Talk:Mahón

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Mahón. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Port Mahon → MahonMahon –

• The article states that the town is "conventionally known as Port Mahon in English" which is incorrect. The airport, hotels, tour operators etc., and even the official website, all call it "Mahon". A simple google search reveals nowhere that calls the town "Port Mahon". There are a few hotels called that, but the town is always Mahon. Even in Spanish/Catalan it is just Mahón or Maó- never Puerto Mahón or Port de Maó. I'm not sure where this "port" nonsense came from, but it is incorrect and the article title should be corrected to simply "Mahon" Rushton2010 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is the British Wikipedia not the EU! This island was only unjustly wrested from the rightful lordship of the British Empire in 1798, and should therefore retain the Imperial British name. This is the thin edge of the wedge to creeping into a Spanish name, and we will end up following the Lonely Planet, Frommers, Rough Guide and all the rest of the tourist guides and treating Mahón it as if it were a Spanish town. "Mahon" is neither. And per WP:CONSISTENCY, we spell Menorca at the old British spelling Minorca, so why shouldn't we retain the Imperial British spelling for its capital too? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The above was half tongue in cheek but as noted above "Port Mahon" has the advantage that it is so obviously English (or French) that it precludes Spanish Mahón vs Catalan Maó. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Or move Mahon (disambiguation) to Mahon? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible move suggestion. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd oppose moving the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page got only 167 views last month. The highest "other" Mahon article is Mahon, Cork which got only 653. The Port Mahon article got 4646; with the redirects from Mahon, Mahón and Maó gaining an additional 1178, 472 and 123 views respectively. The town article is by an overwhelming majority gaining the most popular page. The current header reading "For the town in Ireland, see Mahon, Cork. For other uses, see Mahon (disambiguation)" is the most appropriate answer and is one which is used frequently throughout Wikipedia. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not move to Mahón which is factually "accurate"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your view of history is laughable (and not relevant for a discussion such as this). For one, even in historical sources the town is called "Mahon". The island was in British hands for less than 50 years. Britain invited Menorca and gained it from Spain in 1706 (whos hands it had been in since 1287) and then the British legitimately lost it in battle against France in 1756. Forgetting the "rightful lordship" nonsense, your "Unjustly wrested" idea is laughable. France over ran the island before British ships sent to defend the island had even left Gibraltar. When they arrived a naval battle with the French broke out and the French defeated the British and sent them retreating to Gibraltar.

