Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pmanderson (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 28 August 2008 (→Chimaera/Yanartas - a matter of time & place?: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Isidore 1.40.4 discusses the monster only, discussing it as a symbol. or trope, for the Three ages of man; youth being hot and vehement, age inflexible. Not useful here, unless the connexion with the monster is discussed at more length. Septentrionalis 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Requested move

• I support TobyJ below. Chimera is the real name of this place, as you will see the official Turkish road sign for historical places that read "Chimaera" if you go there. Yanartaş only means Burning Rock in Turkish and it is the folk name for the place and it is not official. The official name is still Chimaera. Elmalili (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. The official name doesn't count for much. There seem to be three arguments for the rename, but two of them are based on the presumption that the official name should be the article name too, and there seems disagreement as to whether the third argument (the claim that the official name is the common name too) is accurate. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. The official name is nothing to me; the subject of the article is the ancient placename, with the modern park mentioned in passing. This thus effectively comes under the provision of WP:NCGN: If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Chimaera/Yanartas - a matter of time & place?

I note that DreamGuy has returned doggedly to this issue. This follows the democratic decision taken over a year ago, and the subsequent division of the original 'Chimaera' article into what was 3 - and is now 4 - separate fractions.

There are 3 reasons for reversing the redirect:

• On grounds of accuracy: The Chimaera (geography) article gives detailed sourcing (Strabo etc.) for the location of the geographical feature to this place, which I think is convincing enough;
• On grounds of linguistics: 2000 years ago it was known to the Greeks as 'Chimaera' and nowadays it is also known a little less poetically in Turkish as 'Yanartas'. This is not a problem. It is not true that the feature "is not known by the name today". As I have previously pointed out, places very often have two names. Populations move and cultures evolve. A comparison might be that one would have a main article 'Istanbul' with redirects from 'Byzantium'and 'Constantinople'. However those two articles would also exist in their own right, explaining the city at those two historical periods. Perhaps the issue is to decide whether time or place takes preference in the naming of Misplaced Pages articles (if one can make a general principle);
• On grounds of accessibility: I think 'Chimaera' is the more common name for the feature, and the place most users would probably look to first. We are therefore compiling a more useful and relevant encyclopaedia by entitling the article so. (This is the argument that has led to the modern scientific uses of 'chimaera' being placed before the ancient mythological meaning from which they are derived.)

On the other hand there may be a good argument, on the grounds of respect for current-day national sovereighty, for entitling the main article in Turkish and having a redirect to it from the classical Greek name (as DreamGuy has implemented).

I also have a question for DreamGuy: does he think that someone is trying to perpetrate a fraud here? There is something intemperate about his edits that suggests impatience to say the least. Has he been to the place to check it out? (This type of 'research' is I hope unoriginal enough to be permissible within Misplaced Pages!)

Any more opinions? TobyJ 08:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Does he think someone is trying to perpetrate a fraud? Apparently. But he is notoriously intemperate; he is currently under an editing restriction against incivility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)