Talk:Lists of country names in various languages

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 22 December 2014, see discussion.
Keep, 31 October 2005, see discussion.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

First (untitled heading)

Question: you mention political changes--are you intending to include these in this list as well? Such as Rhodesia, Holland...? Quill 23:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unreadability

"Serial commas, serial commas, parenthesizing, commas, commas". This is among the hardest-to-read list/table in WP. --Menchi 00:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. I find it eminently readable.

Pasquale 18:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

@Pasquale: "Works for me, won't fix?" How about, machine readability? This is terrible. What should I do, write a parser specifically for this job, just to convert this set of tables back into a proper, structured, machine-readable form? And then keep my fingers crossed that nobody decides to change the format (even slightly), in the future?

Third (untitled heading)

I would have liked to add Etats-Unis (United States), but the box formatting is too complicated. I could not get it to work right. Could this article be done with no boxes. AlainV 05:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's fairly easy. Just copy and paste one of the existing boxes, and then replace the names of the countries and names of the languages. You can cut the rest and - you're there. IMO there's no other way of learning how the tables work (at least that's how I learned). Halibutt 10:23, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

what is the criteria for listing alternative names? There are so many languages that each entry would become unmanageable. --Jia ng 20:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a good question. However, so far I see no problem with it. We might want to find a list of languages that need to be included, but so far the lists are relatively short and quite easily manageable. Halibutt 09:34, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

If the intent is to translate it into as many languages as possible, then I can create a problem, first by copying China in world languages into this page. Why don't we just stick with primary/defacto/official languages? Anything else non-English is irrelevant here. --Jia ng 16:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Without further input, I will be converting this into what I have proposed. The rest belongs in wiktionary, not wikipedia. --Jia ng 06:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Converting into... what? You did not propose anything, you simply stated that the number of languages should be limited - but to which ones? Halibutt 07:00, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

The languages should be limited primary/defacto/official languages for each country. In addition, variants (official or otherwise) should be listed after the common name. Eg, "America" and "United States of America" would be both listed after "United States". How "United States" is spelled in Greek should not be listed here. --Jia ng 07:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reason for article

The page was created to avoid expanding List of European cities with alternative names to include country names. It does not really have a point if only English is to be used. If length is a problem, just link to separate pages for countries such as China, and possibly split the article into one per continent, each of those articles having a different version for European languages, Asian, etc.

It's entirely permissable to have foreign languages in an English encyclopaedia for the sake of reference, it's only if actual content was written in another language that there would be a problem. There seems to be a growing contingent of "English purists" on Wikipedia - it's a really quite unnecessary crusade. Zoney 18:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not say that only English should be used. I said that only relevant languages should be used. For Canada, its English, French, and possibly Iniut. For the US it's English, and possibly Spanish. What is the relevance of how China is referred to in Greece? If the intent is the translate every country into every language possible, then why not start with separate articles built on the mold of China in world languages? Otherwise, a reference guide without explanation of who uses whatever "alternative country names" belongs in a translation book, not an encyclopedia. The closest thing we have would be wiktionary. --Jia ng 00:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with that analysis - for example, European countries only having European languages. I mean, for the UK/Britain it does make sense to have the local languages (English, Irish, Welsh, Cornish) as well as neighbours (Scandinavia, Germany, Dutch, French, Breton, etc.) The boundaries are however, somewhat difficult to draw. An exclusively European countries/languages article would be something I, as a European, would heartily approve of. Zoney 11:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about splitting the article onto two different lists?

List of alternative country names with French, English and Inuit for Canada and so on
List of country names or List of country names in various languages for the current version of the article?