But back to the article name. Wikipedia's rules on the article titles WP:TITLE recommends the most commonly recognised name is used. This is the reason the article for the UK is named "United Kingdom" and not "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".... The most commonly recognised name for the town is unquestionably Mahon. -the town is always refereed to as Mahon (or sometimes Mao) in English (british or not). All of the British and English Language tour operators and airlines refer to it as Mahon. Both Google and Bing maps refer to it as Mahon. Encyclopedia Britanica calls it Mahon. etc. etc. Looking the other way, if you google "Port Mahon" the first page is filled with pages referring to a single hotel on the island called "Port Mahon" and a pub/restaurant in Oxford.
As for using the accented O, the same "commonly recognised name" argument could be used as most do not use the accented O, and commonsense would say that most will not use the accent when searching for the article.
And lastly... this is English Language Wikipedia, not British. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Rushton2010, as I said "the above was half tongue in cheek" In ictu oculi (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But you would advocate Mahón surely? To remain consistent with your other edits here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha, a private note!. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I still think Mahon would be the most sensible in line with the most commonly recognised name rules. But I would be happy to compromise with Mahón to get rid of the port nonsence.
My concern is, however, using the Spanish name for the town we could lead to calls for it to be named to be renamed Maó - which is what it's true local name is. It's sort of a Derry-Londonderry situation where the locals who speak catalan often feel subjected by the "spanish". The government has actually come up with a solution similar to Londonderry where by the town's official name was changed to Maó-Mahón in 2012. (but lets not change the article name to that as its even further from the most commonly recognised name!)
So, yeah, I'd compromise with the accented O, but just be on the wary side. By choosing the Spanish over the correct local name, it's... bit dodgy --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well Mahón passes WP:CRITERIA on all 5 points. And, of minor importance, is consistent with Mahón cheese. As for Maó, this RM could agree also that Maó should only replace Mahón when Mahón capital menorca 2,360 results since 2000 Mahón capital menorca 472 results = 2,832 total. Maó capital menorca 1,120 results (all numbers probably inflated by GB). And also if Catalan wp editors want to contest it I'm not sure an annual RM Mahón vs Maó is a bad thing. We allow an annual Burma vs Myanmar fest every April, an annual RM Mahón vs Maó would be a much smaller teacup with less participation and is going to happen anyway, since English reliable sources don't have a clear answer, and since the curve is trending, depending on exactly how http://books.google.com/ngrams is run. "town of Maó" already went ahead of "town of Mahón" since 1994-2002 but then dropped back down under Mahón in 2002. I don't know how to exclude -Wikipedia and -LLC on Ngrams so the 2003-2008 resurgence in "town of Mahón" might be due to picking up books of Wikipedia itself, though who knows. Either way this isn't easy. I couple of years back I would have said Mahón, but as you correctly say choosing the Spanish (even though it is WP:COMMONNAME) over the local name is a bit dodgy. I only think that plain Mahon is the worst of all worlds as ambiguous Mahon (disambiguation) and misleading - since wikipedia readers expect Spanish names to be spelled correctly wheras Port Mahon is obviously "English" not simply a typographic limitation, even if in fact Napoleonic Franco-British. So for the time being Mahón per Frommers and most travel books, while recognising that Maó as Lonely Planet may win out later in sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Its a tricky one to get right on P/C grounds, but ultimately ANY change, whether to Mahon, Mahón or Maó, is a great improvement on the current incorrect article name. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You will never get it right, or even satisfy as many as 25% of correspondents. Whatever you change it to will outrage some faction or another. The great thing about "Port Mahon" is that everybody thinks it is wrong, but they all realise that this means no faction has been favoured, and that is why it has stayed "Port Mahon" as long as it has. In this case wrong is right. Mess with it and you will be messing forever.TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If we don't want to get dragged into the Catalan vs. Spanish debacle there are two choices. You either change to just Mahon, which is the most commonly used and recognised name in English (this is the English language wikipedia after all). Or else you have to go for the town's official name: Maó-Mahón, which uses both names. And just to point out, the Spanish wikipedia uses Mahón without worring about offending the Catalan people. The Catalan wikpedia uses Maó without worrying about offending the Spanish. Their is no reason why the English wikipedia should not use the English name of Mahon. We use the English name for countless other foreign places. I don't see Venice being changed to Venzeia for fear of offending. Even closer to Mahon we have Ibiza which is called Ibiza universally across Wikipedia, and not the Spanish and Catalan "Eivissa". The island chain is called the "Baleric Islands" with no discussion about the Spanish or Catalan translations.
Sticking with Port Mahon is unacceptable. It is not the correct name. It fails wikipedia's article name criteria and is not regonisable to people. Keeping this incorrect article title risks people thinking it is actually the town's correct name. How many of us delete uncited additions to pages or ruthlessly root out the lies or inaccuracies which are put on wikipedia as "truth"? Incorrect information has no place on wikipedia.
As the accepted English translation, inline with names of similar and local articles, and as the most commonly used and recognised name, Mahon has to be the best alternative.
But to be quite honest, I couldn't care if it was changed to any of Mahon, Maó-Mahón, Maó or Mahón, all of which are "correct". So long as the incorrect article title of Port Mahon is gone. --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if what you wanted mattered. It would be even nicer if what I wanted mattered. What matters is that if you change the title to Mahon, the Spanish and Catalans (there is more than one kind of Catalan too) will all start trying to get it changed to their particular version. I would like the English title Mahon, but it has been Mahon before, and no end of struggles took place to insert an accent, and then (as the accent made it Spanish) to change the spelling to one of the other forms. Do this at your peril.TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem still stands that the article title is wrong; a name someone has invented. Both the Spanish and Catalan have their own version of wikipedia anyway so the English name (Mahon) should prevail (as it does with the other Baleric Island articles). But any of the Maó, Mahón or Mahon is an improvement on the current incorrect name, and all are in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME.

The argument that it should be left incorrect so not to offend is ridiculous. If this is the precedent to be set on wikipedia, shall we change Derry/Londonderry to "Port Derry"? It's obviously wrong but it favours neither faction... Of course not!

To be frank, there has been more argument about the name of this town on wikipedia than there has ever been in the actual town!

I would support a change to the official name Maó-Mahón if it would silence the P/C brigade. It is the town's official and correct name and neither the local nor national language is favoured, and risks offending no one. It's also inline with all of wikipedia's policies on naming and would finally rid us of the current incorrect name. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"neither the local nor national language is favoured" Really? Which one should go first? Maó-Mahón or Mahón-Maó? I promise you it will be disputed either way. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As for Port Mahon being a made up name, it must have been made up before the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica ^[1], and is still used by pages of holiday agents ^{[2] [3] [4]}. There are lots more of those, but you can find all you want yourself, if you look. (Oh, great, the references don't link. You can find the URLs in the source)TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I just reread the top of this section where it is asserted that "Nowhere" is the name Port Mahon used. This is, er..., incorrect. "A "simple google search" will turn up a lot of holiday firms referring to it by that name. Yes, a lot of pubs and hotels too, probably because it is the historic English name, but lots of references to the place by that name, a few of which I have posted above. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are wrong... The fact that Port Mahon is an incorrect name is accepted. What has been been the subject of discussion is what to change it to without causing "offence". --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And trawling up the dregs of the internet (the first 3 pages google pulls up when you search "Port Mahon" are hotels and restaurants of that name... nothing official or historical) to try and "prove" an incorrect name is rather ridiculous. "vacations to go" and "msccruises" are not reliable sources. This is the problem with wikipedia having the incorrect name.... those bad websites probably took the incorrect name from here!

