From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uşak article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Uşak:
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Comments

[edit] Alternative transliteration

Gene, I really do think that you are being overzealous here. First of all, it doesn't matter if it was there for 15 months, it is unsourced and dubious information. Second of all, there is no such thing as "alternative transliteration" of Latin alphabet-based names. 1911 Brittanica can use that term, but back in 1911 Turkey was using the Arabic alphabet, therefore "transliteration" was the correct way to put it. But Turkey has been using the Latin alphabet for the last eighty years, so the correct form is "pronounced". Baristarim 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It is still a transliteration from non-English letters. There is no error in using the English alphabet when writing in English. Furthermore, it is much more common in English; the city should probably moved, the airport even more likely, and the carpet most certainly. Gene Nygaard 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You find me one travel guide or source that uses "transliteration" instead of "pronounciation", then we will think about it. I think that my point about the 1911 Brittanica and the Arabic alphabet completely flew over your head. There is no such thing as "English" or "Turkish" letters. It is the Latin alphabet. We are not talking about a Chinese city. The pronounciation is clearly given, there is no room for confusion. Wikipedia rules say "use the English language", not the "English alphabet". Latin alphabet should be used, and its diacritics. There is no need for a move, the pronounciations are there. If you would like, you can ask the IPA to be added, but there is no need for that either since the pronounciation is clear. The airport is not a special name, it is simple common sense that the airport refers to the city in a way akin to saying "Airport of Uşak". São Paulo is also more common, as well as Dusseldorf, so good luck with trying to move them as well :) Baristarim 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Transliteration" or not isn't really relevant. Don't be throwing out red herrings; I don't give a damn how you characterize it. The fact that is relevant is that it is a very common, likely the most common, spelling in English. Not just pronunciation, relating to the spoken version—but rather it is the spelling, the written version, that we often see.

And, by the way, if you continue the nonsense about "emoved because it was unsourced", most of the Turkish towns will end up being blank articles. Gene Nygaard 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)