The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in various languages[edit]

Doubtless, these lists contain a very useful information, but this is a classical, clear and transparent as a shot of vodka, case of wiktionary.

Suppose I am reading about Andorra, and I want to know its name in French. How the heck would I know where to look for? Now, look at Poland article. Its "Name" section links to wikt:Poland, and everything is nice and clear.

NOTE I consider this vote invalid, because the main opponent, Pascuale stuffed talk pages of his colleagues with a call to skew the vote, and I reserve the right to repeat this nomination. mikka (t) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary to wait a fair amount of time after an AFD ends with a "keep" result before renominating. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. While there is no "official" period of time that must elapse before a renomination is made, many people consider a period of six months to be a minimum. A renomination made within a few months of the original AFD is likely to be closed early as a "speedy keep". There is no policy or guideline that a user may not inform other users of an ongoing AFD. On the contrary, there are several WikiProjects and notice boards designed to inform users of, among other things, AFDs on articles that may interest them. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty aware of the rules and contrary to some heated opinions I am not a troll. I will renominate only if I decide that the vote was skewed by Pascuale. His position that all of us voting here are voting just besause "we like or don't like it" is deplorable. Unlike those who "like it", I provided serious arguments why these pages are wrong place. mikka (t) 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It is only fair to warn long-time users and contributors to a certain page that that page has come under attack. This is not skewing the vote, as I had no idea how those users would actually vote. Surely, we don't want an article's fate to be decided by people who have just stumbled into it for the first time and didn't like it! The users and contributors I warned are in no way "my colleagues" any more than any other Wikipedia users, but are indeed users who have repeatedly contributed to that page. (And, in any case, at least eight "Keep" votes so far are from users I have not contacted and whose names I have never heard, while at least one that I contacted -- Aecis -- has voted the other way. Check my user contributions for confirmation.) I am in no way "the main opponent" here. I simply consider myself responsible because I unwittingly alerted this attacker to the existence of these pages, which he has then IMMEDIATELY nominated for deletion. Is this not troll behavior? Where are the administrators when you need them? Pasquale 21:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, nominating a page for AFD when one believes it belongs at Wiktionary instead is not troll behavior. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to offer a little unsolicited advice to both aggrieved parties and hope it is taken in the spirit it is given. (With love, kindness, and pixie dust) I have often gotten into a tizzy over certain articles and as a result, have come to the conclusion that the emotional expenditure is just not worth it.
It's not worth raising your blood pressure, or upsetting you, or ruining your evening. It's not worth ruining your digestion, or your after-dinner cocktail, your birthday, or whatever is happening in your real life. Don't let the users' behavior on the Wikipedia get to you. Because it doesn't matter.
That's right - it doesn't really matter, that much, does it? I would hate to lose this information to the Wiktionary, but really, what does it matter? If you think it SHOULD be in the Wiktionary, and it stays in the Wikipedia - what difference does that make to your life? You might never have run across it. Take this pent up frustration and go for a run, or volunteer at a hospital, or hug your kids. Do something worthwhile and uncontroversial.
Once again, I hope not to get too preachy, but I think we often escalate conflicts just because we're in conflict, not for substantive reasons. At least, that's what I do. All the best to both of you. Danlovejoy 13:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The List of country names in various languages, like the List of European regions with alternative names, the List of European cities with alternative names, the List of European rivers with alternative names, and other such, is of exceptional value to linguists, historians, toponymists, and other social scientists, and should be preserved. These lists have been very popular for the past couple of years and have attracted many users and contributors, who have found them fascinating and of high educational value. I find it extremely objectionable that a Johnny-come-lately such as mikka should, upon discovering the existence of such lists, take such bold initiative as to advocate the deletion of articles he personally has no use for. This is hardly what the Wikipedia is about. I submit that mikka should be censured and, in fact, expelled from the Wikipedia. Pasquale 17:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no one's lack of civility is a reason to keep or to delete a page. And indeed the number of "keep" votes cast at this point makes it extremely unlikely that there will be consensus to delete. However, filing AFDs is not uncivil behavior (I have filed a fair number of them in my ten months here). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Angr, can you please explain to me why I can't have a contiguous space below my vote, explaining my reasons, without another contributor interjecting his personal attacks on me? Would you kindly move the above injected three paragraphs to somewhere below, together with the rest of this person's diatribe, so I can have my reasons immediately following my vote? As an administrator, can you please decide this matter? I am trying to be very civilized here, but I don't know if that's true for everyone concerned. Pasquale 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to discuss one's behavior is WP:RFC/USER, not VfD. mikka (t) 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you strongly feel the articles should be kept, but the above comment [i.e. that Mikka should be censured for calling the AFD] is really uncalled-for. Mikka has been at Wikipedia for two years (about eight months longer than you yourself) and so can hardly be called a Johnny-come-lately. He's entitled to his opinion that this information is more appropriate at Wiktionary than here--he never claimed the information isn't useful, merely that it's in the wrong place. The information will be just as usable by linguists, historians, toponymists, and other social scientists at Wiktionary as it is here. Mikka has done nothing warranting censure or banning from Wikipedia. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Angr, by "Johnny-come-lately" I meant "Johnny-come-lately" to these particular lists. It is obvious that Mikka has just stumbled into these lists. He first made some remarks the other day on Talk:List of European regions with alternative names, denigrating and ridiculing that particular list. I explained to him that that list closely parallels others, such as the List of country names in various languages, the List of European cities with alternative names, the List of European rivers with alternative names, all of which he was not aware of, and so what does he do? He turns around and advocates for the deletion of all these pages, whose existence he has just become aware of. Maybe I am not a very bold Wikipedia contributor, but I would never even think of doing something like that. And, yes, I do find this behavior extremely objectionable and censurable. Frankly, I am amazed that you fail to see how inconsiderate this is. To me, it would be as if someone with no interest in linguistic reconstruction should argue for the deletion of your Proto-Celtic language article. I think it's truly insane! And, furthermore, it is idiotic to buttress this kind of argumentation by ridiculing the notion that someone just might want to know what Zimbabwe is called in Finnish (see below). Should I be ashamed if I wanted to look up all the names Zimbabwe has in as many languages as has been possible to collect in one place by Wikipedia users? Please tell me: Should I be ashamed? I stand by my above comment. I think it is extremely called-for. And as for the Wiktionary, personally, I never use it. And I truly doubt anyone would ever look up Zimbabwe in the Wiktionary. One final thing, Angr: You just added the Bân-lâm, Breton, Esperanto, Lojban, and Japanese names for Basque Country to the List of European regions with alternative names for the simple reason that the same names already appeared in the List of country names in various languages, and now you don't have the guts to break a lance for these lists which are being threatened by a wolf in sheep's clothing (namely, a vandal camouflaged as a serious Wikipedia contributor). In fact, you seem to be taking his side! I am very disappointed in you. Pasquale 21:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking any sides in this particular discussion; you may have noticed I haven't voted. (Incidentally, neither have you, technically.) I was defending his right to make the AFD, not supporting the AFD itself. Yes, I am still editing these lists because there is a good chance they will be kept. Yes, I have found these lists to be very interesting, and have been quite active in editing them. Nevertheless I can also see that what they cover is really more Wiktionary's jurisdiction than Wikipedia's. If Proto-Celtic language were to be deleted, the information would be completely lost, because there's nowhere else to put it. This information will not be lost if this AFD results in a delete; it will just be transferred to Wiktionary. You say you don't use Wiktionary; that's easily enough remedied: just go to wikt:Main Page and sign up. Finally, making personal attacks against the nominator of an AFD is not going to win people over to want to support your side. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Angr, if I haven't voted, I guess it's because I don't know how to. Where do I send in my ballot? And as for you, I know full well that you have repeatedly contributed to these lists and do find them useful, except that now you suddenly seem to have such little interest in them that you can't bring yourself to take sides. I am sorry, but that's what Pontius Pilate did. And, by the way, I am not making any personal attacks here. I am being very objective. If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I am simply reporting facts. To someone who just came across this AFD, it may not be apparent that its nominator had just stumbled into all these lists and, having found them of no use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, promptly filed a petition to delete them. This is simply an abuse and if you don't recognize it, then I simply don't understand how your mind works or what you're doing to protect the Wikipedia content. Pasquale 22:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To vote, all you have to do is type "keep" or "delete" and a brief summary of your reason, anywhere on this page. I do still have an interest in this information, but I'm willing to entertain the suggestion that it's more appropriate at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Calling Mikka "a vandal camouflaged as a serious Wikipedia contributor" is most certainly a personal attack. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree, Angr. Words, as you know, have objective meanings after all. To me, "vandal" is someone who wishes to destroy something without rhyme or reason, in this particular case, with barely any knowledge or familiarity with the object of his vandalism. You seem to think I am using words as expletives or gratuitous accusations. I am not. I am trying to offer an objective assessment of what's going on here and now. Pasquale 15:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional problems with these lists are their maintainability and duplication of information. Instead of nervous outburst, just compare

