Talk:Tallinn

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

German & Swedish Name ?[edit]

Also known by its German name Rewal? in the first sentence of the article? Isn't that a little over the top? I never heard that name in my life. What is the relationship between any German speaking state and Estonia? If someone proves there was one, the German name should stay but not in this form since it's too over the top.VicFromTheBlock

also please Mr Kenney don't erase my discussion pages from the discussion page and provide explanation for the reversal and actually including this German/Swedish name and what is the historic link between Estonia and that German name and again don't ERASE this legitimate discussion, Who do you think you are to reverse it? Instead of doing that, please provide proof there is a legitimate link, for now I do not see one so it's off again. VicFromTheBlock

Tallinn was mostly built under German and Swedish rule and got its "international fame" as a member of the Hanseatic league - as Reval. Tallinn left Swedish Rule around 1800 when being taken over by Russia .. Russia used the name Reval too though prior to Estonian independence.
Also if the term Reval is dated, it might be good to keep it there just since in anything historical, Reval will be the term to look for / is a term that is most definitely significant enough to mention .. and a name most educated Estonians are quite aware of since Tallinn was just "their" name for the town historically, not the name internationally known. It's also a name you'll find all over the place in Tallinn on old buildings and signs. Reval should be mentioned somewhere in the article, yes. If it should be mentioned towards the top of the page is debatable. - ChiLlBeserker
Too bad the self-styled language-pc crowd found the Estonian city names as well. There go the facts and the information value (since, in EE, this is not really an ideological issue). Clossius 14:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I actually have heard, that even these days some german newspapers refer to Tallinn, as Reval. So I did a quick research and that's, what I found:

http://www.zeit.de/2003/21/P-Petersburg

http://www.welt.de/data/2005/08/02/753902.html

http://www.welt.de/data/2005/06/30/739045.html

http://www.welt.de/data/2004/02/07/233584.html <- while in others "reval" is just used(ie in brackets), in here it actually says "an Riga und Reval, an Stockholm oder St. Petersburg hängen".

hope, that's helpful

The city's official name was REVAL for 700 years. Tallinn has only been the official name for 90. Udibi (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might be interested in the detail that "Reval" is also a well-known German cigarette brand name.--Death Bredon (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I note a coupld of the other wikis have Tallinn pics too, although I humbly submit that the one I just added is better. :-) Stan 05:25, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Looking at the two current pictures, "Tallinn from the sea" and "Port of Tallinn", it seems their descriptions have traded place. Brainheart 03:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nevski Cathedral photo[edit]

Could 67.172.223.106 please motivate, why he/she removed the photo of Alexander Nevski Cathedral? --Pt 22:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't me, but in my experience, lots of Tallinners don't like Alexander Neski Cathedral very much, mostly due to the political message it carried. - This is not true
Yes, I can confirm - Estonians hate this church and discussing for long time how to demolish it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This probably is a highly individual thing, I managed to insult a fair share of Estonians though on my first visit to Tallinn by having been impressed ;) .. the explenation I got was that it was intentionally built on the highest spot in central Tallinn when the Russian Empire was in charge .. which just happens to be the central spot of Estonian mythology (in the Estonian mythology, the national hero Kalevipoeg was buried there .. the hill it is built on was constructed by his mother as a monument.) The square it was built on carried the name "square of power" till the construction of Nevski Cathedral, it was built right beside the toompea castle, the historical center of Tallinn, in order to overtower it. That all .. and it was built as Russian as a building could possibly be. It was definitely built as a symbol as of who will be in power in Tallinn in future, most Talliners still don't appreciate that thought. Also by now, most Tallinn Estonians really don't dig it from my own experience. They especially dislike it when people from the west see it as a "typical" monument of Tallinn without noticing just what its symbolic meaning is for them. I'm guessing it was removed by a random pissed off person due to its implications that might have prefered a picture of Niguliste church there instead but didn't want to bother finding one.