Lets try some reputable sources:

• [Menorca Island Council] - Maó-Mahón
• www. menorca-airport. com/en/ The official website of the Island's airport - Mahón
• [Menorca's official tourism website] - Maó
• [Bing Maps] - Mahón
• [Google Maps] - Mahón
• [The Official Website of the Baleric Islands] - Mahon
• [The Official Spanish Tourism Website] - Mahón and Maó
• [Encyclopedia Britannica] - Mahón

Seeing as you used some travel providers: lets stick to reputable ones:

• [British Airways] - Mahon
• [Tripadvisor] - Mahon
• [Iberia] - Mahón
• [Manchester airport] - Mahon
• [Thompson] - Mahon
• [Thomas Cook] - Mahon
• [Monarch] - Mahon
• [Easyjet] - Mahon
• [The Eaglet at the Battle of Minorca] - Mahon

There may be no single "correct" version out of Mahon, Mahón, Maó and Maó-Mahón... but to argue that "Port Mahon" is anything other than incorrect is foolish, and I don't know what you try to achieve from it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your sources in the first part of the list are Spanish. The Spanish versus others language wars are exactly what we are trying to avoid. Your Encyclopedia Britannica reference is modern. Mine [1911] was historical, included to point out the fact that the name Port Mahon has a long history and is not just "made up" as you assert. I am not merely "arguing" that it is "other than incorrect" (too many negatives); I have posted a solid historical reference that establishes the name has a long history, and is therefore at least as correct as the other alternatives, of which there are too many. And too many arguments about which of those is correct. I have also found many current day examples of Port Mahon being used as the place name, not just the name of a pub or hotel. This is contrary to your initial assertion that "nowhere" is Port Mahon used. It is the alternative that Wikipedia is currently using, has an established historical and current usage, and its use here has turned off the language wars. Much to recommend that we keep it. Your assertion that it is simply "incorrect" is arguable, not accepted. I for one dispute it. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That 1911 encylopedia is a wiki. As happened with the other dodgy websites you've quoted it probably got the wrong name from here. And it is anything but reliable. Take the second line: it says the town is "at the head of a deep inlet which extends inland for 31 m." The sea inlet is roughly 4-5 miles long. Not 31 miles (or 31 meters depending on how they expect us to interpret the "M"). And you expect us to believe the dodgy links over local knowledge, renowned and reliable historical encyclopedias and books, official government and tourism websites, the airport, airlines, tour providers etc. etc. etc.?

And your view that it is historically correct is false too. The only reference to a "Port Mahon" I have ever seen referred to the British Naval Dockyard/Base (during the very brief period they were on the island) and not to the town which was just "Mahon". The man, James Stanhope, who gained the island for Britain and was created Governor of the Island was created "Viscount Stanhope of Mahon" (usually just called "Viscount Mahon". No "Port", even back in 1717.

Even if we were to believe that for the obscure time the island was in British hands, the town was was called "Port Mahon", it is unquestionably not called that now. And to leave the article with an incorrect title is not right. We've already seen how its polluted to other websites who are presenting the name as current fact.

But back to policy: Wikipedia's rules on titles are-

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.

The Common Name for the town is "Mahon", but all of "Mahon", "Maó-Mahón", "Mahón" or "Maó" are widely used and recognised.

• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

The English name of the town is "Mahon", and as shown above, it is the English rather than Spanish and Catalan redirects which are getting the most views. Its also unlikely anyone typing a link or searching for the page is going to bother with accented Os

• Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

How precise can the current name be when at best it refers to a British naval yard and not the actual town?

• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

When no one has heard of "Port Mahon" and the town is universally called Mahon or Mao (with or without accents); the port is not necessary or Concise.

• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

Looking at other local articles the English translation is always used over local translations: Ibiza not Eivissa, Balearic Islands not Illes Balears, Minorca not Menorca, Majorca not Mallorca, Palma, Majorca not Palma de Mallorca, Ibiza (town) not Vila d'Eivissa etc. etc. etc. etc.

"Mahon" fills all of these criteria easily, but all of "Maó-Mahón", "Mahón" or "Maó are suitable too.

