[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#14343) Data: Egyptian city list

["Peter Schaefer" <peter.schaefer@xxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=14343 >

IMO having a unified aliases file might be the wrong way because
practically then the aliases file is the authoritative source for all
city nation data. This means that every nation patch, adding and
removal will have to patch that file.

Why not have entries like
cities = "Wien (German: Wien, Hungarian: Bécs, Czech: Vídeň, Slovak:
Viedeň, Romany Vidnya; Serbian: Beč)"

then leave it to someone to have fun to write code that assembles the
list non-manually ;-)

I apologize for stirring up dust at this moment, and it is fine to
have a unified file, but then to me it appears it will become
practically the authoritative file on city data and I wonder how it
will then work together with the nations file. Also, what about cities
with the same name in different areas (Paris, Texas vs Paris, France,
not to mention the Bloomingtons themselves). It sounds like a nice
project by itself :-)

On 11/3/05, William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=14343 >
>
> Benedict Adamson wrote:
> > <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=14343 >
> >
> > OK, I think the idea of a separate file for city aliases, rather than my
> > suggestion, seems to have marginally more preference here, so I'll try
> > implementing that. Away for a week or so, so don't hold your breath.
> >
> I'd like to weigh in for keeping city aliases in the nations files, or
> for removing all cities into a unified city alias file.  Not both.
>
> A decision needs to be made.
>
> (1) Practical.  Too hard to maintain.  Most ancient cities have 2 or
> more names, so adding a city means updating multiple files.  Keeping all
> known information in the same file will help.  Humans are likely to
> make inconsistent decisions (the current files are already inconsistent)
> and it would be better to plan for the programming to resolve than
> depending on massive editting by multiple people.
>
> (2) Political.  You'll have all sorts of arguments about the "canonical"
> name, the spellings, the best practices, historical precedence, etc.
>
> (3) Effort.  The generic "translation" project (the usual example of
> Londinium|London|Londres) requires the alias file to expand to cover
> every known permutation of language for every city.  Do we need to
> describe the parts of the city name so that translation is possible?
> Many city names are composite, that are sometimes translated as they
> are conquered, and sometimes just replaced.
>
> Example: Byzant(thracian?), Byzantion (greek/phrygian), Byzantium (latin),
> Konstandinoupolis (byzantine empire), Istanbul (turkish).
>
> IMnsHO, the easiest thing to do is keep the files the same, expand the
> syntax a little bit for gradual migration.
>
> OTOH, a unified city file could have more than aliases.  It could move
> all the land type (ocean, river, etc) and add a founding date and
> importance/size indicator.  That would eliminate duplicate information,
> and automate the sorting and selection and translation, all in one place.
>
> This is only a game, and the city names aren't even the most important
> part of playing the game.
>
> --
> William Allen Simpson
>      Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
>
>
>
>
>