The way it is now it's much more informative for me. Especially that all alternative names in official languages are usually listed on top of the country tables. Halibutt 11:55, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Splitting it would be an improvement, IMO. We should keep it to one line per country for the former (e.g. "America" and "United States of America" listed on the same line under "United States" and "Dominion of Canada" listed after "Canada"). That is, this listing is not just about translations, but actual alternatuve country names in the same language. For the first column, we go by the location of the wikipedia article. --Jia ng 19:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've implemented the split. These articles need to be interlinked elsewhere, like at list of countries. --Jia ng 22:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I come late to this "discussion" which, in addition to Jia ng, has featured only two other people: Halibutt, the creator of the page, and Zoney, one of its major contributors. I respect the opinions expressed, but I have to say that IMO Jiang failed to understand the value and purpose of the article. He says: What is the relevance of how China is referred to in Greece? That is precisely the point of this article. It is of very great interest, for example, that Germany is called "Vokietija" in Lithuanian or that the old Polish name of Austria is "Rakusza", etc. etc. On the contrary, it is what Jiang wants to do (and has done by highjacking this page) that is of little interest and does not particularly require a list. Who needs a list that says "America" = "USA", "Great Britain" = "UK", and so on and so forth? That kind of information is best treated as part of individual articles, or by redirecting one entry to another. But Jiang tells me that a decision (i.e. his) has been arrived at by consensus and he simply implemented it. Fine, that means we'll continue working on the List of country names in various languages, as the joint effort has now been renamed by Jiang, and he can have his list of doublets, now that he's highjacked the List of alternative country names. He wants to list Canada's name in both of its official languages, i.e. "Canada" = "Canada". Very useful!

Pasquale 23:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Σκόπια / Σκοπία

N.B. Σκόπια (Skópia) is the city, Σκοπία (Skopía) is the country. -- Picapica 10:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cyrillic transliteration

I changed Cyrillic transliteration to ISO-9:1995 standard. I hope this makes text look more uniform.--Kulkuri 16:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More uniform, yes, but not easy to read. Most people don't use the ISO-9:1995 standard transliteration; I for one find it very ugly. Why don't we use Wikipedia's own transliteration of Russian into English and for Ukrainian the Ukrainian National System described at Romanization of Ukrainian? Or the "scholarly" system generally used by Slavicists? Or alternatively use the BGN/PCGN 1947 system, since we *are* dealing with geographic names here? I would vote for the "scholarly" system since it's fairly unambiguous and it makes Cyrillic-using Slavic languages jibe tolerably well with Latin-using Slavic languages. --Angr 22:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I think the BGN/PCGN system is best (not only for Cyrillic but for Greek as well) since it's most familiar to English speakers and probably the easiest for them to read. I'm going to start converting the Russian and Ukrainian names to BGN/PCGN and hope no one objects and reverts all my changes. I'm not going to do the Belarusian ones since there seems to be some doubt as to their accuracy (see comment below). --Angr 16:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: the rows for "United States" and "United States of America" should be merged into a single row. 66.245.18.193 15:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. IMHO also "United Kingdom", "Great Birtain" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" should be merged.--Kulkuri 15:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I totally disagree. What you want to do has alrerady been done in List of alternative country names. There you will find a list of cases such as "United Kingdom" vs. "Great Britain" and so on and so forth, so please refer to that article. As far as THIS article is concerned, I recommend leaving things as they are. Consider first of all that "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" are not the same thing. "United Kingdom" also includes "Northern Ireland" which, by the way, is also listed. Furthermore, this article includes "United Kingdom" and "United States" as separate entries (distinct from "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "United States of America") precisely because in many languages these particular short forms are used with great frequency.

Pasquale 15:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I tried to say that this is list of country names, nothing else. I know very well that UK and Great Britain are not same thing and I have nothing against listing relevant information for these ones too, but anyway they belong to lists like List of European regions with alternative names or List of alternative country names. Same thing should be with Wales, Scotland, England, Faroe Island and other subnational entities that are not sovereign countries. This is just to clarify things. There is no need to have same kind of edit wars as with List of country name etymologies where people started to list Canadian territories and Swiss cantons as "countries". To avoid this kind of mess, we should make clear definitions and simpliest way is to limit this list for Sovereign countries only, not to any subnational entities, no matter how autonomous or "close to indpendence" they are.--Kulkuri 21:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry, Marko, but again I have to disagree. The concept of country is not at all as rigid as you seem to imply. Just look at the countries that are competing at the Athens Olympics right now! Are Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, and several other IOC member countries not in fact subnational entities? To me, Wales, Scotland, England are countries. They even have their international soccer teams. What more can a country aspire to??? If I were you, I would not get so hung up about sovereignty. Why should it bother you if the Faroe Islands are listed both here and in the List of European regions with alternative names? Monaco is listed both here and in the List of European cities with alternative names. Is that a problem? I don't think so. (Luxembourg too!)

