Jump to content

Talk:Lihue, Hawaii

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move to Lihue, Hawaii

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was I'd like to move this article from "Līhu'e, Hawaii" to "Lihue, Hawaii" on the stength of the following evidence:

Comparison of google hits: 1,450,000 for "Lihue" [1] ; 62,000 for "Līhu'e" [2]. Use by federal agencies, for instance US Census Bureau [3] and US Postal Service [4] Erudy 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that your first link leads to 866 pages (1000 if you repeat the search with the omitted results included) and your second link to 658 pages (1000 if you repeat the search with the omitted results included). Timeineurope 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the first search yield 2,190,000 hits? Vegaswikian 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, those glottal stops in some Hawaiian place names seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon. However, I just got back from over there and I never once saw Lihue spelled out with diacriticals, including the sign at the city limits. Ditto for Nawiliwili. The only place name I remember seeing with anything remotely resembling diacriticals is Laie over on Oahu. The sign at the edge of town near the Polynesian Cultural Center had it spelled as "La'ie," which is still more of a glottal stop. Just my $.02. Aloha! --PMDrive1061 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha! I think this should definitely be at Lihue, Hawaii (per the Naming Conventions section of the Manual of Style), but have the text within the article have the diacriticals (if applicable). It's how we tend to do Polish, etc. topical articles. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support move; use English, it is what is used and it is the official U.S. Board on Geographic Names version.[5] Gene Nygaard 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mā'ili, Mokulē'ia, Lā'ie, Waikīkī, Hala'ula, Hōlualoa, Hōnaunau-Nāpo'opo'o, Honomū, Honoka'a, Kahalu'u, Kahalu'u-Keauhou, Kea'au, Kapa'a, Kāne'ohe, Kāne'ohe Bay, Wailuā Homesteads, Hāna, Pu'unene, Lāna'i City, 'Āhuimanu, 'Ewa Beach, 'Ewa Gentry, 'Ewa Villages, Hale'iwa, Hau'ula, He'eia, Ka'a'awa, Mākaha, Mākaha Valley, Nānākuli, Punalu'u, Pūpūkea, Wahiawā, North Ko'olaupoko, Wai'anae, Waimānalo, Ho'okipa, Honopū Valley, Hualālai, Kīlauea, Haleakalā, Māhukona, Kaimū, Pa'auilo, Pāhala, Pāhoa, Pāpa'ikou, Pepe'ekeo, Puakō, 'Opaeka'a Falls, Hāwī, Kapa'au, Laupāhoehoe, Nānāwale Estates and Nā'ālehu. Timeineurope 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other stuff exists does not make it more acceptable. I now support the move of all articles listed above to their plain-English equivalent, with the actual text of the articles using the ʻokina (using {{okina}} ) and kahakō. As stated previously, this matches the style guidelines set forth in the Manual of Style for naming conventions. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure—and most of them, like this one, never bothering to cite any references whatsoever for the spelling used there.
Furthermore, while this one doesn't cite any references at all, it does include an internal link—an internal link to this city's web page, on which the name of the city is spelled Lihue. Gene Nygaard 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could source the okinas for traditional purposes (like the Polish reference above), but since we don't have one, we shouldn't at this time anyway. At any rate, the article itself shouldn't be there; it was really confusing to me when I made the county navigational templates, since so many articles had diacritical marks. Nyttend 01:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the attempt to arrive at a compromise, with the "plain English" form in the title and the "diacritical-using" form throughout the article. Unfortunately, this appears to be an explicit breach of WP:NCGN (naming convention on geo. names): "The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." (see point #3 of the introductory section).Erudy 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that doesn't matter (really). The guidelines in the naming convention on geographic names are guidelines that can be ignored using common sense. Take "Hawaii" for example. The name Hawaii is the most common/widely used, plain-English name. However, in Hawaiian, the "correct" name is Hawaiʻi (with the okina between the 2 "i"s as a glottal stop). We can approximate the okina with an apostrophe, but it would be incorrect (the okina (technically, the ʻokina) is its own consonant, and is not an apostrophe). Therefore, we could write "Hawai'i", but it would be patently wrong. Perhaps we should have the article at "Hawaiʻi", but I think we would all argree that having the article appear at Hawai{{okina}}i (since templates would expand in titles) or at "Hawaiʻi" (which for some people would appear as "Hawai i" since the coding for the okina doesn't always work in article titles, or appears as a box or question mark) [6]. So it makes sense to have it at the most common, plain-English title, "Hawaii" in this case. But does that mean we should continue the less-than-correct version throughout the entire article just because WP:NCGN commands us to? No. We can keep it titled something readable (and in plain-English), but use the more correct name in the actual text of the article. Hopefully this makes sense. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some statements, but not your conclusions:
  • As you say yourself (emphasis added), "in Hawaiian, the correct name is Hawaiʻi". I generally agree. However, it is the right answer to the wrong question. The right question is In English, what is the correct name? The local name may have something to do with this, or it may not. See Deutchland/Germany, Zhōngguó/China, España/Spain etc. etc. etc. In this case, I think there is substancial evidence that "Hawaii" is "correct" in English. see this Wikipedia RM discussion. This could apply through extension by analogy to all or most Hawaii-based articles.
  • You seem to admit by implication that "Hawaiʻi" is not plain English and is not as readable as "Hawaii". I agree. Even if "Hawai'i" was in some sense "correct" (which I dispute above), this alone would provide common-sense grounds for the use of "Hawaii" throughout the article. It is the reason we use "Dog" throughout the article Dog, rather than the "correct" but non-plain English and less readable Canis lupus familiaris (which is incendetally also in a foreign language). This could apply through extension by analogy to all or most Hawaii-based articles.
  • You suggest that we should not just roll over to some convention (WP:NCGN) just because it's there. I agree. However, I think the logic underlying the convention is sound: making the title and the article text harmonious has benefits that should not be ignored. Continuity makes the article less disruptive and more professional-looking, increasing the accesibility and percieved reliability of the content. Convention has a value all its own: by simplifying form, it allows concentration on content. Thus the burden of proof should fall on those who breach convention, and I don't think that burden has been satisfied, for Hawaii in particular and by extension other Hawaii-related articles.

