How should (European) peak names be spelled ?
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:25 pm
Few rules, like the language standard, are well (or almost) respected on SP. However, I think a standard should be adopted about spelling peak names in the title, because SP is a real mess about it in some areas. And mispelling peaks can lead accidentally to duplicate pages.
Almost all European languages, except English itself, have their special letters. These letters are part of the languages, of the culture of each nation. Despite some technical issues like writting them in page comments, forum posts, or research forms (issue partially resolved by Peterbud's page; maybe Montana Matt could remedy to it ?), these letters are widely accepted in SP and I think we can almost speak about a real site with international vocation (almost, as long as Russian, Chinese, Indian and other alphabets will not be managed...)
However, very often, browsing peak pages, I see many inconsistencies in pages titles.
- Most of the time, the writter just omits these special signs, due to a lack of appropriate keyboard. Very often, for example, the german umlauts become ue, ae, oe, and the eszett becomes a double S. The accents on vowels on many latin languages are left away. Slavonic names also often loose their accentuation on C, S, R and other letters by adding an extra "z" or "h" to it (depending on which country we speak about). I often have the same keyboard problem for spelling into Aragonese or Slovak, but I remedy to it by copypasting in Google to get the spelling right.
- Sometimes, peaks which are located in one country are written with the same name with the spelling of another country (often, a bigger country nearby, where many tourists come from). When the spelling is similar, that's OK, but there are a couple of such examples where the translated name is not the same at all.
- Peaks or objects located on a border are often spelled into only one language only, when it differs. In my opinion they should be spelled in both languages, with only a "/" or "-" as separation to keep it as short as possible. Which spelling first, it depends on the author's appreciation. Could be the mountainside from which the mountain is most commonly climbed. Mountains having two possible names (Denali / Mc Kinley) should be perhaps presented so as well. Otherwise, for other possible alternative spellings, in a language of a country in which it is not located in, maybe the Overview is a better place for it.
- Finally, some countries have tendencies to "anglicize" excessively their names. Slovenia's Dolina Sedmerih Jezer is not the "Valley of the Seven Lakes" even if it means this. Bile Labe is not the "White Elbe", and so on, and so on. There was a long and interesting debate about the misuse of "White Tatras", in which I am myself guilty. Translating names to explain their meanings is OK and most of the time quite interesting, but there are limits to this. Mont Blanc will for example never been "White Mount".
Your opinion ?
Almost all European languages, except English itself, have their special letters. These letters are part of the languages, of the culture of each nation. Despite some technical issues like writting them in page comments, forum posts, or research forms (issue partially resolved by Peterbud's page; maybe Montana Matt could remedy to it ?), these letters are widely accepted in SP and I think we can almost speak about a real site with international vocation (almost, as long as Russian, Chinese, Indian and other alphabets will not be managed...)
However, very often, browsing peak pages, I see many inconsistencies in pages titles.
- Most of the time, the writter just omits these special signs, due to a lack of appropriate keyboard. Very often, for example, the german umlauts become ue, ae, oe, and the eszett becomes a double S. The accents on vowels on many latin languages are left away. Slavonic names also often loose their accentuation on C, S, R and other letters by adding an extra "z" or "h" to it (depending on which country we speak about). I often have the same keyboard problem for spelling into Aragonese or Slovak, but I remedy to it by copypasting in Google to get the spelling right.
- Sometimes, peaks which are located in one country are written with the same name with the spelling of another country (often, a bigger country nearby, where many tourists come from). When the spelling is similar, that's OK, but there are a couple of such examples where the translated name is not the same at all.
- Peaks or objects located on a border are often spelled into only one language only, when it differs. In my opinion they should be spelled in both languages, with only a "/" or "-" as separation to keep it as short as possible. Which spelling first, it depends on the author's appreciation. Could be the mountainside from which the mountain is most commonly climbed. Mountains having two possible names (Denali / Mc Kinley) should be perhaps presented so as well. Otherwise, for other possible alternative spellings, in a language of a country in which it is not located in, maybe the Overview is a better place for it.
- Finally, some countries have tendencies to "anglicize" excessively their names. Slovenia's Dolina Sedmerih Jezer is not the "Valley of the Seven Lakes" even if it means this. Bile Labe is not the "White Elbe", and so on, and so on. There was a long and interesting debate about the misuse of "White Tatras", in which I am myself guilty. Translating names to explain their meanings is OK and most of the time quite interesting, but there are limits to this. Mont Blanc will for example never been "White Mount".
Your opinion ?