This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot articles
Don't merge - because the Port of Gemikonagi is commonly known and called as Lefke Limani by the Turkish Cypriots, I am not sure what it was called by the Greek Cypriots before 1974 but since 1974 Greek Cypriots prefer to call it the occupied Karavostasi port. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatundush (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forty fifty years ago this village might had been called Karavostasi but the last fifty years it's known as Gemikonagi. Beside that even before the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus it was still called Gemikonaghi [1]The name of the town has always been Gemikonagi (Gemi Konaghi) so why insisting to change it to Karavostasi? Is it because it's a Greek name? --149.156.112.130 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's because it merits discussion. For one, if we're to move it to its Turkish name, I'd rather that be Gemikonağı, and not the anglicised spelling. Also, I'd prefer that we're consistent; if we're gonna move this one, we should probably also move nearly all other villages in Northern Cyprus, or we might see people move-warring all over the place. Finally, I'd like to see someone take on the maintenance burden of modifying all the articles the moves are gonna affect. If this is gonna be a botched job, then no thanks.
With other words, mr. IP, you just ignore the facts to push your POV. Could you please leave me out of this discussion? I am unwilling to participate in a discussion facts versus emotions. The Bannertalk14:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proper move discussion going on and I don't see anyone, including the IP editor, pushing any POV or behave based on any emotions. Let's just concentrate on the facts. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις18:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use as title what is the common name in English. I have tried to do some research using Google Books and Google Scholar for the names Gemikonağı, Gemikonagi and Karavostasi, using the formulas
"Gemikonağı" -"Gemikonagi" -"Karavostasi"
-"Gemikonağı" "Gemikonagi" -"Karavostasi"
-"Gemikonağı" -"Gemikonagi" "Karavostasi"
to compare entries using only one of the names. The result is not very conclusive. It seems that Google Scholar prefers Gemikonağı/Gemikonagi, while Google Books prefers Karavostasi. In both cases Gemikonagi is much more used than Gemikonağı. There is no clear tendency for newer books in Google Books, but in Google Scholar there is a (very small) tendency towards more use of the Turkish names. I would be quite happy with status quo (Karavostasi), but if I should cast a vote, it would be a weak support for a move to Gemikonagi. I cannot see that Gemikonağı can be defended as a common name in English. --T*U (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see MOS:PN#Diacritics. Indicatively, I believe (perhaps) all settlements in Turkey are titled using Turkish orthography, with the exception of Istanbul. Besides, I don't think a bunch of mentions in travel catalogues and the like really constitute WP:COMMONNAME. I recall User:Future Perfect at Sunrise previously said that unless there's a well-established English form, we resort to the official name, the way it's spelled locally. However, I couldn't find this guideline -- maybe it's stated somewhere in WP:PLACE? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with whatever you two experts come up. I trust you both - (IP editor and TU-nor) - and I am confident you will do a proper job. Thank you very much. Take care. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the official name is going to be the decisive factor, there is the small question of which official name, de facto or de jure. The common practice so far for other places in Northern Cyprus would point to Karavostasi. The use of Greek/Turkish names in Northen Cyprus should probably be discussed in a broader setting before making any change. But talking of experts, I would gladly leave the decision to IP213. (My own contributions in the Cyprus area lately has not been based on any expertise, but mostly on an almost allergic reaction to a certain editor's ramblings.) --T*U (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: Thank you T*U. I agree with you, as usual. As far as my reference to expertise, perhaps, I should have phrased it differently, to express my confidence and respect for you as a neutral and fair editor who arrives at a decision through mature thought and knowledge of the relevant policies. In other words, I trust your judgment in any given area, and in that sense I consider it an informed and fair, i.e. expert, judgment, which I respect. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's what I was trying to convey in my previous reply. I also thank you for your longstanding assistance in keeping things under control through the allergy season. :) Needless to say, I have the same respect for the IP editor. Take care. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις08:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be discussed in a broader setting. That said, I see no pressing need to move near 400 articles, so I won't be the one to initiate such a discussion. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Karavostasi. 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.
.JPG)