I won't delete the picture, I might add a note about the cultural meaning of Nevski cathedral though . If it's oversensetive to dislike it or not is a matter of debate of course. -ChiLlBeserker
The problem is that this page has to be pure info not interpretations. Like or dislike is an interpretation, that it has been built on a myhtological place is info - JAlexoid
I'll agree, yeah. Though I am not sure if it was eventually acknowledged that this was not a coincidence .. I'll try to do some research -ChiLlBeserker
There are many reasons, why I personally think this picture (Alexander Nevski Cathedral) shouldn't be included. Apart from representing the religion of the minority, which also happens to be a hot issue in Estonia, the Alexander Nevski Cathedral has been overrun by tourists, who have little or no respect for rules and regulations set by the Orthodox Church. Maybe of little relevance, yet I think this is important enough to educate about. Perhaps much bigger attraction for tourists, should be the Town Square, located in the old town. This region is not only pleasant to the eye, but is also close to many 'a pub. I'll try finding a photo of it on the interweb. PoorLeno 02:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, Nevski should go. It is an important building and it is in Estonia, however I don't think it is something that the Estonians feel any cultural attachment to. Estonians are proud of the medieval architecture and beautiful old town, though, and I think it would be better to feature an image of this. I have some of my own photos which we can use, if anyone wants (below). --Nuffle 20:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A view of the old town from a window in the Kiek in de Kok tower: here
  • Raekoja plats: here
  • Bit of skyline with a tower in foreground (can't remember which tower): here
  • Ruins of a part of old town bombed by the Soviets in WWII here
Just a minor clarification, Nuffle, the old town ruins on your last photo resulted from Soviet (fire)bombing of Tallinn in March 1944, in which about one third of the rest of the city also burnt down. So I took the liberty to change the explanation to your pic-link. (Germans did not bomb any residential areas of Tallinn in WWII.) Cheers, --3 Löwi 11:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are, thanks for the correction, 3 Löwi. It's been a while since I've walked by the sign there. --Nuffle 18:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, beautiful as it is by itself, was built at the turn of the 19th and 20th century and is about as representative of (Old) Tallinn as the beautiful grand mosque by Regent Park is representative of the history and architecture of London. The picture of the Regent Park mosque is not featured in Wikipedia article on London, so for the sake of consistency and common sense, I replaced the pic of ANC with that of St. Olav's Church. Cheers, --3 Löwi 21:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, 3 Löwi. Please pardon me, too, I replaced the existing pic with a personal picture of Olav, which is higher resolution, and also shows some surrounding structures. I hope no one minds. --Nuffle 15:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Nuffle, and thanks for sharing the (much nicer) picture! --3 Löwi 14:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Though I personally would opt for the third picture suggested by Nuffle above (one with the tower - it just signals Tallinn to me like nothing else), i welcome this change! Nice trivia on the note also! :) PoorLeno 01:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, beautiful as it is by itself, was built at the turn of the 19th and 20th century and is about as representative of (Old) Tallinn as the beautiful grand mosque by Regent Park is representative of the history and architecture of London. The picture of the Regent Park mosque is not featured in Wikipedia article on London, so for the sake of consistency and common sense the ANC picture is already as good as it gets in its own dedicated Wikipedia article, but rather redundant in this article. Cheers, --3 Löwi 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "3 Löwi", don't agree. The London Mosque is very London. Our city has absorbed so many faiths and peoples over the years that, to me, the Mosque is another symbol of our variety and tolerance. It's not in the London article, I suspect, because there's just not enough space to be fully representative. BTW, the latest "invasion" is from Poland and the Baltics. When we visited Tallinn last year, of course we visited the ANC. It's a part of the city and its history: as is the Kadriorg Palace, the TV tower, etc. As visitors, we knew that it was built as a colonial symbol, but it still adds to the interest of the whole Old Town. IMHO, it's a shame that a place that's significant to 28% of Tallinners (ethnic Russians) can't be shown in the article (although it does have its own). Personally, I'd be more irritated by the fake Irish pub on Raekoja plats. Perhaps this discussion needs a mention in the article, as it's clearly an aspect of local attitudes and life. Folks at 137 14:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's amazing that this discussion can go on like that; I don't think it reflects even patriotic sentiment in Estonia anymore. I myself think the ANC is really kitschy, but it's a significant part of Tallinn, whether some of its inhabitants like it or not - as has been pointed out, (a) visually, (b) as a historical symbolical monument and (c) for the Russian-speaking population as well (surely more than 28% of Tallinners, btw). It cannot be a criterion, as Nuffle claims, that "Estonians" feel no attachment to it to not include it here. Amazing, too, that ANC is juxtaposed to the medieval architecture of Old Town, which after all is about equally non-Estonian as ANC (it is mostly German, of course - some noble, some bourgeois), and some of it (vide Jan Kross' Excavations) explicitly meant to be symbolically in the face of the Estonians, too - just as ANC was designed to be, primarily, in the face of the Baltic Germans. (The latter is a key part and is, curiously, not mentioned in the separate article at all.) (Oh, and even the Three Panthers, now Lions, are actually the appropriated coat-of-arms of an occupying power... :-)) And I've really never have heard any complaints of unruly tourists in the ANC (which, admittedly, is the one significant building on Toompea one can actually enter for free). Anyway, I'd actually rather see a picture of the Occupation Museum or, even though it's about as ugly as the ANC, the KUMU here, and one doesn't have to have the ANC here, but to take it out for clearly non-NPOV ideological reasons strikes me as somewhat problematic. Clossius 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"I agree, Nevski should go. It is an important building and it is in Estonia, however I don't think it is something that the Estonians feel any cultural attachment to. " -- That's an amazingly ignorant comment. About 30 % of Estonian citizens have Orthodox Christian heritage ( inlduding at least 10 % of ethnic Estonians and close to 50 % of Tallinn residents) , how on earth Estonians have no cultural attachment to it ? Fisenko 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fisenko, I was using the word "attachment" in the sense of "fondness," not merely an association. Simply because some percentage of Estonians have a heritage relating to a religion, does not mean they are fond of the ANC. However, to address your earlier point (and disregard your insult) and Colossius's, I don't think the fact that Estonians tend not to highly regard the building is not of itself enough reason to remove the image from the page, if the building was of great importance.

If the word "Estonians" applies to all the citizens of Estonia (as it would in most countries of the world), many Estonians are clearly "fond of the ANC", since it is the most popular Orthodox Christian cathedral in Tallinn. Fisenko 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, only 10% of Estonians are Orthodox Christian. I don't think you're going to convince me that it is a landmark treasured by the average Estonian, but as I said, that isn't really the point. The point is whether we as wikipedians feel the picture adds value to the page. Some of us do, and some of us don't. The extensive list of Russian and Christian Orthodox articles you've started/written clearly indicates that you think ANC is quite important. As is stands now, the picture is on the page, and I think that's fine since the article has grown so much and now has some extra room on it. --Nuffle 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the Toompea, are we not? No mention of that fact here, and no mention of the doubtless highly objectionable cathedral is to be found at Toompea, either: the elephant remains in the room. The illustration may go or stay— how instinctively censorship comes to the surface everywhere in post-Soviet Eastern European discourse!— but the symbolic cultural occupation of traditional sacred high ground— compare Christianization— is not a subject that can simply be "disappeared". No doubt about it, the cathedral was very pointedly named by the Tsarist regime after the Russian duke who attacked Estonia in the 13th Century. Several historical perspectives come together here, and demanding that they be ignored, by editors claiming to speak for the feelings of others is not a mark of the cultural maturity that Wikipedia's neutral policy is meant to embody. --Wetman 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Russian duke who attacked Estonia in the 13th Century There was no such country as Estonia in 13th century. Alexander Nevsky fought against Germans and Swedes who at the time invaded both Baltics and Russia. But its intresting how people can change history to adopt to their modern political agenda, forgetting about the facts that 1) Alexander Nevsky never attacked Estonia 2) At the time Alexander Nevsky Cathedral was built (1890s) most Estonian nationalists view Russians as allies in the struggle against domination of German nobility in Estonia. etc. etc. Fisenko 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My error. Fisenko is quite correct. Please review my equally clumsy attempts at Toompea. --Wetman 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fisenko is equally incorrect. At the time of Alexander Nevsky there was no such country as Russia either. It is interesting to see how Russian nationalist agenda compares to Estonian nationalist agenda when it comes to talking about history. Cheers, --3 Löwi 18:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia traces its historic origin to the medieval states of Kievan Rus and Muscovy, modern Estonia can only trace its historic origin to the Estonian republic of 1918. Fisenko 18:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of all modern nation-states can be traced back to no earlier than the beginning of the 19th century. Tracing the origins of modern Russia and Estonia in the the 13th or 10th century is good enough for cocktail party conversation, but not a serious academic exercise. By the way, at the time of Nevsky, the (proto-)Germans did not invade what is now Estonia, but had already done so. The proto-Estonians fought alongside the proto-Germans against Nevsky's troops (incl. in the famous Battle on the Ice of Lake Peipus in 1242). Cheers, --3 Löwi 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of all modern nation-states can be traced back to no earlier than the beginning of the 19th century Surely no magic transformation happened with Russian state in early 19th century since it was the same Empire ruled by the same dynasty as it was in the 17th century. But this besides the point. More to the point there are some historic facts you are ignoring: Historically "proto-Russians" and "proto-Estonians" just as often fought alongside each other against "proto-Germans" as vice versa. Few examples would include 1217 campaign and siege of Otepää, 1223-1224 duke Vyachko's campaign to help "proto-Estonians" to defend Tartu. Pskov support for "proto-Estonian" St.George's night uprising in 1343. Even more important is the fact what "Russification" campaign of the 1880s and 1890s in Estonia was not directed at Estonians. It was directed at the Germans who dominated the region at the time. At the same time as German barons and German and Jewish townspeople of Tallinn were "Russified" by the construction of St. Nevsky Cathedral , Estonians who were mostly rural people (may be large part of Tartu's residents but certainly not Tallinn's) were for the first time educated not in German but now in Estonian and Russian which most of them at the time was saw as progress. Fisenko 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two very basic points. In 1890s, when ANC was built, Estonians were already the single largest ethnic group amongst the residents of Tallinn (followed by Germans and Russians; the number of Jewish townspeople was rather insignificant in comparison). The impact on the usage of German language aside, the Russification in 1890s effectively restricted the usage of Estonian language at the primary level, and altogether blocked the usage of Estonian at any level above primary education. From a contemporary Estonian perspective, it was certainly not seen as progress (unlike the restriction of the rights of the Baltic German aristocracy, which at the time was seen as partial progress of sorts by many Estonians). Cheers, --3 Löwi 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Estonia when Alexander Nevsky Cathedral was built. There were no people called Estonians in 1890s (Estonian was a Russian or a German or anyone since most normal humans don't define themselves strictly in terms of ethnicity. The rural folk who spoke the Finno-Ugric language-modern Estonian, were called Esths. Don't invent history. The Cathedral does not reporesent the religion of a minority but that of one more than one third of the city's inhabitants. It is pathetic to see how Estonian ethnofascists manage to harness Wikipedia to engage in their usual censorship.

