If you have a chinese pub with its name written in Chinese or a translation such as “the lady that kisses the lotus in the morning”, your understanding will not be very different

Cultural differences indeed. It is not because in the majority of the wikipedia articles, the proper names are not consistently used, not properly capitalised and mixed up with title cases, that we have to propagate those mistakes overhere. And yes, “Den Steenen Molen” is a proper name dating from at least 60 years ago; in modern spelling, we would write it “De stenen molen”, exactly as you could have names such as “The Grey Pub”, “The Golden Restaurant”, the “Blue Bakery”, “Wooden Church” . We have the difficult task indeed to find solutions that can be understood to a maximal extent by English speaking persons. But don’t expect that English will solve all the problems. I am pretty sure that for many “English” buildings such as in Category:Buildings in Boston, Massachusetts, most people don’t know (anymore) what the name really means: the name only contains English words, no real meaning. –Foroa ( talk ) , (UTC)

Well, the reverse view is revealing. en:White House is www.cashadvancecompass.com/installment-loans-il/phoenix a very official name for the U.S. President’s home. And yet you have cs:Bily dum and nl:Witte Huis (Washington D.C.) and it:Casa Bianca and fr:Maison Blanche, etc. How is that more acceptable than translating “Molen van Ezaart” into “Mill in Ezaart” on what is supposed to be an English-focused project? en:Buckingham Palace is even more odd – it.wp, nl.wp, pl.wp all leave it as is, but then you have es:Palacio de Buckingham and, worse, cs:Buckinghamsky palac – doesn’t even retain the name of the original occupants. Wknight94 talk , (UTC) Yes, there are many questions: have a walk through en:Special:PrefixIndex/casa, en:Special:PrefixIndex/Huis, en:Special:PrefixIndex/Ponte, en:Category:Castles in Italy . –Foroa ( talk ) , (UTC)

Commons is “supposed to be an English-focused project”? Wow, thanks for saying it. Now I understand, that is only for English speakers. 🙁 –Ragimiri ( talk ) , (UTC)

Calm down please, with such remarks we don’t make progress. For recall: because Commons software for categories work only with one single category set (and will never work with multiple languages unless there is a more structured naming approach and a central multi-language topic/subject/naming database), it has been decided to use English as the language for the categories. Thats the constraint we have to live with and with which we have to make the best possible system. –Foroa ( talk ) , (UTC) It has been decided by who, when and where? –Ragimiri ( talk ) , in the beginning of the Commons project I guess. Anyway, I don’t think that for international language use, there are many other options than English. Moreover, it seems logical to start by leaning as much as possible on the biggest Wikipedia. –Foroa ( talk ) , (UTC)

Two comments: en:List_of_windmills_in_Belgium for the proper names (but sometimes wrongly capitalised (title cased)) and in many countries, including France, only proper terms in proper names are capitalised

An idea of “central multi-language topic/subject/naming database” is an interesting thought experiment but it would more problems evoke than solve. It’s an ivory-towered conception which can hardly become a functional base of categorization. This eventual experiment have no crucial relation to the question what form of name should be the main in cases of un-English themes. It can have at the most additional function.

The main administrative language of Commons is English and it should continue so. On the other hand, many subjects have no purposeful English name and we must take it into account. The question is whether an international project have to tend to Englishize whatever and everything at any rate or to prefer most used and most right names and minimalize anglicization of un-English names and themes to necessary level. When we use a translated name of some little-known square or railway stop, the translated name can better make clear the meaning of the name but it make more difficult to identify and find the individual subject. That’s why common concepts (apelativa) should be named in English (if possible) while names of individual subject should be used in most widespread or official form, excepting worldwide famous subjects which are well known under an English name. –SJu ( talk ) , (UTC)