Talk:Toponymy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] FYI

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