Reval[edit]

I wonder if the name Reval is really still used anywhere. In Estonia, at least, it exists only in historical documents. But I noticed that Torfkopp has recently added a sentence that seems to show that it is still being used... --Pt 16:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reval is, as so often, both a historical and a non-local name of Tallinn. Historical, in that it was used from the early middle ages through 1900 in German as well as in English, French, etc.; non-local, in that it simply is the German name, just as "Monaco" is the Italian name for München and "Munich" the English one. Yes, many German newspapers (including the main daily, the FAZ) refer to "Reval". However, since there is also a dominance issue, people on Wikipedia who feel that there is an imperialist point in Germans calling Gdansk Danzig (look at the discussion there) also think that one should not use German names for non-German, or not-anymore-German, places. Estonians who deal with these matters at all generally do not share this feeling; Lennart Meri, Jüri Kuuskemaa, Jaan Kross, etc., when they speak or write German, generally use, I think, "Reval" or "Reval/Tallinn". Clossius 06:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reval was also the old Swedish name for the town and was used in Sweden until like some 75 years ago or so. Older Swedish papers always talk about Reval, newer Tallin. // Solkoll 11:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I live in Germany and went to Tallinn with a group of German speakers in 2002. I never heard anyone in the group ever refer to the city as "Reval", the way they certainly would have called Prague "Prag" or Warsaw "Warschau". Everyone always called it "Tallinn". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

Name "Tallinn"[edit]

Estonian (and Finnish) word "linna" originally was refering to a stronghold or a castle. In Sweden the verb "linda" is synonymous to "wire" or "wrap around" (as the castle wall wraps around the castle). My source tells me the name is "Daani-linn" not "Taani" and "Daani" is also the Estonian (and Finnish) word for Denmark. The "T" is from later German missinterpetation.

That's incorrect. The Estonian word for Denmark is, and I think has always been, "Taani". And although there are divergences about the root of the city name (mostly for political, rather than philological reasons), the "Taani" thing is, for a change, not disputed. Look at the Royal Danish Embassy in Tallinn's Estonian language home-page, e.g., [1], or at the sister page of the Estonian Embassy in Copenhagen, [2]. Clossius 20:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Daani" is the old spelling and "Taani" is new. Btw, the difference is quite meaningless for Estonians, who pronounce all leading 'd'-s as 't'-s anyway.

There's no "D" in Estonian words --Bete 09:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is, it's quite a common letter actually .. it just doesn't appear at the beginning of words. Words in Estonian always start with hard consonants, making some foreign lones look somewhat "odd" to non-Estonian eyes. Like bank, taken from german, is "pank" .. bilet, taken from french is "pilet" .. and Denmark, taken from Danish I suppose is "Taani" ChiLlBeserker 11:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
direktor, gloobus, banaan, doomino, baar, grammofon, diktor, diktsioon, gradient, grupp, börs, büdžet, bürokraatia, disko, diplom we actually do have words beginning with soft consonants
But these are all loans from foreign languages, not Estonian origin. Linguisticly there is no soft consonants in the beginning of words in Estonian language.
The Finnish name for Denmark is neither "Daani" nor "Taani" but "Tanska".--Death Bredon (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second interpreting of the name is therefore not wery likeley I think - farmers did not have castles. Dut the Danes had a number of trading-cities, (example: York, Visby, Kaupang) outside thier own area (viking era). Tallin is (most probably) one of these towns. // Solkoll 11:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Native estonians did not have stone "castles", but they did have fortifications called 'linnus'-es. And it is undisputed fact that before Danes there was local coastal trading 'town' with central fortification - Lindanise.

Also known by its German name Rewal? in the first sentence of the article? Isn't that a little over the top? I never heard that name in my life. What is the relationship between any German speaking state and Estonia? If someone proves there was one, the German name should stay but not in this form since it's too over the top. VicFromTheBlock

Estonia's elites were Germans from the 14th to the early 20th centuries. It was part of the German-speaking state of the Teutonic Knights until the 16th century, and after that those same Baltic German elites continued to dominate under Swedish and Russian rule. The city was primarily known in English as Reval until the First World War.john k 15:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How come Reval is claimed to be German name? Isn't it the name of Rävala, old norhten Estonian tribe and a small county? --Bete 09:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have heard nothing of that Estonian tribe. And most supposedly the name of that county comes from the name of city. The name "Reval" is from 14. century, just as germans in Tallinn. It has to be german name!
Well, almost all "German" names of Estonian places are Estonian by orgin (what else should the Germans use?), but they were then used and applied by the Germans, and if there was another Estonian version or alternative, during certain times of national identity-construction, it was thought to be more conducive to take the latter. Both Tartu and Dorpat go back to the same root, for instance. Of course Reval is basically an Estonian word, but one used by the Germans for Tallinn. Clossius
Regarding my recent edit: To be precise, the suffix -a in Tallinna may actually denote either genitive, partitive or illative, depending on context. Perhaps pre-emptively reducing some confusion with the example of the airport is somewhat more useful than the zoo. As for ChiLlBeserker's comment (→The name "Tallinn" - - in 1920, not the only exception - Jaanilinn, Kingissepp. And today, are islands and such that don't follow the rule) it is somewhat inaccurate in that Kingisepp was and is a Soviet/Russian placename for a town that has always been situated in Russia, whereas the Estonian town of Kuressaare was called Kingissepa during the post-WW2 Soviet period (after the same communist activist). Jaanilinn, when part of Estonia, was never a separate town in its own right, but just one part of the town of Narva. There are many other similarly non-vowel-ending parts of other Estonian towns, for example, in Tallinn, one can find Pelgulinn and Kadriorg, and in Tartu there is Supilinn and Annelinn, etc.). So the vowel-ending rule to which Tallinn is the one and only exception applies to names of populated places as a whole, ranging from villages to large towns. However, there are some more exceptions when it comes to, e.g., islands (-saar), valleys (-org) and parts of towns (-linn). Cheers,--3 Löwi 16:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 3 Löwi. Your changes look great to me. Simply out of curiousity though, what makes the lennujaam example more useful than the loomaaed example? I don't speak Estonian, so the nuances are probably lost on me. --Nuffle 19:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your curiosity is rather appreciated. If the confusion is only about the correct spelling of Tallinn, then both examples will be equally useful. However, in another possible (albeit less likely) case where someone is confused whether Tallinn and Tallinna indeed denote the same place, or whether Tallinna on some sign means "Tallinn's" or "to Tallinn", then having read the airport (public transportation)-related example could probably one day provide more useful to someone in reaching the plane, bus, train, etc. in time (in comparison to not being late to the only zoo in the area:) Cheers, --3 Löwi 20:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the beginning of the first republic there actually was a sort of dispute, how to name the capital. Either Tallinna or Tallinn. And they stuck with Tallinn(doh). At the moment, in Estonia Tallinn is the absolutely only name of city, town or village, that ends with consonant.
It is still called Tallinna in Finnish language, and most likely was also the more used version among native estonians (not influenced by german speaking upper class) before. (And not considering german Reval and russian Koluvan (most likely sourced from estonian/finnish names Kalevan))