Pasquale 18:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know that concept of country is not that simple. I am also very well aware that IOC members are not all fully sovereign countries. So what? We are not participating in olympic champions now, but listing encyclopedic information. To keep things straight we need anyway clear (or at least somekind of) definitions, and I was trying to make one. And as you said... Wales, Scotland, England are countries. They even have their international soccer teams. What more can a country aspire to??? ...I would say a lot more than that. As I told you I have nothing against listing different entities, and reason why I am hanging up about sovereignity is that it is by far the simpliest definition. After all I really don't care if somebody wants to list names for subdivisions of UK, or even Canadian territories and Swiss cantons here, but why do we need that. Easiest and most rational way would be to limit this list to List of countries and list others subnational entities elsewhere. Do you really disagree with that? What it comes to duplicate information it is also much easier to edit when you don't need to worry about updates for several pages. What it comes to Monaco and Luxembourg, they can refer to both; country and city (and Luxembourg even to Belgian province).--Kulkuri 08:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Marko, I think the problem is that we have a completely different idea of what this "List of country names in various languages" ought to be. To you and possibly others, such as maybe Avala, it seems to be an ideally exhaustive list of the world countries (say, UN members, or entities listed in the List of countries, or whatever) with their names in as many foreign languages as possible. (I began to suspect as much when I saw you entering names such as "Comoros", "Djibouti", etc., that I would not have listed.) To me, and, I believe, to the people who started this list (e.g. Halibutt, Zoney, and others), it is not that at all.

It is rather a small dictionary of country names with interesting variations in other languages. That is why, personally, I see nothing wrong with listing "Great Britain", "United Kingdom", and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", even if they refer to the same political entity. They are there because they provide information, namely an answer to the questions: "How do you say Great Britain in language X?", "How do you say United Kingdom in language X?", etc. That is what a dictionary does. A dictionary lists words that are synonyms, right? It is immaterial that the terms in question refer to the same entity.

To a linguist such as myself, it is of great interest that the name for Germany has so many different roots in different European languages (the "Allemagne"-type names, the "Deutschland"-type names, the "Germania"-type names, the "Německo"-type names, the "Saksa"-type names, and the baffling "Vokietija" and "Vācija" in Lithuanian and Latvian respectively). That prompts me to want to investigate the historical origins of these strikingly different forms. On the other hand, listing "Antigua and Barbuda" in a bunch of languages, when only the word "and" is going to be translated, is not of great interest, in my opinion.

As far as "England, "Scotland", and "Wales" are concerned (and other such cases), you simply cannot list them under regions and territories. There is a widespread understanding, within the United Kingdom and elsewhere, that these are country names. The English, the Scottish, and the Welsh consider them country names, and so do most outsiders. What I said about the soccer teams was half in jest, but still FIFA accepts them as national teams precisely because those entities are universally seen as countries. FIFA would certainly not allow Algarve, Burgenland, Calabria, etc., to play as national teams.

I am truly sorry that you fail to understand the above very simple arguments. And I fail to see why it is so important to you to place the restrictions you want to place. If the list title referred to a body with member countries such as the United Nations, then, of course, you would be entitled to demand that the list only include that body's members. But, given the current loose definition, this list need not be policed the way you want to police it. Also, it need not list all of the world's countries. What is the point of listing "Benin" if "Benin" is "Benin" in all foreign languages? (Indeed, no one has added "Benin" yet. But, who knows, maybe you will soon?)

