Talk:Trento

English-language name of city

Do we agree that Trent is the accepted English-language name of this city, as for example in the phrase "Council of Trent"? If you don't agree, please make an argument for renaming to Trento. If we do agree, all instances of Trento in this article that don't specifically relate to the Italian name of the city should be changed to Trent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I'm afraid, IK.

I don't know about the US, but in Europe since the second world war, "Trent" (unless in the context of ecclesiastical history) is usually taken to refer to a large river in England rather than a town in Italy.

This is a case of shifting usage (like Aachen, which many years ago was more commonly known as Aix-la-chapelle by native English speakers).

In short, I personally favour Ian Spackman's stance "I think contemporary English usage is for Lazio, Livorno and Trento rather than Latium, Leghorn and Trent. Which is a shame, because Leghorn is a wonderfully comic name for a place to have, and the younger generations of English speakers are missing out on a spot of fun. But that’s the way the language has moved." --W. Frank^email_talk 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the name of the article should probably be changed to Trento. Anyone else with a view on this? Maybe we should post to Requests for comment... Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Posted to rfc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My two cents Startpage search from Trent+Trentino = 99,755 results. Startpage search from Trento+Trentino = 1,929,188 results. en.wp calls it Trento. EB calls it Trento. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit I had never heard of "Trento" before 20 minutes ago but I have heard of the "Council of Trent". Evidently, "Trento" is en vogue these days... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Koavf. If no-one objects, I plan to change the name of this article to Trento within 24 hours. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Without having any first-hand knowledge, it strikes me as along the same lines as Turin/Torino -- an overcorrection by well-meaning English speakers who think the established English names are anachronisms when the Italian names are perfectly readable. Powers ^(talk) 01:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That may well have been the genesis of the name shift, but I understood our practice was to recognise the most common variety. Personally, I think that Bogota (without an accent) is still more common in English language writings but we decided that the accented form was common enough and accepted enough to be used as our article title form. I would be swayed if we had a majority of regular editors to this article who consistently preferred the more archaic form. --W. Frank^email_talk 12:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's the counter-example of Livorno vs. Leghorn. Frank also mentioned Lazio vs. Latium. So I think we have to do this case by case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to stick with the traditional English names unless usage has shifted dramatically, as with Leghorn. Powers ^(talk) 18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, but that's the issue here, and there seems to be some evidence that it has. Do you have countervailing evidence? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no credible evidence. Google hit counts are completely unreliable for determining usage. Powers ^(talk) 01:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

First, the article you linked deals with Google hit counts in an entirely different context of whether a search term is noteworthy enough to be the subject of an encyclopedic article. But that said, do you have another suggestion of how to measure usage? Just to check, I went to the 10th page of "trento trentino" results, and that page was mostly Italian, so I agree with you that these hit counts don't prove anything, at least in this case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Check the external link at the bottom of the page. Powers ^(talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing our attention to the WP article and I do broadly concur with its conclusions about the inferiority of Google hit counts - especially in determining notability.

However, all we have to determine here is whether "Trent" is the overwhelmingly "current" common usage for Trento. If it isn't, then don't "our roolz" make us fall back to Trento? Encyclopædia Britannica, Rough Guide, Fodor's and Lonely Planet authors all seem to feel that "Trent" is not current English usage so, in the absence of clear authoritative evidence to the contrary, do we not fall back to Trento?

It also won't hurt our readership that Wikitravel still uses the archaic form. --W. Frank^email_talk 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

These seem like good arguments. What do you think, Powers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have counterevidence, being unfamiliar with the city, but the preponderance of false positives for "Trent" makes finding such counterexamples very hard. It certainly appears as if "Trento" is widely used in modern English sources, but I can't say if it's dominant. Powers ^(talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

How should we try to establish this one way or another, then? So far, I think the argument in favor of changing the name to Trento is a more persuasive one, but it's certainly possible there is some evidence we haven't been looking at. I don't think a mere feeling of uncertainty is a good argument for not changing the name, though. By the way, the external link at the bottom of the w:Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers page was not at all useful in providing any other suggestion of how to measure usage, which is what I asked for. I'm beginning to feel that your objection is simply that there isn't enough evidence to satisfy you, but unless someone suggests a reliable and doable way to marshal more evidence one way or the other, Trento wins - and by the way, you'll notice that when I started the thread, I thought Trent would be the clear winner, so I have no stake in any outcome other than the one that seems best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well our status quo bias would suggest that we keep the article where it is in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Is the evidence presented so far compelling? It's persuasive, but I don't know if it's compelling. Powers ^(talk) 21:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me of an argument about legal standards. Do we need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or is the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence sufficient? :-) It seems to me that "persuasive" is all we need. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're waiting for me to say I absolutely agree with the move, that's not going to happen absent stronger evidence -- in particular, something that takes into account the likelihood of false positives for "Trent". But I'm not going to revert a move if it happens, either, and I certainly wouldn't be advocating for a move to "Trent" if the article was already at "Trento". Powers ^(talk) 21:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's no urgency, so I'll wait another day or two to see if anyone posts other evidence or arguments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's 3 days later. Does anyone have any more evidence to share or arguments to make? If not, the evidence to change the name of the article to Trento seems convincing enough. I'll wait another 24 hours or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)