But AFAIK the theory of "Tallinn<=Taani linn" still remains unresolved among linguists. In estonian it feels very much hard-forced explanation, not seeming at all vocally natural, even considering the evolution of language through time.

Tallinn = Tal + linn = Town in valley = Downtown = alllinn[edit]

beacuse there is also Toompea = Dome Hill = uptown = uphill = "ülalinn" = Kalevite kants = Castle of Kalevs = Kalevan linna = Kolõvan(???)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal <-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley

04. December 2005

http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasutaja:Suwa

---

To speculate even more, Tallinn can also be devided to Tall+Linn,

'tall' meaning in estonian 'horse stable' -> Stable Town, as it was the most important trading centre where to all roads took. :)

Isn't the finnish word for house even closer and therefore more likely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.74.241.182 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the tourist[edit]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This section should therefore be reformatted to be more typical of an encyclopedia, rather than a travel guide such as Wikitravel. Any comments before I start? Wikiacc (talk) 23:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Start deletion? This article is thin enough as it is. Though I'm all for professionalism, I say rather than rewording, there shouldn't be much change. People who look up this article here, will most likely be interested in these attractions, or generally any attractions the city has to offer. Again, I agree that "For the tourist" isn't the way to go, but the information containd in the body of that paragraph should be preserved. PoorLeno 02:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I partially agree; my opinion tends more toward rewording. However, please note that What Wikipedia is not is an official Wikipedia policy, and said rewording is not simply in the name of professionalism but a Wikipedia standard. A method of presenting that section can be worked out that will be acceptable to both policy and the need of the user for relevant information. --Wikiacc (talk) 21:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not a tourist guide there should not be any information about high consumption of alcoholic drinks by the Finns in Tallinn. - Guest 20:11, September 8, 2005

I reverted some of Boothy443's revision, as some of the removed text was good wikipedia material. I re-added information about the ferry lines operating in the port, and links to the Tallinn airport and seaport. --Nuffle 20:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Olympic hotel'[edit]

Quote:

During the 1980 Summer Olympics a regatta was held in Tallinn. Many buildings, like the Olympic hotel, the new Main Post Office building, and the Regatta Center, were built for the Olympics.

I think the hotel in question is Reval Hotel Olümpia, commonly known just as "Olümpia". Mardus 11:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic hotel will do just fine, because all the other are also translated. and Olympic translates as Olümpia (om. kääne)

'Olympic hotel' = 'olümpiahotell', in the same vein as 'Olympic village' is 'olümpiaküla', while hotel names should be referred to their current, original or the shortest non-ambiguous name, preferably with quotes (to evade ambiguity); "Olümpia" as such fits fine. Calling the hotel Olympic (like that) is not very appropriate either, because construction of the building was completed only in 1986, by which time the Olympic Regatta was already history. Neither is your English good enough to support your viewpoint and I find that your substantiation is therefore weak. -Mardus 10:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympic village has AFAIK nothing to do with Reval Hotel Olümpia. It is located in Piritta, 6 km eastwards from Tallinn. In 2010 the Olympic Village goes by the name of Piritta Top Spa Hotel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.153.224 (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

Quote:

According to Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Union, of all EU member states' capital cities, Tallinn has the largest number of non-EU nationals: 27.8% of its population are not EU citizens.

The number seems to be fairly recent /around 2000-2004, but the exact Eurostat source and year of publication are missing. Mardus 11:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, especially knowing that Estonia joined the EU on the 1st of May 2004. This means the Eurostat published its statistics about the number of EU citizens in Estonia not earlier than 01.05.2004 Guest 20:49, September 8, 2005

I think that the years on population table should be displayed as links to these years. Tiigrikutzu 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article about Old Tallinn?[edit]

Would it be a good idea to create a separate article that deals specifically with Old Tallinn and Tallinn's history in more detail?

Reasons for this suggestion is that, Old Tallinn is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and thus maybe deserves a separate article as such.

There is also at least one other example in Wikipedia where this is done, namely Old Rauma is separated from main article Rauma, Finland.

I also found a short article, Legends of Tallinn, that would make a fine addition to Old Tallinn article, but is just too short on it's own.

Brainheart 03:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and create the article! It is definitely a topic worthy of one. --Wikiacc (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC (image of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral)[edit]

