by bylo záhodno přejmenovat, tady už je ten překlad jasný. Pomohlo by to celkovému sjednocení názvu a lepší orientaci v kategoriích, viz Category:Saint Wenceslaus churches in the Czech Republic. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose to this!!! --Ragimiri (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And if we have here Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris (which is on en:wiki translated as Our Lady of Paris) or Category:Zürichsee (Lake Zurich on en:wiki), I don't see reason for renaming church which is originally named in Czech. --Ragimiri (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not because the others break the rules that we have to ignore the rules. --Foroa (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Categories#Category name is not official Commons policy, isn't it? --Ragimiri (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As we can see, Commons:Categories#Category name is a short brief only and it don't concerned with the question of proper names versus exonyms. Only the mention of "life forms" (= Linneanus taxonomy?) implies that English names shouldn't be applied always and ad absurdum. The page Commons:Naming categories is in stage of a proposal still. --ŠJů (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Čeština: Jakékoliv přejmenování do angličtiny považuji za nesmyslné. Jak je známo, Commons jsou mnohojazyčný projekt. Časté ražení angličtiny vede k tomu, že mnohdy vznikají kategorie s úsměvnými a nepoužitelnými názvy, které prostě Čech hledající něco na commons v žádném případě nenajde. Logické mi příjde, že soubory budou mít popisky ve více jazycích a podle toho bude možné cokoliv dohledat. Uvědomme si, že osoba vládnoucí angličtinou nebude hledat kostel opavsko-ostravské diecéze, může ale hledat větší města. Je proto logické, že máme kategorie Buildings in Prague, Events in Prague, ale ne třeba už Čelákovský street in Prague. Takový rozdíl je nutné cítit, to se nedá uplatnit pomocí nějakého předpisu nebo pravidla. Wikipedie a Commons nejsou právní stát
English: A moving this category to an English name is something I consider as highly unusable. As we know, Commons are multilingual project. Usual promoting of English everywhere means that we have sometimes categories with a bit funny or completely unusable names. Such a categories are nothing good for Czech users seeking anything on commons. I think the best way is to have multilingual file descriptions so everyone can find what he is looking for in his own language. It is unlikely that a native English speaker will be searching for Opava-Ostrava diecesis church, however he can look for some larger cities or objects. That's why we have categories like Buildings in Prague or Events in Prague, but no Čelákovský street in Prague. It is important to see such a difference and to think about it. Some things can't be just done acording to some rules or manuals. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are not a state of right or legal system

--Aktron (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support rename. I would love to see multiple names here too, but until then, English names are the most accessible to the majority of the world. Wknight94 talk 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a source to support your claim? --Ragimiri (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see Czech in w:List of languages by total number of speakers. Wknight94 talk 18:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I see Mandarin Chinese on the first place, so where is that "majority of the world"? --Ragimiri (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're really suggesting we rename everything to Mandarin, then you're being silly. How about w:Global Internet usage then? English in first by a vast amount. Wknight94 talk 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Commons would never have seen the light without a prior agreement of a common English language; this is so evident that we are missing formal discussions and statements on that. In probably any other language, we would even not be able to talk to each other. So let's try to facilitate communication instead of increasing the barriers. --Foroa (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean that Václav Havel would be more easily findable when we translate his name to Wenceslaus Gallus? We should have a respect to the variant which is more used in English texts and to the variant which is more used absolutely. As far as there are none or very many few English sources, the original name is more usable, even for such user who don't understand the original language. Though there exists some article en:Cathedral of the Divine Saviour, it has no source in English (and no source at all). We can see that English translation is used by the city Ostrava itself on its tourist-propagation webs, but practically not by original sources from English-language world.
This is clearly a borderline case to decision. Generally, we should adopt language policy from English Wikipedia (which is very reasoned and well-tried) and adjust it to Commons conditions. Proper names and stable names of individual objects and subjects should be solved soberly, not only to translate whatever to English thoughtlessly. Sometimes an English name should be preferred, sometimes an original name. The English Wikipedia offers intelligent criteria. --ŠJů (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with your logic. However, for objects that have a potential cultural/international link (as this case), we have to do our best to make it accessible to the whole world, so preference should be given to the en:wikipedia name or an English variant; after all, there are almost no people outside the Czech republic that could write "Katedrála Božského Spasitele". --Foroa (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, first rename Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris and Category:Zürichsee, then I will accept, that rules are for everybody. In this time I see only admins willing to rename Czech categories, but not French or German. Is this fair? --Ragimiri (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

@Foroa: I prefer to adopt the language policy of English Wikipedia more or less, instead of your logic. Do you mean that Wenceslaus Gallus is more accessible to the whole world than Václav Havel? I don't think so, medieval times are gone. The exact original-language form of many local and building names are an essential part of their identity. A translated name (just like a synonymic name in the original language) are less accesible and less identifying. A naming isn't a pure description. Do you mean that there are many people outside the Czech Republic that could search a Czech church in some map that all local names of buildings or places are translated to English on it? I don't think so. --ŠJů (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
@--ŠJů: Don't twist my words. In this case, I prefer to adopt the language policy of English Wikipedia too and want to use the name as used on en:Cathedral of the Divine Saviour. The intercultural aspect should have priority on the local identity. Frustrating indeed as with the many politically non correct exonyms, but if you want to give access to your country and its treasures, you have to open the door; that's the whole purpose of Commons; expecting that many Commons users will get a clear grasp of 200 languages is not realistic.
Category:Zürichsee will soon be renamed. Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris is in line with en:Notre Dame de Paris
You should realize that the further the language is away from Germanic (and Romance) languages, the more it becomes difficult to relate to it. I admit I am not neutral in this case as I can get away with roughly 12 languages in the Romance and Germanic groups. For example in the Finno-Ugric languages, I am completely lost. In Vietnamese, probably the most strange mix of oriental languages with a latin characterset, I guess most people are completely lost. So indeed, there is a varying discrimination depending of the language distance from English. Don't expect that we clean up all of the 920000 or so category names overnight. --Foroa (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
@Foroa: Did you read my objections? Do you mean that Václav Havel or other well-known persons have less "intercultural acpects" than the cathedral in Ostrava? Didn't you note that the article en:Cathedral of the Divine Saviour has no any source and that's why it cannot be used as a crucial argument? Do you mean that the translated name "Wenceslaus Gallus" gives a beter access to person of Václav Havel? I don't think so. Just conversely. You are right, Finno-Ugric languages are hardly intelligible for me just as for you. But if we try to translate names of Hungarian or Finnish villages or persons to English, nobody will identify them upon such names - neither a Hungarian nor a Czech or American user. If we rename Cathédrale Notre-Dame to English, even Englishmen and Americans will identify it worse under the English name than under the original name. A translated name (just like a synonymic name in the original language) are less accesible and less identifying.
The cathedral in Ostrava is more borderline case than Václav Havel, László Sólyom or Dunaszentgyörgy (I hope, you will not propose them to rename like Zürichsee). However, as long as you will don't understand the ultimate dilemma which is considered here, you cannot contribute to a consensus. The first step is to understand the fundamental difference between common concept and individual subject. The second step is to understand the fundamental difference between language policy of English Wikipedia and your own preferences. --ŠJů (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)