Pasquale 15:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zielony Przylądek or Republika Zielonego Przylądka

There was mistake in article pl:Afryka (I fixed it). There is stub article about mentioned country (I didn't write it) pl:Republika Zielonego Przylądka. To find cap named Cabo Verde see: Cap-Vert, Geography of Africa. In polish there are three different names:

Zielony Przylądek - cap in Senegal (Cap-Vert)
Wyspy Zielonego Przylądka - archipelago near west coast of Africa
Republika Zielonego Przylądka - country on those islands (Cabo Verde)

I'm shure what im doing. I'm Polish native speaker. Sorry if I made mistakes in english. radomil 16:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing specific to Polish about the above distinctions. Exactly the same would be true for every single other language, so technically "Republic of" should be added to all. Right now, Polish stands out as the only language that underscores the above distinction. But so be it, if it makes you happy. (No one is doubting your competence as a Polish native speaker, but that's not the issue. The issue is rather if "Republic of" should be added to ALL languages or not.)

Pasquale 18:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mayby but, in english You use french name for cap and portugal for country. In polish it is so important like in English: "Washington" -in this form You don't know if it's state or city. Moreover , in Polish "Zielony Przylądek" is name RESERVED for cap. That's why it is so important. Mayby about other languages should speak their native users? radomil 18:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that we don't have an exact equivalent of Cabo Verde in Polish. It's either the Wyspy Zielonego Przylądka (archipelago) or Republika Zielonego Przylądka (state). Perhaps the earlier would be a better choice here..? [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 19:04, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Your right. We don't have en exact equivalent. That's why for the country only good name is a full name with - "Republika". On all Polish maps You have name "Republika Zielonego Przylądka", isn't it? radomil 19:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Halibutt is right. Wyspy Zielonego Przylądka is more appropriate here than Republika Zielonego Przylądka. If we start adding "Republic" here, then we should have it for every republic. Shall we have Rzeczpospolita Polska as the Polish name for the country of Poland? I don't think so. Shall we have République Française as the French name for the country of France? I don't think so. Pasquale 20:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure I saw a map with Wyspy Zielonego Przylądka where the state name should be, but that might've been a simple mistake. However, due to consistency reasons we might simply change that to Wyspy.. since most other Slavic names use the islands rather than the republic (see Serbian, Slovene or Croat name). Anyway, this is a typical wiki naming problem rather than a conflict and no exclamation marks are needed. Cheers! [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 20:51, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I wont't argue. Of course there are maps with name Wyspy Zielonego Przylądka like there are maps with Cejlon (Ceylon) because these are names of geographical structures. States are named Republika Zielonego Przylądka and Sri Lanka. Because poeple usualy don't see the diffrences you can change Republika on Wyspy. Shortly: Republika - if You want to be purist, Wyspy - if not, but never simply Zielony Przylądek - because on in Polish it is a place in Senegal.

Of course in Poland we use names Francja and Polska but there's no such name for Cabo Verde. Do You see a difference now? radomil 04:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wyspy should be used (rather than Republika) in order to differentiate the island nation from the cape in Senegal (Cap-Vert). However, Radomil should realize that in several other languages the same name is used for both the place in Senegal and the archipelago country, without any confusion arising from that. (English is exceptional in preferring the French term for the cape.) I will go ahead and implement the change.

