OK! The name in Syriac is justified here (this is a decision taken by Iraqi Kurdistan).

But you also added names in Syriac in areas outside of Iraqi Kurdistan. Do they also allow Syriac names in the city (eg see Bartella osm.org/#map=15/36.3535/43.3843)?

Hi,
Can someone show me (a photo for example) how the name of this city is displayed on street signs in the city? Double or single signaling and in which language?

At the beginning of my message I talk about reading this page: osm.wiki/Key:alt_name

What you are doing is "Cherry picking" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking). And the complete and honest reading of this page shows that I am right... You have to read everything, not just the beginning.

Then, the examples you have chosen are not the result of chance :) it is also "Cherry picking".

These links do not prove anything since you assume that these links are correct and without error.

For example, if we take your first link (alt_name:Shechem):
This is the city of Nablus (نابلس)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nablus). But Shechem is a historical city which is called in Arabic شكيم (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechem): Shechem seems to be the English name of this city. There is a mistake.

* If we look at the history of the page we notice that this name was introduced by me 4 years ago in the form ("alt_name:ku-->Şekîm"))(osm.org/changeset/58049053)

Then this name was changed by mistake by Jobigutenburg (osm.org/changeset/86912701#map=8/32.403/35.432): "alt_name:ku-->Şekîm" became "alt_name:ku --> Shechem"

Then deleted to reappear under "alt_name: --> Shechem" (osm.org/way/265619988#map=14/32.2277/35.2504)

* Your second link (a commune in China) doesn't seem rigorous either (This city in China first had a "name" in Latin). Is it a romanization or the old name in French? It's incomprehensible... We're playing guessing games. I guess there are keys to doing something cleaner before using "alt_name".

I looked at the neighboring municipalities of these two cities to see if it was the same thing: the result is negative.

There are also problems in the other links but I'll stop there...

I am therefore opposed to this way of doing things which adds more confusion than anything else.