Wouldn't it be simpler to substitute a different landmark, one with less controversy and baggage? Durova 11:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Controversy shouldn't be a criterion for censorship. As a recent tourist, I'd say if a building is sufficiently noteworthy (architecturally or historically), then it should feature. Russification in the 20th century is of historic interest and the ANC, among other buildings, is relevant to this. It's also visually interesting. Of course, then we should note its significance and the divided views. A personal view: some of the photos add little. There are two virtually identical rooftop views (pretty, but one's enough!) and an indistinct harbour view. We need some shots of, for example, city transport and suburban buildings, old and new. Tallinn is not all old town and Hansa heritage; shots of Toompea, Kadriorg and some of the Soviet era buildings would also be informative. Come on, you Tallinners!! Sadly my own photos aren't good enough. Folks at 137 12:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this rises to the level of censorship. In most city articles it isn't possible to include every building of architectural significance or historic importance. With so many options, why not use images supported by the consensus? Durova 09:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second to that. --3 Löwi 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A building that is so debated as the ANC surely has greater significance for a place today (rather than for its architectural history) than some currently inoffensive landmark. (All Old Town, actually, has had an 'offensive' quality, partially even intended, for Estonians and non-noble Germans during parts of its history. That Estonians identify with it - or, say, with the Raekoda - is comparatively recent.) Obvoiously, more (or at least as much) can be learned about Tallinn from the ANC fight here than from some view from a Toompea terrace. Clossius 11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All buildings of Frankish kings of Gaul, or Norman kings of England, have had an 'offensive' quality, for Gauls, or non-noble Franks, or what?
Not censorship? Really?? With respect: looking back, much of the argument over ANC seems to me, as a foreigner, to be a reaction to 250 years of Russification and attempted suppression of Estonian identity. That's understandable. But to me, the ANC is an architecturally distinctive building that represents Russification (I may add something about this to the article) and a significant ethnic and religious minority (surely significant aspects of Tallinn). Space considerations have not prevented multiple shots of the old town, an indistinct port view (better as a skyline) and a pretty, but uninformative, local logo. My polite request is for a picture selection that reflects the whole city, not just the Hanseatic town. The text, after all, has a broader scope. Folks at 137 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A few minor corrections. Estonia may have been under Russian or Soviet rule for 250 years, but there was no significant Russification before 1890s. The vast majority of the ancestors of those ethnic Russians who live in Estonia today did not even live in Estonia at the time, never mind being able to witness to the building of the ANC in Tallinn in 1894-1900. Unfortunately, the architecture which in Tallinn most distinctively represents large-scale Russification and the largest Russian immigrant community in Estonia is not that of ANC, but the skyline of the 9- and 16-storey buildings of the large Soviet-era suburb of Lasnamäe.
Immigrant? I mean there was actually a country with embassy in Russia that they went to ask for a visa to immigrate?! Those people were moving within their own country that has been a part of their state for well over 250 years. The fact that someone has a stronger tribal identity or is obsessed with own ethnicity does not make other people "immigrants"
As a side remark, when it comes to the suggested (somewhat dubious) rationale of making sure that every significant Christian minority has a picture of one of its churches in the Wikipedia article on Tallinn, then surely the majority (Lutherans) should be represented as well. At the moment, no Lutheran churches have been featured (St. Olav's has a Baptist congregation). Cheers, --3 Löwi 12:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here, in the after all quite sad discussion, has argued for denominational representationalism. Clossius 12:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not me. Not the point at all, was not even aware of St Olave's denomination, had assumed it to be Lutheran. (Corrections noted, "3 Löwi".) The point I tried (and apparantly failed) to make is that the pictures, IMHO, could be a better impression of Tallinn. That's it. BTW, A problem here, as with email, is that a message can appear more confrontational than intended; if that's true of me, then I apologise. Folks at 137 12:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of this discussion should be whether the inclusion of an image of ANC makes the article better. I think we have established that it ANC is significant enough to be a candidate for a picture. Are there other pictures more significant that we're missing? Does including a picture of ANC (with appropriate caption) give the reader a better or worse understanding of Tallinn? I think we may be missing some good pictures, but I think like Folks said, some of the current ones could go as well, so there probably is ultimately room for ANC. However, since ANC is really quite uncharacterisitic of Estonia's architecture and culture, I think the caption should in some way note ANC's circumstances, otherwise the reader may be left with the wrong impression. --Nuffle 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral is "uncharacterisitic of Estonia's architecture" only if someone does not consider culture of 1/3 of Estonian population to be worthy of any consideration. By the way there is an Estonian Orthodox Church , History of estonian orthodox Church, there are Setu Estonians and such prominent Estonians as composer Arvo Pärt are Orthodox ChristiansFisenko 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fisenko, just because there are ethnic Russians in Estonia doesn't mean that a ANC is characteristic of Tallinn's architecture. The two have nothing to do with each other. --Nuffle 19:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lingitav pealkiri

Ethnic Russians? Ethnicity is of irrelevance in Russia, unlike the Esths Russians - or the French - do not define themselves in terms of ethnicity - the fact is that Esthonia was a part of Russia (its borders do not coincide with today's ethnonazi statelet though), and the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral is as representative of Reval's architecture as is ... pick the building. Attempts to censor not just history but even city are appalling though typical of what is going on in that former Soviet republic.

Logo of Tallinn?[edit]

Just out of curiosity: is Tallinn a commodity of some kind to have a logo? Does London have a logo? Or is it a logo of a local radio station (as it seems to be)? And if it is, does it have to be in the article? —Barbatus 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallinn does indeed have a logo. So does London (I can't find a link to it now, but it's the one that reads LONDON, with the ON in blue and the LOND in red). These logos are not equivalent to the city's flag or coat of arms, which are heraldic symbols, but are rather used in the local council's branding, particularly for tourism and culture. And yes, Tallinn is definitely as a commodity and a brand, as are all cities and even countries (most European countries have a logo of some sort that is used to represent them at trade and tourism fairs). The official site of the Tallinn City Hall uses the logo, see http://www.tallinn.ee Ronline ✉ 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is a city shiluette of tallinn, and a reflection of the shiluette on the sea. In together forming something that might look like audio wave in some sound editor. That's probably where the slogan comes from on the logo. Suva Чего? 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old infobox code[edit]

Would anyone have a problem with the remove of the coding for the old infobox, since the article has a usable one currently. Basically it would just free up some space. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being that their have been no objections lodged i have moved forwared with this, though feel free to discuss anyway, the code is still in the history. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twin towns[edit]

According to the Kiel page, Kiel is twinned with Tallinn. Indeed, I seem to remember seeing something like that on the city signs there; can anybody shed any light on this (and add it to the section on the Tallinn page or remove it from the Kiel one)? Cheers! 82.32.65.149 23:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3] (which looks official), "Kiel is twinned with Brest (France), Coventry (Great Britain), Gdynia (Poland), Kaliningrad and Sovetsk (both in the Russian Federation), Stralsund (Germany), Tallinn (Estonia) and Vaasa (Finland)." But no mention of the topic at all in the Tallinn official site. Can anyone confirm these? I'm inclined to accept them as fact. Folks at 137 18:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture description[edit]

I think the picture description about St. Olaf's church should be corrected, because it is not only the highest building in Old Town, but is also the highest building in Tallinn. Curgny 12:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only that it isn't. The Tallinn TV Tower, which has its own entry here, is 312,6 meters, and Oleviste is now 123,7 meters, i.e., not even half as tall. As far as I know, the TV tower stands in Pirita, which is part of Tallinn. Clossius 06:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teletorn (TV tower) is highest structure. Currently the highest building in Tallinn (And in Estonia) is and will remain the St. Olaf-s church because it is not allowed to build higher buildings than the church. Curgny 22:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It think it is only so in Tallinn. Tiigrikutzu 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skype / first venture capital in 2005?[edit]