Pasquale 16:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, thats acceptable version. Perhaps (if You say so) in others languages there is no difference between archipelago country and cap in Senegal (that one, which You said that don't exist). If You say that English is exeption why You can't accept that Polish is also. In Wikipedia should be TRUE information, not information that is convergent with your opinions. radomil 16:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry but when I said "there is no capital, no city, even no cape by this name", I meant to say there isn't within the country of Cape Verde. When you wrote "cap" the first time, I thought you intended an abbreviation for "capital" (this is a common usage in English). Only later I realized you meant "cape" (BTW, the word in English for "przylądek" is "cape" not "cap", as you keep writing).
Also, I don't have any personal opinions on this matter. My only interest is also in ensuring correct information. Wyspy Zielonego Przylądka is certainly more correct than Zielony Przylądek in reference to the archipelago, but this does not necessarily mean that the island country is NEVER referred to simply as Zielony Przylądek.
The reference in pl:Afryka (which you "fixed") was surely not an isolated occurrence. In any case, the person you should be arguing this out with is not me, but Youandme, who is certainly a native speaker of Polish as much as you and who put "Zielony Przylądek (Cape Verde)" in the article pl:Afryka. BTW, that article also lists "Wyspy Świętego Tomasza i Książęca". Should you perhaps change that "Republika Świętego Tomasza i Książęca"?
Pasquale 19:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my English (again). "Wyspy Świętego Tomasza i Książęca" is OK, but if You want full Polish name here You are: Republika Wysp Świętego Tomasza i Książęcej or even Demokratyczna Republika Wysp Świętego Tomasza i Książęcej but shortly Wyspy Świętego Tomasza i Książęca (not Świętego Tomasza i Książęca) radomil 20:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course there are texts with Zielony Przylądek as the name of country, but mainly these are translations from english with english influences or travell offices katalogs. In geographical Polish texts You have to add somthing before Zielony - Republika or Wyspy, if not this is a mistake (not serious, but mistake). See for example maps of africa in Polish (only two that I could find in internet):

Official Names

Could I lobby for a column for the official name the country identifies itself as? This could be a separate page, but putting it on this page would be more informative.--iFaqeer 01:40, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Could you lobby for what??? Dear iFaqeer, have you bothered to read the previous discussion above? Let me summarize it for you. This article used to be called "List of alternative country names". Then, at one point, a certain Jia ng, insisting that it should include only the official name and variant names used within the specific country, basically hijacked the article for that purpose. The original article was renamed with the current name "List of country names in various languages" and was thankfully allowed to continue its existence. Are you proposing the same thing all over again? Please take a look at List of alternative country names. Perhaps what you need can be found there. If not, I recommend you simply click on each country name and will find the "official name" you are looking for. Click on France for example. You will find that its official name is "République française". Are you proposing that, in THIS article, we list "République française" instead or in addition to "France", and perhaps translate that into a variety of languages? Why? It seems to me the purpose of this article is to answer the question "How do you say 'France' in a bunch of other languages?". And that is how you learn that 'France' is Prankūzija in Lithuanian, Prantsusmaa in Estonian, Ranska in Finnish, Tzarfat - צרפת in Hebrew, and so on and so forth. That is what this article is for. Official names such as "République française", "Repubblica Italiana", "Confoederatio Helvetica", etc., can simply be found by clicking respectively on France, Italy, Switzerland, etc. Is that not enough? Why should we burden this article with all those wordy circumlocutions that bear little relation to the question this article attempts to answer? Thanks. Pasquale 17:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's the difference. I am not lobbying for any one point of view. Just that that information should be incorporated into what we have. I fully support the fact that the commonest English form should be the "primary key" by which the list is ordered. That way one doesn't have to "flip" to a bunch of different pages for the official names.--iFaqeer 06:15, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Belarus!

I don't know who did the translation to Belarusian language, but I read first 10-12 countries names, and they are all wrong.

Аўганістан not Афганистан
Альбанія not Албания
Альжыр not Алжир
Антыгуа і Барбуда not Антигуа и Барбуда
Аргенціна not Аргентина
Армэнія not Армения

Virtually 99% of them are wrong! --rydel 18:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't complain to us about it, just correct them! Obviously someone wasn't bothering to distinguish between Belarusian and Russian. --Angr 21:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Burma or Myanmar? "Most commonly used" criterion?

