Well, I'm not going to try to argue with you about the issue :-) (what you say sounds very plausible), but I would say, anyway, that the Gdingen should at least include some semantic information, to the effect that it is the name of the city now usually called by its Polish name. Simply redirecting articles that aren't just, e.g., misspellings is missing an opportunity to give people specific information on the topic they were looking for (then we can send them elsewhere for more detailed info). Similarly, we can certainly imagine a Londonium? article (or whatever it was called) that gave a little information about the ancient name, followed by a link to a history of London page. Would that be a better analogy? --LMS
:Definitely a better analogy, although still not sure I agree. :-) It just seems we're in a rut of pages of city x in the good old day vs same city x bad new days. I think that a holistic approach is more interesting and more valuable -- for instance, I think Londinium should be a headed section on the London page, but have a link that takes you there. It's a bit more extreme (no one would confuse an ancient city with the modern), but it ensures that, in cases like Danzig/Gdansk? and Gdingen/Gydnia?, people see that the cities have continued to live and their unique cultures have continued to evolve. As an historian, I'm all for as much connection as possible -- only a few things just flat out stop existing. JHK
|
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)