This is a strange sentence:
Skype is the best-known of several Tallinn IT start-ups, and a first venture capital firm was founded in 2005.
If these are two separate pieces of information (1: "skype is ..." and 2: "First venture ..."), they could be in different sentences. Or is there a connection? "Skype is the first venture ..."? And I don't think the first venture capital firm was founded so late, I'm sure it was much earlier. I even wrote a bachelor's study in 2003 about venture capital in Estonia and included a part about Estonian venture capital providers. What's the source of "first venture capital firm was founded in 2005"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.35.168.61 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A very murky sentence, indeed. I added a __fact__ tag to the sentence. Skype itself was founded around 2002-2003, while Fotki.com began in 1998. Maybe it was meant that the first Estonian-founded (and -owned) venture capital firm was founded in 2005.[4] For example, Lõhmus, Haavel ja Viisemann's earliest public annual reports are from 2005, while the http://www.lhv.ee website's copyright notice years begin from 2001 (which should be the time when that enterprise was founded). -Mardus 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Infobox[edit]

I have removed this second info box from the main article. I have placed it here for reference, but please do not re-include it as articles should only have one info box. Alan.ca 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn
UNESCO World Heritage Site
Colorfully painted buildings in Old Town Tallinn
CriteriaCultural: ii, iv
Reference822
Inscription1997 (21st Session)

"Chivalry of Estonia"[edit]

What exactly is meant by a red-linked "Chivalry of Estonia"? Olessi 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estländische Ritterschaft, of course (http://www.baltische-ritterschaften.de/Ritterschaften/Estland/estland.htm). It is not a correct translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk • contribs)

"Chivalry of Estonia"[5] is not really terminology used in English. I would suggest instead "Estonian Knighthood",[6] which has some printed references. "Ritterschaft" is occasionally left untranslated,[7] although I don't think we should do that here. I think "Baltic German-populated Estonian Knighthood (Ritterschaft)" would be the best phrasing for our intended audience. Olessi 15:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why Baltic German-populated? Most of them spoke Estonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk • contribs)

The aristocracy of Livonia was primarily Baltic German, and the external link you provided makes this quite clear. Simple calling a group "Estonian Knighthood" implies in English that they are ethnic Estonians; clarifying that the group was actually Baltic German does a better job of informing our target audience of what the group actually was. Olessi 15:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical seal[edit]

If anybody needs a little material for the history bit, here is a drawing of a former seal

Seal of Tallinn, 1340.

Valentinian T / C 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kalevi > Kolyvan > Taanilinn > Rävelä > Revalia > Reval (Rääveli) > Revel > Tallinn[edit]

This is how the correct history goes. Short describtion of Alfred Rambaund´s "Russia" (1900): "In the north Kolyvan was bought from the king of Denmark, after the fiercest disputes. Under its rock lies Kolyvan, a Titan hero of Finnish Tchoud-Esthonians. Kalevy-poeg or "the son of Kalev". Thus there was an ancient Aesti wooden Hillfort at the rock of Toompea called Kavevi. Name Kolywan is the Slavonic version written down in Kieva (Kywa) by Nestor and other monks. If there was not a Hillfort so why the Rurik Dynasty Prince from Kieva would laid a siege of it in 1030 "when he captured all the land except Kolyvan and opened the sea for the Rus, baptized whole Korela (Karelia) and destroyed all the pagans in Beloozero / Valgiajärv (White Lake)" by later written nonsense of Kievan monks. May I point out the following from Rambaund´s text: Another song of Weisland (Whiteland) as Esthonia was called. Thus, how can a monk in Kieva, never visited in the area, separate several Valgiajärvis / Beloozeros to the correct one? If the land was called Whiteland also the Great lake was called Valgiajärv ie. Whitelake before named to Lake Peipus or Peipsijärv the lake of White Eyed Chouds who mined iron and copper on its shores. As described by Nestor and his fellowers: The Great Novgorod started to mine iron and copper on the shores of the sea. This in 1030, according to the monk caves in Monastery in Kieva. There is even attempt to make the whole sea to "Sea of Rus". There was infact copper mined in Vasknarva at the Neck of Naarva River by the Tshouds as Rambaud continues: It is close to the poem where "raudamched" in Tchoud language are described: No iron cannot penetrate their armour,nor the axe break it. Even today the Russian call the Great Lake Tshudovskoje ozero.

Eero Kuussaari: Suomen Suvun Tiet (1935) "The Power of Kalevalaiset (Kalevaisten) is mentioned also in Anglo-Saxon Beowulf song which was written down c. 500 AD. There appear also in addition to Attila, Ermanarik, etc others also as the King of Finns under name Caelic which is transliteration of Finnish Kaleva, Estonian Kalev-Regu, and Lithuanian Kalvis (blacksmith). Born in Kalerva estate, our famous shine in the high hard rock in the land of Viru Isthmus. Son of heroes lineage. King of Poimari, guard of silver island, to the king of the Karielas. (Karjalan kuninkahaksi)".

(My free transliteration).

Regards:

Map image[edit]

In the condensed section the map image should be changed with larger view of Northern Europe,

just like it is under Stockholm and Helsinki pages.

The red dot indicating the location of Tallinn is in the wrong place too. Not sure how to change it and rather busy to find the lime to learn at present.79.86.198.152 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry companies???[edit]

I think Silja Line no more operates between Helsinki and Tallinn, they lost superseacats when Tallink bought Silja.--62.65.192.83 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rat[edit]

My parets have recently returned from Tallinn, back to England, and brought with them a silver ornament of a rat, laughitng with a round belly. They believe it is symbolic only to Tallinn as they were sold a lot in Tallin. What is this symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.117.4 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probably nothing. many things may be sold in many places. it's just a souvenire 82.131.76.99 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tallinn University is not former Pedagogical University[edit]

Tallinn University is not only former "Tallinn Pedagogical University", but also EHI (Estonian Institute of Humanities), Institute of History, Baltic Film and Media School (SIC!) and many other institutions that joined and now are called "Tallinn University".

My suggestion is to remove the comment about the pedagogical university and remove distinct entry of "Baltic Film and Media School" under Education. Ats Puu (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Martintg (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

This article looks really ugly, I mean look at it, so bad positioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.10.185 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything remotely "ugly" about it. Would you care to be more specific? --Ericdn (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Start at history and ends at economy. Look at all those tables, there are so many and they are badly positioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.10.185 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're more than welcome to try to fix the page so that it looks better. Just complaining about it isn't going to solve anything. You've got to do it yourself! --Ericdn (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the last name change[edit]

In the early 1920s, the official spelling of the city name was changed from Tallinna to Tallinn, making the new name notable since Estonian-language place names always end with a vowel (denoting the genitive case).