At Myanmar there's a lengthy discussion about whether Burma should redirect to Myanmar (the way it is now) or Myanmar to Burma, or some other variation. I don't want to start that whole argument again, but I would like to point out that the instructions for this page say that the most commonly used English name for a country is used, rather than the name that is considered "correct". Bearing that in mind, I humbly submit that we move the "Myanmar" entry on this page to "Burma", because "Burma" is still much more commonly used in English than Myanmar. I've already added a line for "Burma" saying "see Myanmar", but if nobody objects I'd rather have the information listed at "Burma" instead.

While we're at it, I think the "most commonly used name" criterion should apply to other languages as well. For example, in the above discussion about what to call Cape Verde in Polish, the criterion should not be what Polish maps say, or what the Cape Verdean embassy in Warsaw calls itself, but rather what the average Pole says when he mentions to a friend, "I'm going to Cape Verde on my holiday next winter."

Nevertheless implementing the "most commonly used" criterion too rigidly could result in mistranslations. For example, probably the most commonly used name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in English is "the U.K.", but in German it's "Großbritannien" or even "England". (German friends thought it was ridiculously pedantic of me to correct them when they asked me how my trip to "England" was when I got back from Edinburgh.) But obviously this article shouldn't pretend that the German name for "United Kingdom" is "Großbritannien" or "England", and it's beyond the scope of this article to point out that "Vereinigtes Königreich" sounds like officialese in German even though "United Kingdom" or its abbreviation "U.K." sounds quite normal in English. --Angr 21:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Non Roman script

This list is quite interesting, maybe even useful.

One problem as I see it is the presence of non-Roman scripts like Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, Korean and Japanese (not to mention Indian languages, Thai, etc.). The problem is not very acute yet because many of these languages have yet to be added.

But when they are, we will have a jumble of scripts that no single person can read in its entirety. Now, in one sense the list is primarily a reference from which the user can pick the languages he/she needs. A speaker of Chinese would have no problem with Chinese characters, an Arabic-speaker with Arabic script, etc. . On the other hand, meaningless and indecipherable scripts are not of great value to the casual visitor who may be interested in seeing what a country is called in other languages. So the practice of adding Romanisation should really be adopted (as many have done already).

However, implementing this could end up causing a lot of complexity and confusion. I suggest that a standard format might be useful. That would make it easier to wade through the resulting mixture of exotic scripts and romanisation. An example might be: ベトナム =Betonamu (Japanese), 越南 =Etsunan (historic/academic Japanese), 越南 =Yuènán (Chinese). Or we could follow the usage that is already partly followed by some: Betonamu - ベトナム (Japanese), Etsunan - 越南 (historic/academic Japanese), Yuènán - 越南 (Chinese). There is a difference of order here (Romanisation first, native script second or native script first, Romanisation second) as well as a choice of links (hyphen, equal sign, or maybe nothing at all). What do others think? Bathrobe 05:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that romanization is needed, and we already had an inofficial standard of sorts before non-European languages. The practice that was established was to write: "Romanization — native script (language)", for example "Arzhentina - Аржентина (Bulgarian)". But the problem with that is, some scripts (most non-European scripts, in fact) do not lend themselves well to being written in italics. CJK characters, as far as I know, are never written in italics in real life, and so they shouldn't be here; neither are the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets. Maybe we should abandon the italics altogether and just go with "Romanization — native script (language)". The next problem is deciding on a romanization. Many languages have no official Romanization and several inofficial ones, or they may have an official Romanization that is different from the best-known one. The Bulgarian example above could also have been romanized Aržentina; and neither Hebrew nor Arabic has one single widely acknowledged romanization system. Still, maybe we can at least agree on a format for entries; agreeing on a romanization system is a different problem. I'm going to add a suggestion to the top of the page, and see what others think. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just revising my original note when you added your comment! OK, we can go with the current de facto system. It's probably cleaner and easier to understand than using equal signs or just leaving a space. I look forward to seeing your suggestion. For Chinese, pinyin is now pretty well accepted so there is no problem. For Japanese I might suggest Hepburn, with macrons (ō, not ou). For Thai, Korean, Arabic, etc., I guess there may be problems. Bathrobe 07:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up Afghanistan by adding Chinese romanisation as well as Japanese. I presume this is what you had in mind. (I can't do anything with the Indian languages). Bathrobe 07:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe, If you check the history, you will see that there was a standard format of Romanization - native script, as Angr has already pointed out (although I don't believe the wiki mdash was used). Unfortunately, the more recent additions ignore that format, just like they ignore alphabetization, as well as other formatting. I suggest we keep the same format, including using the italics for the native language, when possible, because it looks better that way, and just forget about the italics for Hebrew, Arabic, CJK, and the South Asian scripts. Pasquale 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently redid the whole page, replacing entities with characters, and I also got rid of all the italics, because so few non-Roman alphabets really use them. I thought for consistency's sake it was better to have no italics at all than italics only in Cyrillic (and Greek, though I don't know to what extent italics are actually used in Greek writing). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, fine. Pasquale 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I added and corrected Greek and Bulgarian names, I used these romanization systems:

