[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#3548) italian.ruleset

["Paul Zastoupil" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:53:17PM -0800, Jason Short wrote:
> 
> [ChrisK@xxxxxxxx - Fri Feb 28 18:29:10 2003]:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:06:06AM -0800, DHerding@xxxxxx wrote:
> > > Hello Davide,
> > >
> > > Friday, February 28, 2003, 12:12:38 PM, you wrote:
> > >
> > > DP> Anyway, changes to italian ruleset should be made in italian,
> > thus
> > > DP> "Victor Emmanuel II" is plain wrong, obviously (it is instead
> > "Vittorio
> > > DP> Emanuele II")
> > >
> > > OK I didn't know that.
> > 
> > I didn't know either. And i doubt it, because of charset problems.
> 
> Current charset problems only say you have to use latin1 in the rulesets
> for leader and city names (all others should be ascii english).
> 
> > > DP> and moreover, this can be the chance to put
> > > DP> geographic hints in the ruleset (Venezia should be on coast,
> > > DP> Torino/Milano/Roma/Firenze should be on a river, and so on)
> > >
> > > I think there was a thread somewhere which said that (river), (hill)
> > > etc. should only be set when the city name says it, not when the
> > > original city is situated there.
> > >
> > > e.g. 'Bremerhaven' should be labeled (ocean) not because the real
> > city
> > > is a coastal city, but because 'haven' means 'port', and
> > 'Saarbr�cken'
> > > should get (river) because 'Br�cken' means 'bridges', and also
> > because
> > > 'Saar' is a river.
> > 
> > This is new to me. I see no reason for not use the geographical facts.
> > 
> > Hello, DEVELOPERS, can you please state clearly about these two
> > questions?
> > I've asked before but got no answer.
> 
> Well, there's really no answer to give.  The creator of the natural city
> names concept (and original patch author) intended that they be used
> linguistically; i.e., by assigning them to city names that they "match".
>  But this should be up to the community to decide, and so far most
> nation authors (who are the people that matter) have done it
> geographically instead.
> 
> Note that the original natural city names patch was very limited, so it
> was usually a bad idea to label too many city names.  This is no longer
> the case.
> 
> Personally, I'm in favor of doing it geographically.

I think it really depends on the nation.  Some nations have very well
named cities with regard to geography.  But most of these cities
are very old, from when all that mattered was "that town by the
river/ocean/mountain".  US cities are mostly named after other places,
so this doesn't make much sense.  Should Pittsburgh be on a hill?



-- 
Paul Zastoupil