Er what? Am I to understand that Estonian place-names never occur in the nominative? —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, you can't find a single (as far as I know) place-name in Estonia that ends with a consonant - of course, the exception being Tallinn. H2ppyme (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case when you are talking about place names like villages and towns. Some islands (Naissaar) and lakes (Võrtsjärv) etc. might not end with a vowel, although the genitive form (always ending with a vowel) is commonly used aswell.H2ppyme (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I think the question that you want to answer is not the one that I want to ask! I am not surprised to learn that all or most place-names end in vowels; that's true in many languages. I am not surprised to learn that the genitive (of at least some nouns) adds a vowel. (Well, a little bit surprised, since I believe that in Finnish the genitive has –n; but that's not important.) What puzzles me is the parenthetical remark that these two facts are related: that the final vowel in place-names denotes the genitive case. Is there a rule against sentences in which the subject is a place-name? Or is it customary to list place-names (on maps and indices) in the genitive? Or can I reasonably suppose that the person who added the parenthesis was confused? —Tamfang (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might mean the name is in Genitive case, but I am not sure about every name...See, in Estonian many words end with a vowel and their Genitive form is exactly the same as Nominative form. Some towns have a 'translation' into modenr Estonian - as it is with Võru (collet) and Kiviõli (Rock oil), but it could very well be the Genitive form...And in sentences they act as Nominative (in grammatic - they are Nominative, the Genitive form is just the name). But for example Tallinn's Airport, we say 'TallinnA lennuväli', this means that Tallinn is the only place name to be in Nominative (makes sense, because the nominative form of 'town' in Estonian is 'linn' and the Genitive 'linna').H2ppyme (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?
In the early 1920s, the official spelling of the city name was changed from Tallinna to Tallinn, making the new name notable since nearly all Estonian place names end with a vowel. In a phrase such as Tallinna Lennujaam (Airport of Tallinn) the first word may appear to be an archaism, but the –a marks it as the genitive form.
Or drop all mention of declension. I hope the article on Moscow doesn't explain Moskva, Moskvu (or whatever its oblique forms are!). —Tamfang (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about editing this article then I think this section is fine as it is.H2ppyme (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess I'm the only one in the world who might be puzzled. —Tamfang (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you still want to ask something you can turn to my talk page, but everything important about the name is mentioned in this article already. Note the ending of the Modern name section.H2ppyme (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think I did not note the ending of that section? (Note the ending of my proposed replacement!) I agree that all the relevant information is there; my problem is that some of it – names always end with a vowel (denoting the genitive case) – is paradoxical: I am not aware of any (other) language in which names always appear in a marked form.
If I saw "The Latin word for 'dog' is canis, in which –is denotes the genitive," I'd change it without hesitation. Nouns in Latin (and in most languages with cases) are normally cited in the nominative case. It so happens that for some consonant-stem nouns the nominative and genitive have the same form; in such words, like canis, the –is sometimes denotes the genitive but more often denotes the nominative.
I doubt that further questions will help; thanks all the same. —Tamfang (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so much is clear to me that currently in the article the sentence: making the new name notable since Estonian-language place names always end with a vowel (denoting the genitive case) doesn't make much sense. Other than that ~linna vs. ~linn. In Baltic Finnic languages the word originally simply meant a stronghold. In Finnish linna still means a castle, in Estonian it became to mean a town. Estonians foreshortened the word by removing the ~a from the end at one point and...what is this notability of foreshortening the linna word all about, I have no idea. But since such a strange notability factor is not sourced and it doesn't make much sense, it should be simply removed.--Termer (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'd also like to see a source saying that originally in 1918 Reval was renamed as Tallinna and only later it became spelled as Tallinn. After all in 1918 it was only possible to hold 'officially' the name Tallinna for just about an half a day. After Estonia declared independence on February 24, Estonia including it's capital was shortly occupied by Imperial Germany during WWI. And under the German occupation the town surely wasn't called anything but Reval. Only after the Revolution in Germany and the withdrawal of the German troops from Estonia if became possible to start calling the town 'officially' Tallinna/Tallinn again. So it would be great if someone could dig up some sources that would clarify this thing.--Termer (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. also, an interesting fact might be that during the Soviet era the name was most often 'officially' spelled in English as Tallin, following the Russian form of the name Та́ллин.--Termer (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPPS.Like I thought there was something strange about the way Tallinna vs Tallinn was put in the article. Tallinn In Your Pocket By Nat A. Singer, Steve Romanis is pretty clear about the facts. ...Even after the Danes left, many Estonians continiued to use the name Tallinn while almost everyone else preferred Reval. It was only in 1918 after independence from Russia that Reval was totally dumped. For a while both Tallinn and Tallinna were then used. In 1925 Tallinna was declared official, but soon after Estonia changed its mind and in 1933 talinn became the final name for the nation's capital city.--Termer (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the city might have been officially called 'Tallinna' seems incredible. I'd say it's a hoax.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Eesti vabariigi Tartu ülikooli toimetused/Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis, Dorpatensis Published by Tartu Riiklik Ülikool in 1926 where the name is clearly spelled Tallinna (Reval). Also Eesti-saksa son̄araamat/Estnisch-deutsches wörterbuch Published by Eesti kirjanduse seltsi kirjastus in 1923 spells the name as Tallinna (Reval, Revel)--Termer (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I possess an Estonian road map from early 1920s, the capital is called just like it is in our days. I also have a number of books from 1920s, never encountered the form Tallinna. --Miacek (t) 08:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It surely seems dubious. The United States Geographic Board Decisions from June 1 1923, to June 30 1927 lists the name change: Tallinn - capital city of Estonia (Not Reval, Revel, nor Talline). So at one point it looks like some dictionaries used "Tallinna" but if it ever was , and if yes when exactly an official spelling needs to be verified I think by another source to confirm the way it's put in the Tallinn city guide By Nat A. Singer, Steve Romanis.--Termer (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative districts of Tallinn during USSR[edit]

Does anyone have a soviet map or any other information on exact boundaries of administrative districts of Tallinn (Lenin, Kalinin, Oktober and Sea districts)?DVoit 20:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Here[edit]

Should the Old Town of Tallinn be considered an independent entity/article from Tallinn? I would love to contribute to its wonderful new beginning. Although I wasn't born there, I spent 3 amazing years living inside the old city working as a carpenter / electrical engineer for a local construction company. Word, (Spacestoned (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Tallinn[edit]

Is there a link between the Estonian Tallinn and the Welsh Tal Y Llyn meaning the end of the Lake? Roarmezma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.93.158 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest capital?[edit]

What is meant by this exactly?

  • oldest city that is currently a capital?
  • longest time for which it has been the capital of an entity that is now a sovereign state?
  • longest time for which it has been the capital of any country or subnational entity?

