Category talk:Solný pramen (Františkovy Lázně)

To rename request Solný pramen (Františkovy Lázně) to Salt Spring

• For proper names, the original version is often more useful than a translated one.
• Two appearances give an evidence that the name is sometimes translated but not that the name is widely used in English. Established English names, real English exonymes (as Prague or Austria) should be preferred for Commons titles but ad-hoc translations of proper names are more problematic.
• Google maps find "Solný pramen" immediatelly and unambiguously, while Salt Spring give many results, nona of them from Františkovy Lázně. "Salt spring, Františkovy Lázně" gives none result. Thus, the Czech name is more usefull even for English speakers, just as in case of majority of local toponymes. --ŠJů (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There are of course many more examples that the English toponym is often used, for example the website of the local tourist information center [1]. For more examples see simple Google search [2]. An example of the fact that the English name was used even very long time ago is [3].

The biggest advantage of the English toponym is that the reader immediately knows what the category is about: a spring in Františkovy Lázně, while the Czech expression does not say anything to a non-Czech speaker, who has to look for the information by opening the files or trying to find the superior categories to use them as a clue. The title gives the information much quicker. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Maybe, a non-Czech speaker can not know what mean "Kameníček" or "Zadní Lhota", however proper names are generally not translated.

However, you are right, to translate a descriptive proper name of a subject is usual, especially if the subject is often visited by many foreigners of various nations. We need to consider whether a non-Czech speaker can find such subject in map using search tools or on the Internet rather under the original name, or rather under the translated name. That was assessed in the 3rd point of my first attribution.

Anyway the proposed name Category:Salt Spring without any dissambiguation is quite unacceptable. There are many springs and places in the world which are called "Salt Spring". Especially when you deal the name as descriprive, I absolutely not understand why you propose to leave the disambiguation out. --ŠJů (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You are right about the disambiguation. It would be better to keep it for the reason you mentioned. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

ŠJů, Jan, I suggest to keep the name as it is and create a redirecting Category:Salt Spring (Czech Republic) pointing there. Of course a disambiguating Category:Salt Spring could be created as well. --Achim (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

ŠJů, Achim: Well, it would help to those looking for the Czech Republic "Salt Spring", but it would not help that much to those who find the Category:Solný pramen (Františkovy Lázně) and do not understand what it is without further searching. It seemed to me that Šjů felt as a problem especially the missing disambiguation brackets, which I understood and agreed with adding them. So I would like to ask him if he could agree with moving the category to the name Category:Salt Spring (Františkovy Lázně). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Category:Solný pramen (Františkovy Lázně) will be kept anyway as a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)