Talk:Zeebrugge
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Zeebrugge
[edit]The literal translation of "Zeebrugge" in English is Seabruges. Why? Because the translation of zee in English is sea and the translation of Brugge in English is Bruges. The literal translation of Zeebrugge has nothing to do with the etymology of the name of Brugge. The name Zeebrugge is derived from the original name Brugge aan Zee ("Bruges at sea"). Besides: I was planning on writing a more nuanced and detailed piece about the etymology of Bruges shortly anyway. Not that the literal translation of Zeebrugge has anything to do with that of course. Le Fou (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- The translation of the Dutch word 'zee' into English is 'sea'. What language is the word 'bruges'? If you read the reference I provide http://www.brugge.be/internet/en/toerisme/geschiedenis.htm you will see that "The name Bruges in fact comes from the Old Norse "Bryggja" which means landing stage. " There cannot be a translation of the name without going into the etymology of the word. Please do not revert this edit without discussion or without providing a reference. Androstachys (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to tell me what I already know. But you don't get the point. The etymology of the name of the city of Bruges (Brugge) has nothing to do with the literal translation of the name of Zeebrugge. The translation of the word zee into English is sea, and the translation of the name Brugge into English is Bruges. And no, you don't need etymology to give the English name for a Belgian city, just a translation (Brugge > Bruges) will do. Next to that you make a big mistake by confusing a translation with etymology. Brugge is not and has never been a Scandinavian or Old Norwegian word for "landing stage" or "port". Brugge is derived from that Old Norwegian word. And in fact, it's not even that simple. But like I said, I'm going to add a more nuanced piece about the etymology of the name Brugge soon. Le Fou (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- My point is that you don't/can't translate a placename into English - you can only say 'it is known as Zeebrugge in English' and this is already superfluous since this is an English article and the title reflects the name by which the place is known to English-speaking people. Androstachys (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to tell me what I already know. But you don't get the point. The etymology of the name of the city of Bruges (Brugge) has nothing to do with the literal translation of the name of Zeebrugge. The translation of the word zee into English is sea, and the translation of the name Brugge into English is Bruges. And no, you don't need etymology to give the English name for a Belgian city, just a translation (Brugge > Bruges) will do. Next to that you make a big mistake by confusing a translation with etymology. Brugge is not and has never been a Scandinavian or Old Norwegian word for "landing stage" or "port". Brugge is derived from that Old Norwegian word. And in fact, it's not even that simple. But like I said, I'm going to add a more nuanced piece about the etymology of the name Brugge soon. Le Fou (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This source is good, but it is about Brugge, not about Zeebrugge, so Androstachys' contribution is WP:SYNTH. It is also wrong, since the landing stage was originally at the river Zwin, not at Sea. So originally it can never have been a "sea landing stage". The etymology is already mentioned and sourced in the Brugge article. I have replaced the controversial "literal translation" with "meaning", both here and in Brugge. I hope we can all live with this, and this way nobody risks to get blocked for WP:3RR. DVdm (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's right. It was another big mistake to think that the etymology of Brugge is also valid for Zeebrugge. The etymology is associated with the very location and history of the city of Bruges and refers indeed to the former Zwin river. So the etymology of Brugge has really nothing to do with Zeebrugge. But you solved it well, DVdm.
- Besides that, placenames are probably the only names that actually do have translations, or at least could have. Le Fou (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. The first literal translation "Seabruges" wasn't really good. It should have been "Bruges
aton Sea" or, with a cringe, perhaps "Sea Bruges", but certainly not "Seabridges".Note that personal names often have (semi-)valid translations as well. After all, our friend John Miller really doesn't mind when we call him Jan Molenaar :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bruges on Sea is a better translation than Bruges at Sea. Now, I've been keeping a weather eye on this "dispute" and it's about time that the issue was finally settled. If there are any further changes to be made they should be discussed first and consensus gained before the article is edited. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely, and on both accounts. Struck "at" and replaced with "on". Thanks! DVdm (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Glad that's settled then :-) Le Fou (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and your final italics tweaks make it perfect. Nice :-) - DVdm (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Heavens! Talk about a mutual admiration society! "Bruges on Sea" looks very nice, but without a reference it seems like original research or WP:SYNTH Androstachys (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- At your service, and welcome to the society :-) DVdm (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not aware of any policy that says translation must be referenced. There must be thousands of articles that have translations. The change I made from "at sea" to "on sea" is purely because it's better grammar, technically either could apply, as could "Bruges to sea". Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP states quite clearly that material which is not referenced may be removed without further ado. Of course, there are many articles containing translations, but the moment a translation becomes controversial, it should be backed by a reference. Androstachys (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't say you're doubting the fact that Zeebrugge is derived from Brugge aan Zee. Besides that, wrong references, like you gave, are as good as no references. Le Fou (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that your tailfeathers have been ruffled, but the point of the discussion is to clarify and improve the article and to remain polite, no matter how sore the provocation. I think the opening sentence now makes a lot more sense. Androstachys (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Androstachys does have a (partial) point, although of course WP does not state that such material "may be removed without further ado." It states (see WP:BURDEN) that "it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." That is why, after the change from "at" to "on", I had decided to find sources for this triviality, but not include them unless someone asked for them. Someone did ask, and I saved them that little reasonable effort, so here we are. Can we let this rest now? DVdm (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't say you're doubting the fact that Zeebrugge is derived from Brugge aan Zee. Besides that, wrong references, like you gave, are as good as no references. Le Fou (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP states quite clearly that material which is not referenced may be removed without further ado. Of course, there are many articles containing translations, but the moment a translation becomes controversial, it should be backed by a reference. Androstachys (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not aware of any policy that says translation must be referenced. There must be thousands of articles that have translations. The change I made from "at sea" to "on sea" is purely because it's better grammar, technically either could apply, as could "Bruges to sea". Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- At your service, and welcome to the society :-) DVdm (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Heavens! Talk about a mutual admiration society! "Bruges on Sea" looks very nice, but without a reference it seems like original research or WP:SYNTH Androstachys (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and your final italics tweaks make it perfect. Nice :-) - DVdm (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Glad that's settled then :-) Le Fou (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely, and on both accounts. Struck "at" and replaced with "on". Thanks! DVdm (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bruges on Sea is a better translation than Bruges at Sea. Now, I've been keeping a weather eye on this "dispute" and it's about time that the issue was finally settled. If there are any further changes to be made they should be discussed first and consensus gained before the article is edited. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. The first literal translation "Seabruges" wasn't really good. It should have been "Bruges
As a native English speaker Zeebrugge is normally transliterated as Brugges on Sea, like the French version. You could also call it Port of Brugges as Port Glasgow, Port of Leith, Port of London, Port of Medway, Port New York and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairtummock (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Update on Bruges etymology on http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=BRUGES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.30.217 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)