And is it a reasonable assumption that it is referring to Northern Europe by the UN definition, given that it links to that article and that's the only precise definition it gives? — Smjg (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the reference just added:
"Tallinn – the oldest capital city in Northern Europe. Tallinn was first put on the world map by an Arab geographer al-Idrisi in 1154. On his map Tallinn was called Kaleweny."
This might seem to imply the first interpretation in the list. But this clearly isn't the case – for example it seems London was founded in about AD 50. Of course, Tallinn might have been founded long before it was marked on a world map.... — Smjg (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove that whole bit, as the source is not the greatest possible, not to mention Engrish sentences. The claim itself feels rather dubious as well - there is a good chance that human habitation was at Tallinn's location way before London (hill with a port near it vs floodplain), but I wouldn't call that a capital city. --Sander Säde 19:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It seems the age of a city isn't a clear-cut concept. And the only times it has been the capital of a sovereign state are seemingly 1918–1940 and 1991–present, though looking through the times Estonia was a subnational entity as well it seems Tallinn (tka Reval) was its capital as early as 1561.
But maybe you're right that it's a dubious or at least ill-sourced claim whatever interpretation you go by. Let's see what other people think about it.... — Smjg (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tallinn was founded in 1248, but the earliest human settlements are over 5,000 years old, making it one of the oldest capital cities of Northern Europe" -- The 5000-year old finds are from the Neolithic Comb Ceramic culture, which did not build cities and had no capitals, so the claim is rather absurd. Stone Age finds are known from the surroundings of all Scandinavian capitals (with the natural exception of Reykjavik) and many other cities, but none of them claim that their status AS CITIES derives from this period. Whether or not London qualifies as "Northern Europe" is another question altogether.--Death Bredon (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of Freedom[edit]

The collage in the infobox (File:Tallinncollage2012.jpg) has an image of what is described as "The Cross of Freedom". I'm curious as to what it is. The rest of the article doesn't mention it, and it appears to be computer generated. Gabbe (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a freedom memorial built in 2009, located at the Freedom Square. Found some info here: http://www.inyourpocket.com/estonia/tallinn/sightseeing/Tallinn-monuments/The-Freedom-Monument_54648v I also just found an Wikipedia article of it here by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Independence_Victory_Column Not sure, maybe I've used the wrong name. Although in translation it is usually referred just as Cross of Liberty/Freedom around here. Not sure why there's not much info about it. Xxxnmxxx (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've added a link in the caption to the article for the sake of clarity. Gabbe (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constant vandalism please lock the page[edit]

Someone is constantly changing the pictures of the City to right without notifying anyone on the talk page. This is an act of vandalism, please state why you are changing the pictures before doing so. I have redone the changes back to how it was DjSeptimus (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps on doing it over and over... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjSeptimus (talk • contribs) 14:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user 220.248.60.100 is constantly trying to change the collage pictures to the right without stating why. DjSeptimus (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban, Metropolitan[edit]

Doesn't Tallinn have built-up area bigger than city proper? Or Metropolitan area? Inkogn (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When was the name "Tallinn" first used?[edit]

The toponymy section lists previous names Kolyvan (Qlwn, Qalaven), Lindanisa (Lyndanisse, Lindanäs, Ledenets), Reval (Rääveli, Rafala, Revel) and says the name Tallinn replaced Reval in "1918-20". But it's not clear whether this was the first time the name Tallinn was used, or whether it had been used before then. This needs to be sorted out. Beautifultree (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Tallinn[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eesti Energia as the world biggest Oil Shale energy company[edit]

If we claim that Eesti Energia is "the world biggest oil to energy company" then the statement should be referenced. Currently it is referenced to http://www.easac.org/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Study.pdf I have looked throgh this report but failed to find any ranging of the world oild shale companies. The report is also very old - 2007 while the oil shale revolution in the USA happens after 2010. Since a significant percentage of the USA-produced oil and natural gas comes from shale it highly unlikely that Estonia produces more energy from oil shale even if Narva Electric Station produces 80% of country energy from oil shale - the scales of economies of the USA and Estonia are just almost incomparable. Since Eesti Energy is a player on the USA oil shale market as well via its subsidiaries it is theoretically possible to be the first but it needs to be sourced.

Also we need to explain by what criteria Eesti is the world biggest: oil shale resources, oil shale production, electricity produced, market capitalisation, number of employees, etc. It is not clear now Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eesti Energia is the place for this discussion and sources. Until credible sources are there, "biggest" should not be in this article. --WikiHannibal (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?[edit]

How is "Tallinn" pronounced? Where is the stress? CarolinianJeff (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the first syllable. See Estonian_language#Stress. The "a" is pronounced as the "o" in "bother", and the "i" is a weak "ee" sound. The consonants "ll" and "nn" are long, and get held a bit longer than their short versions "l" and "n" (they do not modify the pronunciation of the vowels as in English). Dcoetzee 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ain't doubting you, but am I the only one who hears the name ("Tallinn") stressed in the second sillable ("-linn") instead of in the first ("Tal-") by all Estonians in here: http://forvo.com/word/tallinn/  ? Grelngo4ehn54oçh (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As "linn" is generally an independent word (meaning "town"), the stress is on both the "Tal-" and "-linn" parts, but as a general rule in Estonian, the stronger stress is on the first syllable. As an Estonian, I think the pronunciation given in the article is correct.H2ppyme (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate[edit]

Recently, I have edited the weather box/climate table since it has been changed dramatically (I last edited in 2013). However, it has been removed a couple of times ([8], [9] and [10]). I do object to removing the weather box for a couple of reasons:

  1. After checking the sources, the data is correct. I understand that it had been vandalized a couple times. I think this occurred in July 2016 with this edit. ([11]).
  2. The addition of the climate table is standard in many cities (e.g Paris, London, Buenos Aires) since it summarized detailed climate data in an easy to read format. In many cases, it is a better alternative to using prose to mention the average by month. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry there's no issue it was my mistake entirely, Socks have been adding climate boxes to various articles and I thought this was the case here (I had looked at the wrong diff!), I've apologized here so it's all cool :) –Davey2010Talk 13:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I am glad this misunderstanding has been resolved.:) Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no snowfall in Tallinn during these months. According to the Estonian weather service at the end of September snow in Estonia was registered only in northeastern Estonia not in Tallinn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vda46y (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Montage discussion[edit]

Uploaded a new montage with a better layout and better quality images. User Schpider insists to use the Template:Photomontage inspired by the Berlin article, which I disagree to. The idea is good but the Template is faulty by nature, allowing only certain dimensions for images and an inflexible layout. There's no point of uploading and congesting Commons with cropped versions of multiple pictures just to be able to use the template. As stated in the Template talk:Photomontage it's "better to just create a single montage image and upload it to wikicommons" to avoid issues regarding browser compatibility. I haven't come across any other city article that would use the same template besides Berlin, even the cities represented in the Template:Photomontage tutorial page have opted out from using the template because of it's inconvenience. Hopefully this discussion can avoid another disruptive edit from Schpider who has been warned about his action.SvenEst (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is a list of notable people from Tallinn welcome, or does it clutter the article?[edit]

I've added a section recently on notable people from Tallinn. Contributor 27.32.240.206 has taken steps to hide the section although not, I'm please to say, deleted it. He/she says the new section "clutters" the article. Many cities listed in Wikipedia include a section on notable people. What do others readers think, would they prefer the new notables section to be openly accessible or hidden? ArbieP (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

Is this worth mentioning?: It is the main locale in James Patterson's novel, Blindside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.138.66 (talk • contribs) 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, because we even haven't article about this book, and not mentioned at James Patterson--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tallinn&oldid=1212307307"