Category talk:Häme Oxen Road

The name "Häme Oxen road" was taken from the english summary of: Masonen, Jaakko: Hämeen Härkätie. synty ja varhaisvaiheet. Tiemuseon julkaisuja 4. Helsinki: Tie- ja vesirakennushallitus, 1989. ISBN 951-861-448-2. (This is a doctoral dissertation with english summary.) Is there any source for the form "Tavastia Oxen road"? --Urjanhai (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And the official site of the road uses the form "The Ox Road of Häme". --Urjanhai (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And finally for the forms "The Ox road of Tavastia" and "The Oxen road of Tavastia" Google gives no hits. I english Wikipedia the expression "The Oxen way of Tavastia" is used but no referece for it is given. As in the Wikimedia projects the naming should lean on secondary sources, there seem to be no sources to support the suggested form, while there are sources to support the forms mentioned above.--Urjanhai (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As well as as the official english-language site of the Tavastia Proper region suggests that also the name "Häme" is nowadays used in english contexts. (With this I am, of course, not trying to say that the form "Tavastia" would not be right either when speaking about the region.)--Urjanhai (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what should be done? The sources given above seem not to give support to the move.Urjanhai (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we still have chosen to use the English language names (Tavastia, Karelia, Savonia, Lapland and Ostrobothnia) for the regions of Finland on Commons. So, in the name of consistency, we should use these names for Häme/Tavastia Oxen Road as well. If we chose "Häme", then we should rename all the sub-categories of Category:Regions of Finland as well. --Apalsola ^{t • c} 22:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC) -- (fix) Apalsola ^{t • c} 22:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

However, the problem is, that for the use of the names of the regions there for sure are (or have been) secondary sources for the latin forms of the names, but for the road, the secondary sources I could find, the finnish form of the name was used in english context. The other source was a scientific text that surely was translated by a qualified translator and the other was the english version of the official site of the road. Thus, if we rely on secondary sources, I don't know, if there is need to rename anything, because there surely are secondary sources for the latin form in the names of the regions as well as there are secondary sources for the finnish form in the name of the road. And so, I really don't know, if we should choose the consistency and by doing so possibly commit to new research, or rely on secondary sources even if they are not consistent? Could perhaps some native speaker commment this or is there any guideline? --Urjanhai (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no need to be consistent in this, as road names are not systematic and are not expected to be. Much more important is that any category has a name that can be guessed from the name(s) used for the subject. If this category is to be moved I would prefer the well established Finnish name. The translations are not established, but are often maid up ad hoc by individual translators. --LPfi (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It is true, that translations change. For some historical concepts or names there may be half a dozen different translations in english. And therefore also it seems hard to use one translation only for any such concept, if in some context one translation is preferred and in some context another. Then I find it more secure to use of each thing such translantion, for which there is a reliable source, even if in different contexts the same original word would have been translated in a different way. Otherwise we might end up into use of expressions that are not used in any sources or that do not repsesent the expression that is used most frequently of the spesific thing in question. --Urjanhai (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)