Talk:Antinoöpolis

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Antinoöpolis at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antinoöpolis is the correct name of the city in English; named after the deified youth Antinoüs. The diaereses ö and ü are not foreign imports or archaisms but native English diacritics indicting that the second vowel is pronounced independently of the first, as in Greek, as in the names "Zoë" and "Chloë". "Antinopolis" appears to be a mistake, not spelled thus in any reliable source. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as for reasons above. "Antinoöpolis" is definitely the correct form. I'm even prone to accept "Antinoopolis", but definitely not the current title. Strangely, no one has noticed that before. Khruner (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The name certainly needs to be changed, but "Antinoopolis", without the diaeresis, seems to be the
  common name in the sources. Looking at major reference sources first, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2000), The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (1995), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt (2012), Egypt in Late Antiquity (1993), and The Cambridge History of Ancient Egypt (1998) all use "Antinoopolis", as does the online UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (in progress since 2008). The only major reference work I can find that uses the diaeresis is The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001). A. Parrot (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment In support of Antinoöpolis, as well as the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001), there is, as mentioned, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, (4th ed.)(2012), The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2010), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (2005),
    LSJ, standard-most reference on Ancient Greek. In addition, most of the older printed literature used Antinoöpolis. For "Antinoopolis" there is the New Pauly and the Barrington Atlas and the works cited above (and more); for "Antinoupolis" there is the newsletter of the most recent excavations (2010), the Antinoupolis Oracle. For "Antinooupolis" there are certain SEG articles on epigraphy. GPinkerton (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: I really dislike "Antinoopolis" and "Antinooupolis" since they both suggest a rather silly pronunciation in English. While the diaeresis doesn't guarantee that people will pronounce it correctly, or at least differently than I fear these spellings will produce, at least it's a signal to readers that it might be pronounced differently. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meroë is transliterated on the same principle; it guides the English-language reader to pronounce the "oe" as two separate syllables, not as a diphthong, as would be expected. The Wikipedia page uses the diaeresis. Another example is Boötes. GPinkerton (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The proposed name is certainly correct, although I'm not certain that the alternatives are technically incorrect. As long as they're mentioned somewhere in the article (there may be too many for the lead, and some explanation might be expected), it seems fine to choose one as the primary form for the title and the article. I tend to think that the reason some sources avoid diaeresis is because diacritical marks were difficult to type/altogether absent from typewriters for most of the twentieth century, and English speakers aren't used to seeing them, leading some editors to dismiss them unnecessarily as "fussy" or "confusing". Owing to the availability of redirects in Wikipedia, I think we can risk that in favour of historical and technical spelling. P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.