Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Kaliningrad

Proposed merger - Königsberg to Kaliningrad - There seems to be a content fork here. Claims that Kaliningrad was built "on the site of" Königsberg are used to deny the simple truth that they are simply two names for the same Russian city, as these two definitions support.

Ka·li·nin·grad (k-lnn-grd, -gräd, -ly-nn-grät) A city of extreme western Russia on the Baltic Sea near the Polish border. It was founded in 1255 by the Teutonic Knights and joined the Hanseatic League in 1340. Called Königsberg, it was an important Prussian city and the birthplace of Immanuel Kant (1724). Transferred to the USSR in 1945, it was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946. Population: 426,000. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Kaliningrad (Russian) [kəlininˈgrat] n (Placename) a port in W Russia, on the Pregolya River: severely damaged in World War II as the chief German naval base on the Baltic; ceded to the Soviet Union in 1945 and is now Russia's chief Baltic naval base. Pop.: 427 200 (1999 est.) Former name (until 1946) Königsberg Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. 5.28.89.25 (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:LaFerrari

Not sure why this needed to come up, but hey. I'm told that we would not use "The LaFerrari" to start this article because the "La" part of the thing's name is Italian for "The"... surely this is irrelevant, and that omitting a "The" is improper English? And, surely, any source that does the same is going against English itself and should probably be ignored, unless they're being quoted? Not very helpful, but Chrysler LeBaron is a great example of things being done right.

I still don't get the rationale described above on this page, by the way; cars are generally referred to with the mark name first--it's a standard--Ferrari is actually trying to mislead ("Supra" is correct; "Toyota Supra" is used because of the standard) and should be ignored until the standard itself is changed.

Fun fact for both: the Italian article starts off with "La Ferrari LaFerrari". Despatche (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mythology

Should the descriptive words "humankind", "humanity", and "mankind" (as they stand in the current version) all be used in the article rather than using only the word "humanity"?

Buster Seven Talk 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Georgian alphabet

There is an ongoing disagreement over the degree of emphasis which should be given to the assertion that the first Georgian alphabet was either invented by, or strongly influenced by, the 4th/5th-century Armenian scholar Mesrop Mashtots, and whether Mesrop's connection to the Georgian alphabet is widely accepted by scholars in general or is primarily an Armenian claim. This dispute has been going on for several years (as indicated by comments above in this talk page going back to 2008) and has given rise to a lot of edit warring. Outside perspectives would be gratefully appreciated. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo

Am herewith proposing that references to the Serbian register of the Serbo-Croatian language ("Serbian") be replaced with references to Serbo-Croatian in general. As per numerous sources listed in the aforementioned article and indeed, in the Serbian article itself: "Serbian is a standardized register of the Serbo-Croatian language". (I sincerely hope no one wishes to challenge this fact (again)? But if so, abundant high-quality refs can of course be provided.. again.)

I submit that it is inaccurate and detrimental to the understanding of the reader to restrict references to this language only to its Serbian standard, where the implications of that restriction are unnecessary and misleading (and on such a controversial article - also biased by omission). A couple examples:

• In the lede we have "(Serbian: Косово or Косово и Метохија or Космет, Kosovo or Kosovo i Metohija or Kosmet)". - Those are names accurate not only in the Serbian standard of Serbo-Croatian, but also in the other three (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin).
• In the "Name" section we have this: "Kosovo is the Serbian neuter possessive adjective of kos (кос) "blackbird", an ellipsis for Kosovo Polje, 'blackbird field'" - here too the statement is completely accurate for all four standardized registers of Serbo-Croatian, not just Serbian.

I therefore hold it would be manifestly beneficial to present the reader with the information that the quoted names and terms are accurate for the entire language, as opposed to (as is inescapably implied) - only its Serbian standard. I.e that they are just as accurate in Bosnia, Croatia, and Montenegro, as in Serbia. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)