Erudy 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the NCGN requirement is more of something where the names aren't obviously similar, such as the idea of using "Praha" in the Prague article. Nobody will be confused to read about Līhuʻe in an article about Lihue — it's obviously the same place. Nyttend 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Followup

[edit]

An after the fact response to Nyttend above:

We need to be concerned about not only the human eye, but also the "electronic" eye of the digital representation which search engines and "find on this page" and the like use. Gene Nygaard 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that point alone, we'd do better to have Nicolae Ceauşescu moved to Nicolae Ceausescu: of course there are other more important matters, but this doesn't trump it. If we have a source for a more correct name, we should use that name. Nyttend 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, we probably should—if editors actually followed our naming conventions. Just as we have Ho Chi Minh and Jennifer Lopez and the like. And it has actually been debated for them, unlike your example. Gene Nygaard 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case, you've thrown out a red herring. The article's name isn't relevant to the discussion at hand now, which deals with the inclusion of variant names in the text of the article. Gene Nygaard 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]
The ancient name of the area was Ka-laʻ-i-a-mea, meaning calm reddish brown place.

No source was given and a usually reliable source says the area was Puna and Ahupuaʻa was Kalapaki. Besides, a Hawaiian syllable never ends in an ʻOkina. Also the Lutheran church site says the building was rebuilt after a hurricane.

Lloyd J. Soehren (2010). "lookup of Lihue ". in Hawaiian Place Names. Ulukau, the Hawaiian Electronic Library. W Nowicki (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lihue, Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lihue,_Hawaii&oldid=1203402768"