Talk:Toponymy/Archive 1

Comments

Although the contents of this page are more or less duplicated on Placename etymology, I didn't add this on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles because toponymy is different from etymology. The contents need to be sorted out though. Jay 11:23, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this at Talk:British toponymy. violet/riga (t) 14:15, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added more information about toponymy and toponymists. --Polylerus 15:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My comment: "Toponymy" - a word we don't need

I read here that "toponym has come to replace "place-name" in professional discourse among toponymists." Which, as the Germans would say, arouses the old "ah-ha effect" - it's a pseudo-word, guys, the word people use is "etymology". Are we "toponymists" (is that a recognized profession?). Are we indulging in "professional discourse" (sounds almost illegal!) - get real, guys, and bin this pseudo-academic junk!Maelli (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's junk in the sense that in the intro it seeks to distinguish between toponomy and place name origins but then goes on to use some place name origins (in at least two places). It also has a heading toponymists - which becomes the major section but is not primarily about the personnel but about the main topic.

The two pages should be merged... it seems there has been some in the past..... but a further review is needed. I would suggest that Toponomy and Place Name origins should be a common topic with most of this entry being removed. It would also seem appropriate to consider making toponomy a subset of etymology (if the discussion entries are to be believed).

Someone with more specialist knowledge than me take up on this - or show I am wrong ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apault (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Place name origins is specifically about the origin of place names. As that page says, "This article focuses on the origins of place names themselves. For a discussion of the scientific study of place names see Toponymy." Toponymy, as any quick Google search will show, is a common term for the study of place names. Such study is often, but not exclusively about etymology and origin. This isn't to say the pages couldn't be merged somehow, or that this page couldn't be vastly improved. Pfly (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I find the use of "toponymy" in articles about places irritatingly pretentious. It is put in by people who think that the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to demonstrate your superiority by using technical terms the normal reader will not know. I think the purpose of an article is to inform as directly and simply as possible. I have no problem with an article about origins of place names, only the repeated use of the word in articles about places.Chemical Engineer (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, there's a number of words that seem to be used in Wikipedia like this, as XKCD pointed out. I just discovered that Applied toponymy is a real term used by professional geographers and toponymists (eg, Monmonier, Payne). At least toponymy is a real word unlike "disambiguate". :-) Pfly (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! - sanity obviously does still exist out there! I thought I might be sticking the (increasingly!) old neck out a bit too far when I wrote the original comment at the top of this section, but I see - and am heartened - that at least a few people like to see real words properly used. "Irritatingly pretentious" is exactly my reaction to this word as well, BTW. Another good example of a word mostly wrongly used on Wikipeda is, imho, "revert", to mean "to restore the original (or previous) wording". On "disambiguate" I'm not so sure, it may be that we need this word, because it does do a reasonable job of stating what the page is for - is there a good alternative, I just can't think of one. Linguistic pretentiousness is (as I'm sure you all realize!) one of my pet hates - can I interest anyone in this short comment (by the wife of a good colleague and friend of mine) concerning "impact" (as a verb): "Impact" is used by people who don't know or can't understand the difference between "effect" and "affect". I'm now going to check whether there's a Wiki entry on this topic! Maelli (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merged

I completed the merge with Toponym that someone else suggested; seemed like a good idea. Now the article needs some fixing to fully integrate. I severely trimmed the ==See also== but a number should be restored. But not too many. Alexander 007 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for performing that merger, Al. I had forgotten about putting up the proposal tags last fall. You are quite correct in assuming that the removal of related topics links would not last, so most have now been restored. Thanks again. //Big Adamsky 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Adam, I realized that many of the See also's should/would be restored, but linking too many is often 1) aesthetically unpleasing concerning the format, look, and length of an article (I think many would agree with this, perhaps the majority of Wikipedians) 2) it is not quite necessary, because Category:Place names lists many of them or should list them (that is the Category that this article is in). Yes, it can be useful to the reader to link so many, but just as useful may be to place the Category itself as a See also, to save space (overly long articles are not preferred, and this article's text still has to expand). Alexander 007 10:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is a rule against placing a Category as a See Also, that rule should be amended. Alexander 007 10:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A-ha! I was looking all over for a page on toponyms; hadn't considered it had been merged here. Why didn't anyone bother to include a definition of toponym, though? Specifically definition 2 at wiktionary, which is the one I wanted to link to. I'll go ahead and add it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digfarenough (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Double oops. Forgot to sign. Also, completely missed that the definition is there. My bad! digfarenough (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Place names in English

You guys really say that English "place names" don't have meaning? That is pretty ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.97.131 (talk • contribs)