for Greek: UN/ELOT, see Transliteration of Greek into English;
for Bulgarian: the official Bulgarian one (well, for personal names), see: Transliteration of Bulgarian into English.

Markussep 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very long

I've added the {{verylong}} template because the article is 145 kb long, which is about three times longer than a good Wikipedia article should be. I'd like to discuss possibilities for breaking it up. The most obvious solution to my mind is to break it up by letters of the alphabet, for example:

but I'm open to other suggestions. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, you could also divide them by continents, e.g.:

or some such. Pasquale 00:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's also a possibility, but the way the list is now I suspect List of country names in various languages (Europe) would still be too long and List of country names in various languages (Africa) would be barely a stub. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument against going by continent is that it will entail wrangling over countries like Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, for which there will be arguments as to whether they should be in Europe or Asia. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. Well, you're the Wikimaster, so you make the call. Pasquale 21:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being an administrator gives me more power, not more authority. I'd still like to field suggestions before doing anything rash. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been five days and no one but Pasquale has said anything so I'm being bold. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the division by country names in alphabetical order. Olessi 23:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Now that it's done, I'm taking the {{verylong}} tag off. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages

I have posted an extensive ex post-facto Explanation on Mikkalai's talk page, in case anyone's interested. Pasquale 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English alphabetical order and foreign diacritics

I would like to know, how are foreign names, which include various diacritics, treated in English language lists? Here, at the List of country names in various languages, the alphabetical order of various language alternatives of the same name does not seem to follow any rule as far as the diacritics is concerned. What is the correct order eg. for Armenia, Armênia, Armènia, Arménia and Armenía? I know that other languages have their rules for treating foreign diacritics, does anybody know, how is this done in English?Jan.Kamenicek 11:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my understanding of this issue: The diacritics do not affect the English alphabetical sorting. However, if several entries are exactly identical, except for the diacritics, as in the example you cited, they should be ranked starting with the entry without diacritics, then the entries with diacritics, beginning with those with the diacritics further to the left, with the diacritics in the following order (for example, for e): è é ê ë. So, for the example you cited, he answer is: Armenia, Armènia, Arménia, Armênia, Armenía. (By the way, the same happens in most Western European languages, except for French, where it is the same, except that the entries with diacritics are ranked beginning with those with the diacritics further to the right.) Pasquale 16:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for explanation. Do you know also the ordering of other diacritical marks, such as breve, caron, cedilla, ogonek and others? Jan.Kamenicek 20:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I would apply the same principle and simply add those after the ones I mentioned. For example, a word which includes e with ogonek would follow another word which is identical but for the diacritic. Pasquale 21:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clear if we need to order words with and without diacritics. But sometimes we need to order words with different diacritics. Which goes first: Čína or Ċina (Czech and Maltese names for "China")? Jan.Kamenicek 08:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. That's a tough one. I would put the Maltese form first, because it has only one diacritic, but I'm not sure. Pasquale 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of country names in various languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227054129/http://www.gov.si/kszi/ to http://www.gov.si/kszi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]