Talk:Uşak

Comments

Alternative transliteration

Gene, I really do think that you are being overzealous here. First of all, it doesn't matter if it was there for 15 months, it is unsourced and dubious information. Second of all, there is no such thing as "alternative transliteration" of Latin alphabet-based names. 1911 Brittanica can use that term, but back in 1911 Turkey was using the Arabic alphabet, therefore "transliteration" was the correct way to put it. But Turkey has been using the Latin alphabet for the last eighty years, so the correct form is "pronounced". Baristarim 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It is still a transliteration from non-English letters. There is no error in using the English alphabet when writing in English. Furthermore, it is much more common in English; the city should probably moved, the airport even more likely, and the carpet most certainly. Gene Nygaard 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You find me one travel guide or source that uses "transliteration" instead of "pronounciation", then we will think about it. I think that my point about the 1911 Brittanica and the Arabic alphabet completely flew over your head. There is no such thing as "English" or "Turkish" letters. It is the Latin alphabet. We are not talking about a Chinese city. The pronounciation is clearly given, there is no room for confusion. Wikipedia rules say "use the English language", not the "English alphabet". Latin alphabet should be used, and its diacritics. There is no need for a move, the pronounciations are there. If you would like, you can ask the IPA to be added, but there is no need for that either since the pronounciation is clear. The airport is not a special name, it is simple common sense that the airport refers to the city in a way akin to saying "Airport of Uşak". São Paulo is also more common, as well as Dusseldorf, so good luck with trying to move them as well :) Baristarim 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Transliteration" or not isn't really relevant. Don't be throwing out red herrings; I don't give a damn how you characterize it. The fact that is relevant is that it is a very common, likely the most common, spelling in English. Not just pronunciation, relating to the spoken version—but rather it is the spelling, the written version, that we often see.

And, by the way, if you continue the nonsense about "emoved because it was unsourced", most of the Turkish towns will end up being blank articles. Gene Nygaard 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uşak. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430154212/http://dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=USAK to http://www.dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=USAK

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)