Talk:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern as a procedural action. The original move was undiscussed and apparently controversial, so I'm restoring status quo ante and inviting RealIK17 to make their case in a formal RM. Dash-or-hyphen is a secondary issue. No such user (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania → Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania – A name for a merger of two places should use a dash, not a hyphen, like the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex and Minneapolis–Saint Paul. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this change should be non-controversial, however the move in August from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern should have been considered controversial and a possible reversion of that move should be discussed. It does look like English usage prefers the translated name, for example [1]. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Other German states that have been merged use hyphens not dashes; Rhineland-Palatinate, North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Württemberg, Schleswig-Holstein and Saxony-Anhalt. Ale3353 (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are other articles that have improper hyphen usage, they should be renamed too. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have opened an RM discussion at Talk:Baden-Württemberg. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per power~enwiki, I think this should be moved back to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern as that move should have really had an RM. Number 57 09:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move back to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Not often seen in its English translation and moved without discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Changing the length of the dash would require a separate discssion. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern → Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania – ‘Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’ is used by diplomatic and official sources such as Germany’s official website^[1], and the United States Board on Geographic Names^[2]. This is further reinforced by major English Language news sources such as the BBC^[3], The Independent^[4], DW^[5], The New York Times^[6], The Washington Post^[7], Reuters^[8] and the Associated Press^[9]. This would also be consistent with the Western Pomerania article. Ale3353 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Our WP:USEENGLISH policy does not mandate we only use English translations, nor does it mandate we only use original language names. Instead, we use the name most common in reliable, English-language sources. A Google news search for "Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania" germany brings up less than 5,000 results; for "mecklenburg-vorpommern" germany it brings up over 70,000, ranging from Reuters to the Washington Post to Deutsche Welle to Nikkei to sports sites. Ngrams also shows the current name as more commonly used in English language sources. As the nomination notes, the translated version is in no way unreasonable, as it is certainly used, but it's just far less common. For example, the NY Times more frequently uses Vorpommern, although it has used Western Pomerania, while the AP is the other way around.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And separately, strongly oppose the en dash suggestion, which was also recently rejected at Baden-Württemberg, as both a common name issue that would make us grossly inconsistent with reliable sources, inconsistent across other German states, and perhaps most importantly contrary to WP:DASH, given sources clearly treat the subject as a single named entity.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider an en dash: Shouldn't this construction properly use an en dash? A hyphen seems to create a strange combination "Mecklenburg-Western" that is separate from "Pomerania". See the examples of Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex and Minneapolis–Saint Paul and the prior RMs at #Requested move 24 October 2021, Talk:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern State Football Association#Requested move 24 October 2021, and Talk:North Rhine-Westphalia#Requested move 7 November 2021. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned previously on the RM’s you have sited German states use hyphens not dashes; it would also be strange to use a dash when barely any English sources do so. Ale3353 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources (and most people) don't really make a distinction between a hyphen and an en dash. So the same might be said for Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex and Minneapolis–Saint Paul. But Wikipedia does make such a distinction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per ngrams - it appears that the current title is the common name. Open to being convinced by a more detailed review of use in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider an en dash. Support per Western Pomerania. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know ngrams seems to contradict this but I can’t find that many English sources that use ‘Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’. The only sources I have been able to find are The Irish Times^[10], The New York Times^[11] and The Guardian^[12] which sometimes use the local spelling but other times use either ‘Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’ or ‘Mecklenburg-West Pomerania’. Speaking of which, almost all English sources that don’t use ‘Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’ use ‘Mecklenburg-West Pomerania’ such as The Guardian^[13] (sometimes), The Times^[14], The Economist^[15], The Irish Times^[16] (sometimes), Britannica^[17] and Columbia^[18] of which only the latter two use a dash showing that the hyphen clearly prodominates. Also to add on other sources from around the world that use ‘Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’ include News 24^[19] (South Africa) and The Hindu^[20] (India) showing that the name I have proposed for this article also fulfils the WP:GLOBAL criteria. Ale3353 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely tricky to determine, but I would note a number of these sources are republished AP and AFP stories running in a publication, rather than stories from the publication itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. More often untranslated than translated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

If many sources translate to 'Western Pomerania', this makes more sense than 'Vorpommern'.

I think Wikipedia needs to be consistent - we call the German states 'states' rather than leaving it untranslated as 'Bundesländer'.

We call Nordrhein-Westfalen 'North Rhine-Westphalia'. We call Rheinland-Pfalz 'Rhineland-Palatinate'.

We call Sachsen 'Saxony', Niedersachsen 'Lower Saxony'.

There's even a case like that of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania's, where one part of the name is left untranslated: Sachsen-Anhalt is called 'Saxony-Anhalt' (with the Anhalt left in German).

Equally, the fact that Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania was previously GDR under Soviet occupation compared to previously FRG states under Allied occupation should not make a difference either. M. Lala-Raykar (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi User:EpicChefUK -- our naming policy for English translations can come across as a bit complicated, but ultimately WP:USEENGLISH reflects the basic naming principles of WP:COMMONNAME, which is to use the name most common in English-language reliable sources. Very often that's just the English translation (Eiffel Tower), but it often is not (Arc de Triomphe). Applying a universal standard of "use the English translation" would violate that policy and would mean we don't reflect usage in sources. For a clear-cut example, we use Brittany rather than Bretagne, but we use Loire-Atlantique even though "Loire-Atlantic" would be the English translation, and even though it is not completely unused, because usage shows a clear common version. Because the current name of this page is more common in English sources, the existence of an English version, even a regularly used one, doesn't override that name by virtue of being in English.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The target has a fascinating history, see here (or list it yourself if it's still there). But the common name in English is clear. No useful opinion on the dash. Andrewa (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]