Moved this comment to the bottom and added a title. The article does claim that, in general, place names in English do not always have a definite meaning. It does seem like that claim could use a reference. digfarenough (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the claim is odd. It is well over a year old (as far back in the history as I checked), so I'm skeptical the person who added it would respond to a request for reference. And in any case the text was unclear. It said: A toponym is a name of a locality, region, or some other part of Earth's surface or even an artificial feature. In some cultures, most or all such place names have a definite meaning in the language; this is not the case, generally, for place names in English. First I saw no reason for the "even an artificial..." bit -- cities are an obvious example of a place with a name, it shouldn't be surprising. So I rephrased. Second, it isn't exactly clear what "most or all such place names..." means -- does it include "even artificial features"? Finally, I'm extremely skeptical that any such claim could be backed up. Take every place name from every English-speaking country and compare the percent with known meanings to those without? There are several major problems with even attempting such a thing. I doubt it's been done. Perhaps the original editor meant to say that place names that are made of English words (like "Springfield"), as opposed to non-English words (like "Oregon"), are generally without definite meaning. If so, this seems even less likely to be true. Just the opposite, I could think. Anyway, I decided to be bold and remove it. If a reference source is found feel free to add it again. Pfly 04:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of links by Patroller

I recently set a link from this page to my own site which has an engine which allows the user to search for placename elements in more than 160,000 UK placnames. However, a user has decided that this is link spam and removed the link. Can I have other users' opinions on whether the link to my site should stay or go (UK Placename Index) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Kutler (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you added numerous links over a very short period of time to a website which you have confirmed is your own. Those edits were at that time your only contributions to wikipedia. I have explained fully why the various links were removed, and have suggested that you read WP:ADS. In particular this section -

"Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia. A new editor who owns a business may see that there are articles about other businesses on Wikipedia, and conclude that it would be appropriate to create his own such article. A Web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where his or her site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it."

Your edits on various articles, including this one, were all added within a very short period of time on 25 September. With no other contributions to wikipedia it was taken as inserting spam external links, not just by me but by at least one other user who removed the link for the same reason. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 13:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference to use for toponymy

Ran across this in Google Books: The Origin of Certain Place Names in the United States (Second Edition) By Henry Gannett, 1905. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 258. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger of "Place names considered unusual" into "Toponymy"

I don't quite understand the reasoning behind the merger. Are all toponyms equivalent to "place names considered unusual"? I don't think so, in fact, I am certain they are not. In fact, most of them are a pretty humdrum lot of names. Why would I be looking for unusual place names under "toponymy", especially if I as an uninitiated looker-up of Wikipedia facts, don't even know what the word toponymy might mean. You really will have to convince me of this one. Until such time I will have to respond with a resounding No to this one. Definitely not. Voting Against Dieter Simon (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposed merge should not go ahead. Place names considered unusual is a lightweight topic, merging it into Toponymy which is somewhat more erudite, would not create a harmonious topic.

Vote: Against BlueOrb (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, toponymy is the study of the origin and etymology of place names. The Place names considered unusual page, while mildly amusing, is basically random trivia. Worse, that page has been subjected to endless edit wars and bickering. It is at best only tangentially related to toponymy. It sounds like a bad match to me. Pfly (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted merge suggestion, thought "Place names considered unusual" had been clobbered... Wrong!

BlueOrb (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Related article Place names with English meanings is proposed for deletion. -- Orlady (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

List of place names starting with "The"

A new article, List of place names starting with "The" has been created, but proposed for deletion. Should it stay or go? Participate in the discussion at Talk:List of place names starting with "The". Spikebrennan (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. --Orlady (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[Untitled]

To understand the value of toponyms, visualize each toponym (or geographical name) as the title of a story revealing some aspect of a region's cultural or natural heritage. 76.190.152.7 (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project template ?

Does this article fit into any particular Wikipedia Project? If so, please add a template here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Second-person tense used in opening paragraph

Hi, I think this sentence should be re-worded so it's not in the second tense ("you"), that seems a bit unencylopediac.

As, I beg to add, is calling the second person the "second tense" or "second-person tense" - it's all a bit "unencylopediac" - a case of needing to get beams out of eyes?Maelli (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My doctoral dissertation is titled: Ecologically Meaningful Toponyms: Linking a Lexical Domain to Production Ecology in the Peruvian Andes. It is available online and contains a number of innovative findings resulting from a decade of research. Our research team collected several thousand place names in the Peruvian Andes near Huaraz. It is "peer reviewed" by faculty who signed off on it. Stanford University (2006). KSRolph (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 1:31 01 Sep 2011 (UTC)