I don't think people should be worrying about selecting the English name "Mahon" though. As I have said before, there is more argument here than on the island!. Both Spanish and Catalan have their own wikipedia's in their own language anyway. But if we look at other Balearic Articles which have the English Translation, most have not had discussions about renaming; of those that have, the argument that this is the English Wikipedia and should have the English Common Name, has won out.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Mahon would be fine with me, but you won't get Mahon. You will get endless argument. This has been an issue for a long time. Some of the history of it is still in place, up above. Port Mahon works. Mahon on its own is a target. It inflames the passions, maybe because it is too close to the Spanish. Port Mahon contains Mahon, and it is a legitimate name historically. The only argument against it, as the English name, is that it is a little archaic. There are endless arguments to be had once you leave the safety of an undoubtedly English name. I really have no dog in this fight (though there is fight in the dog). I just don't see any reason to disturb a settled situation for the sake of pedantry. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As for "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Mahon on it's own can be confused with the admittedly lesser known town in Ireland, but Port Mahon cannot. Relevant to the conciseness factor too; Mahon on its own is too concise to distinguish it from the other Mahon in Ireland. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My link to the source of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica that you denigrate is entirely legitimate and probably more accurate than many Wikipedia articles as it is based on the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica itself. Editors may add new information to addendum to each article, but they cannot edit the originals. From the introduction: "On each subject there are in fact two pages. One is an article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica or its 1922 additional material. This is found with the "article" tab at the top of the page. The other is for more modern additions, corrections and comments made by you and other readers. They are found with the "what's new" tab." You may feel that your sources are somehow more relevant or current, but you can't simply dismiss this famous edition of the most comprehensive work of its time. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

But Port Mahon is endlessly confusing in the first place. Even if we were to take that website on facevalue, and the "Port Mahon" name as "historically correct", it still fails the naming policies as its neither common used or recogniseable. People have to know that in the 18th century Britain took over the island for a little bit and had a naval base called Port Mahon, near to the town in order to make the connection.

But on the ground you wont see that name anywhere. In books you wont see it. Online you wont see it. In tourism articles, plane tickets, travel agents. etc. etc. etc. You wont see it. None of the official websites even mention that name, nor the maps, encyclopedias, travel agencies and airlines etc. Its not recognisable to the majority of people who will look for the article and requires a heck of a lot of background knowledge to try and connect the dots to an obscure piece of British naval history.

And the argument that Port Mahon inflames less than Mahon is nonsensical. If it is the "Mahon" that inflames, it will inflame in all situations. But as I keep telling people... It's less of an issue than people fear. Its why the airlines, airport, tourism based things and even the official tourism website use Mahon without any issues- Because its not that big of an issue. And after all "Mahon" is the English translation - the equivalent of both the Catalan and Spanish translations without taking sides- It is the translation and nothing more.

I don't think we need to differentiate the article from the Irish one- thats what the little note at the top of the article is for. And if we did need to differentiate, use a correct form: "Mahon, Minorca". Keeping incorrect just so it's different is silly. And under policy we don't need to differentiate from Mahon in Ireland anyway because (as said above) this article has almost 10 times more views than the Irish article. Its like changing the article "London" to "Port London" so it is differentiated from "London, Ontario".... You wouldn't do it.

The name Port Mahon is not the correct name, its not recognisable, its not the most commonly used name (its never used!)... It has no benefits other than you believe that it is less offensive than the correct English translation.

I don't think it is as offensive as you think, but at the end of the day, Wikipedia already has several policies about how to deal with potential "offensive material". First is the Content disclaimer, which warns people there are things they may find offensive. The policy Wikipedia:Offensive material says that offensive information should be included if it is "informative, relevant, or accurate". It also states that "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers."

So at the end of the day, even if (and lets face it, the English translation is not offensive or all the big companies and official agencies wouldnt be using it...) but even if it was found offensive, it isn't a valid argument to stop the name change. To use the correct English translation is "informative, relevant, or accurate", so the naming policy should be honoured.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is offensive, and wouldn't care if it was. Airports and so on can use whatever name they like, they don't allow volunteers to come along and change their signs or webpages at a whim. Wikipedia can potentially be changed by almost anyone, and the prospect attracts people who are fervent about their cultural preferences. I'm not theorising, I am remembering. I don't think it is necessary to put forth a reason to stop a change. I think it is necessary to have a very good reason to initiate a change. Port Mahon has been successful at quieting the culture clashes (until now, you seem to have a fervour of your own). Other names have lead to argument. This section is now much longer than the article itself, and I think our points of view have been thoroughly laid out. If no other editor has a position to put, maybe we can vote? I vote for no change. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)