and I really have nothing more to say.

I understand that some people spent plenty of time on these and they are dear to thier heart, and I am not offended, but people really need to practice in understanding why other people have other point of view.mikka (t) 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This in probably not the place, but I would say that a much more useful would be List of historical country names, List of historical place names, etc., i.e., list of official names of the toponyms in different historical periods: under differet rule and different local population. this would be really useful for historians, toponynists, etc. In the current list, what is the use for a historian to know how Zimbabwe is called in Finnish language? mikka (t) 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maintainability isn't an issue; Wikipedia is just as easy to maintain as Wiktionary. Easier, probably, because there are more people at Wikipedia to keep an eye on things. As for "Ангельшчына (Belarusian)", I don't speak Belarusian, but it looks like several pages at be: don't consider it "ridiculous": be:1922, be:Катэгорыя:Ангельшчына, be:2 студзеня, be:Сьпіс краінаў і тэрыторыяў паводле альфабэту, be:28 лютага. (And even if it were wrong, it would be easy enough for you to correct it.) The only argument you bring up that stands is duplication, and indeed, the Finnish name for Zimbabwe can be found at wikt:Zimbabwe as well, for the benefit of anyone who needs that information. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a chance to look at the page I listed for comparison? The maintainaability 'is most definitely the issue. Also, wiktionary is a good place to talk about etymologies of the names. As for more people, don't forget there is also more articles. I contributed about hundred geographical articles (towns, rivers, mountains, etc.) and edited may not less than a thousand ones, and only recently I stumbled upon these lists. I immediately noticed their usefulness and invisiblity at the same time. mikka (t) 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Belarussian wikipedia is a playground of belarussian russophobic nationalists with archaic ideas to roll back the Russian influence in Belarussian language. I even don't bother to contribute there. "Ангельшчына" is a colloquial term, loosely translated as "land of Englishmen", a standard Slavic construction, and indeed is in informal use, but no way it is the name oif the country. Just try to google "Ангельшчына" (185) vs "Англiя" (44,900). mikka (t) 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Zimbabwe part is an polemic fugure in the context that the missing List of historical country names would be of encyclopedic value, rather than of dictionary value, and hence is relevant to wikipedia. mikka (t) 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if there are errors or non-NPOV implications in the Belarusian entries on these lists, all you have to do is correct them. The presence of mistakes in a Wikipedia article or list is not a valid reason for deletion. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to the above, and I've received the exact same message. Aecis praatpaal 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More