Category talk:Göteborg

Proposed move to Category:Gothenburg

It has been proposed to move Category:Göteborg to Category:Gothenburg Powód: Per en:Gothenburg and en:Category:Gothenburg. According to COM:LP and COM:CAT#Category names, category names should generally be in English. This is a similar case as Category:Copenhagen, Category:Munich and Category:Havana, for example. The subcategories need to be renamed as well. Data: tagged 26 grudnia 2014.

I prefer to keep the swedish name Göteborg./Sendelbach (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the move request, according to COM:LP and COM:CAT#Category names, category names should generally be in English. There are also other cities whose English name differs from the local one (Copenhagen, Havana, Moscow, Munich, Prague, Rome, Vienna and Warsaw, for example), and English name is used in Wikimedia Commons category names. I do not see any reason, why Gothenburg should be an exception. Moreover, according to en:Gothenburg#Name, the municipality of Gothenburg itself also uses the form "Gothenburg" in international contexts. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The rule "category names should generally be in English" apply generally to common names. As regards proper names, some of them (e.g. modern personal names) we not translate even though they have any English equivalents. As regards topographic exonyms, we should ask whether the exonym is not archaic, whether the original name is also sometimes used in English texts etc. As the choice is at least slightly disputable, status quo should be preferred.

The exonym is apparently prevalent in English texts. However, as I can see, e.g. Göteborg City Airport used the original name even in their English texts. Also Lonely Planet prefers untranslated form. It is rare but not unusable in English texts. --ŠJů (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The rule "category names should generally be in English" is from COM:LP which is an official policy on Wikimedia Commons. In which official policy is it stated that this would not apply to proper names, too?

Göteborg City Airport website can be used as a reference for the airport name but not the city. I still want to stress that the municipality (city) of Gothenburg uses "Gothenburg" in international contexts.

I have also provided several example of category naming here in Commons (and there are some more:  Brussels, Cologne, Florence, Milan, Naples, Nuremberg, Saint Petersburg, Turin). I don't know any contrary examples. (Feel free to provide them.) There are also some previous cases of replacing local names with English ones ([1], [2]).

Consistency is important in category naming. Usage of categories becomes difficult if English is used in most of the cases but not all. Still  Support. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 22:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons language policy says: "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent. See Commons:Categories for the exact policy. See also the proposal of Naming categories." Policy regarding proper names is apparently not quite sharp, as the detailed naming categories policy was never finished and approved. There are many differences, inconsistencies and controversies regarding e.g. street and square names, church names, train station names etc. Globally, in the Middle Ages almost all proper names were translated. However, in modern times, personal names are not translated at all and the progress tends to respect the original local names more and more (e.g. railway and bus timetables and station- and vehicle boards stopped to use exonyms already). Wikimedia Commons as an international project is more convenient to adopt such trend than some local English project.

I reminded which aspects should be taken into consideration. If the current name is not erroneous nor confusing but only unpreferred, status quo of the current extensive category tree is relatively serious reason to keep it be. That's why we should consider very judiciously whether the reasons for rename are really acute. Nobody doubts that Gothenburg is apparently prevalent form in English texts nowadays. What I reminded is that the original form (Göteborg) is also usable and used in English texts, even though very rarely. --ŠJů (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that the form Gothenburg is generally preferred for Commons and the proposed renaming of the category tree is conform with Commons policy - but not quite necessary. --ŠJů (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarification. I agree with you in terms of personal names, for example. Generally they should not be translated (except from some historical names). However, in terms of geographical names, Commons is quite consistent: country and city names seem to be in English with very few exceptions. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I've never seen the name "Gothenburg". We know "Göteborg" only. Wieralee (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is not about anyone's personal preferencies, so it is quite irrelevant which form you (or I for that matter) have seen. As stated above, Gothenburg is widely used in international contexts and it is also the form the city uses itself in English texts. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)