While the listings given above are useful in themselves, the node title brings in a value judgement of spectacular daftness.
These are not "bad translations", they are just the English (etc.) names for places. Sometimes - for a variety of historical and linguistic reasons - they happen to be quite different from the current local native language versions. Places which were flourishing commercial centres in past centuries often have English names which reflect the native forms of that time, often in dialects which have since fallen into disuse or disrespect, and which have been followed up by many layers of phonetic shifts in both languages and the odd
spelling reform or two. Other places may have changed nationalities since the
English name became fossilised, or one native language may have displaced another (the 90% Dutch-speaking
Brussel of 150 years ago is now the 90% French-speaking - but formally bilingual - Bruxelles, but it continues to be
Brussels in English). Some cities - such as Köln - were first approached via the medium of another language, in this case French, and the French name
Cologne has stuck.
Nonetheless it remains the case that, in English, the capital of Italy is Rome, not Roma (Roma, in English, is a football team); the terminal -s of Paris is pronounced, and Nippon is still called Japan. The situation is not static, however; English speakers now rarely call Livorno Leghorn, or Helsinki by its Swedish name Helsingfors, while in the last ten or fifteen years Marseille and Lyon have mostly lost their English -s endings. The trend in English (which also, because of its status as international lingua franca suffers more than other languages from political pressures from non-anglophone countries to change usage - Myanmar, Kyiv, Côte d'Ivoire) is probably towards the use of native language placenames, but it's certainly not there yet.
Or in other words, do not confuse different with bad.